Player Discussion Elias Pettersson - Please, Be Civil

[Coffee]

If the Canucks trade Elias Pettersson the centreman, then the other Elias Pettersson better wear 40.

Fine.

But I don’t think he is getting traded

 

[thedjpd]

Fine.

But I don’t think he is getting traded

Flyers fan coming in peace.

*IF* he is getting traded / available, what would Vancouver want in return? I've heard a C has to come back, and a top 4 D to start.

I was thinking of a York (top pair D) + Tippett/Farabee (top 6 wing) + Frost (2C/3C with upside, will likely put up 60+ points not playing for Torts) for EP, or something of that nature?

Value tweaked depending on Tippett/Farabee, obviously.

 

[Curm]

The Flyers aren't a fit, Frost is turning 26 in May already, he basically is what he is. Tippett's ok, but the Canucks would probably want Sanheim, bigger and plays the PK more. Still don't see it, though.

 

[Hodgy]

Ah, so Rutherford's trade implication allows us to merely speculate (either way), but Allvin's call-out casts the dissenter as being delusional? Two different positions with management as the same source for both...

Rutherford’s trade implication pressuring Petey to sign is at least logical and rational. We disagreed over whether it had its intended effect, but obviously it’s rational. Allvin publicly calling out Pettersson if Allvin thought Pettersson’s play was predominately the result of injury is not rational.

Since you have shown selection bias in the past with regard to sources, I'm wondering: Why is Pettersson not the 'primary source' for his own injury?

I don’t think you really understand the concept of selection bias since you’ve misused the term on more than one occasion. Selection bias presumes that you want a random selection of data so you don’t consciously, or unconsciously, select data in a bias manner. In the context of evidence, the point isn’t that we should treat all evidence equally, the point is that if evidence is of equal value then we should randomly select it rather than show a bias to one source of evidence. But the concept of selection bias has and never will apply to two evidence of varying credibility, since we should obviously tend to weigh more credibly evidence over less credible evidence, and this isn’t a bias but good sense and something firmly established in evidence law.

Again, and I’ve told you this before, we should prefer direct testimony to rumours, and it isn’t “selection bias” to do so.

As with Pettersson comments, I have referenced, verbatim, his testimony on the matter. You can argue that because said he had to train around the injury that it’s serious, but he also said, and I’m paraphrasing, that his knee was fine and there is no pain. Read into it as you will, but the topic at hand was Alvin’s publicly disparaging comments.

The Logic is clear: The organization and Pettersson disagree, and have disagreed, to the extent of his nagging injury.

Again, you can very easily interpret Pettersson’s comments as him declaring the injury was minor. In fact, if it wasn’t, then why would he basically say his knee was fine and there was no pain? And you basically have Allvin and Tochett also making comments consistent with Pettersson not having a significant injury, so why not take Pettersson’s comments at face value. Again, the current subject is regarding Allvin’s comments, Pettersson’s earlier comments have been debated ad nauseum.

Now, you can take Pettersson's drop in performance as evidence, or Allvin/Tocchet's word. If I had to choose, his play speaks more to me than anything else could, least of all this organization with its medical staff. The disagreement over the injury, I think too, has also impaired the trust between the two sides.

All told, luckily, I don't have to choose because I just don't know for sure, and neither do you (or others).

Ultimately, of course, we don’t know.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Rutherford’s trade implication pressuring Petey to sign is at least logical and rational. We disagreed over whether it had its intended effect, but obviously it’s rational. Allvin publicly calling out Pettersson if Allvin thought Pettersson’s play was predominately the result of injury is not rational.

Or. He is getting advice from what is a consistently horrific medical staff.

 

[Bgav]

Flyers fan coming in peace.

*IF* he is getting traded / available, what would Vancouver want in return? I've heard a C has to come back, and a top 4 D to start.

I was thinking of a York (top pair D) + Tippett/Farabee (top 6 wing) + Frost (2C/3C with upside, will likely put up 60+ points not playing for Torts) for EP, or something of that nature?

Value tweaked depending on Tippett/Farabee, obviously.

Michkov

 

[thedjpd]

Michkov

Good luck!

 

[Hodgy]

Or. He is getting advice from what is a consistently horrific medical staff.

But it probably needs to go further than that. If the injury really was significant, then presumably, Pettersson would be expressing that to the medical staff/ management, so Alvin would need to be so brazen as to totally ignore this and publicly blast Pettersson. It just doesn’t make any logical sense.

 

[Bgav]

Good luck!

didn't say a trade would happen. Canucks aren't trading a 26 year old c who already has had a 100 point season and is terrific defensively. Not taking the garbage package you put together

 

[racerjoe]

But it probably needs to go further than that. If the injury really was significant, then presumably, Pettersson would be expressing that to the medical staff/ management, so Alvin would need to be so brazen as to totally ignore this and publicly blast Pettersson. It just doesn’t make any logical sense.

Part of the problem is what is considered a significant injury?

We have no idea what the doctors coaches, management and players consider significant.

I think it has to be clear at least last year it really effected him.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Geez so on top of the knee tendinitis that robbed him of his speed for almost a whole year, now he can't even take a shot without injuring himself!? Is he turning into a Sami Salo on forward!?

My god, this is only the first of a 8 year $11.6m contract! What a cursed franchise.

i dont wanna disrespect eleven six but thats a bit of a glow up comping him with sami

 

[poler]

He wasn’t injured by taking the shots it was the way he got hit into the boards that caused the injury.

If he does come back before Hughes I would like it if he got 1st line treatment. We are lacking scoring and when miller was out he had 15 points in 10 games.

He also has the best gfo percentage without hughes

 

[kanucks25]

Flyers fan coming in peace.

*IF* he is getting traded / available, what would Vancouver want in return? I've heard a C has to come back, and a top 4 D to start.

I was thinking of a York (top pair D) + Tippett/Farabee (top 6 wing) + Frost (2C/3C with upside, will likely put up 60+ points not playing for Torts) for EP, or something of that nature?

Value tweaked depending on Tippett/Farabee, obviously.

You've basically put together a package of two decent players + one middling player for a #1 two-way center. This isn't even 4 quarters for a dollar, this is more like 1 quarter + 1 dime + 1 nickel.

I understand that Michkov would not be in this conversation but what you have there is beaten by pretty much every other team in the league.

 

[thedjpd]

You've basically put together a package of two decent players + one middling player for a #1 two-way center. This isn't even 4 quarters for a dollar, this is more like 1 quarter + 1 dime + 1 nickel.

I understand that Michkov would not be in this conversation but what you have there is beaten by pretty much every other team in the league.

Thanks for the response.

That’s fair enough but from what I’ve seen on the main board it doesn’t seem like your response is accurate; that seems to be what Van fans are asking for, not what is being offered.

Van fans are asking for the 100 point, elite 1C, 2 way forward value, that he was. Not the 70ish, sulking, questionable attitude player he is now. And if he was the former, asking for a Michkov would be totally reasonable. He’ll still garner a very nice return; but I don’t think there will be an even deal if he’s deal; VAN will lose the trade, unfortunately. It’s just what happens with elite player trades.

I guess we’ll find out! Good luck to your team.

 

[supercanuck]

I don't understand the whole "just work it out" talk in a situation where there is an obvious and constant aggressor (I call it bullying, I know some won't)...how do you just "work it out"? A team with true leaders (management/coaches/players) would have stepped in and told JT to just "stop it or else..." Such a weird case of victim blaming and coddling the aggressor.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

But it probably needs to go further than that. If the injury really was significant, then presumably, Pettersson would be expressing that to the medical staff/ management, so Alvin would need to be so brazen as to totally ignore this and publicly blast Pettersson. It just doesn’t make any logical sense.

Makes perfect sense.

You are overthinking it.

 

[Hodgy]

Makes perfect sense.

You are overthinking it.

I think you aren’t thinking about it enough. Do you think Pettersson expressed the significance of the injury to management?

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I think you aren’t thinking about it enough. Do you think Pettersson expressed the significance of the injury to management?

Ive thought about it plenty.

I dont know how the discussion has gone between Pettersson and the management.

But it would be bizarre if management didnt leave the decision up to the health professionals they employ.

 

[Hodgy]

Ive thought about it plenty.

I dont know how the discussion has gone between Pettersson and the management.

But it would be bizarre if management didnt leave the decision up to the health professionals they employ.

Can you just answer my question?

 

[rypper]

 

[ratbid]

I like the trade idea to the Islanders, entirely because putting him and Bo back together is hilarious.

Pettersson for Barzal + signed Romanov

 

[Bleach Clean]

Rutherford’s trade implication pressuring Petey to sign is at least logical and rational. We disagreed over whether it had its intended effect, but obviously it’s rational. Allvin publicly calling out Pettersson if Allvin thought Pettersson’s play was predominately the result of injury is not rational.

I don’t think you really understand the concept of selection bias since you’ve misused the term on more than one occasion. Selection bias presumes that you want a random selection of data so you don’t consciously, or unconsciously, select data in a bias manner. In the context of evidence, the point isn’t that we should treat all evidence equally, the point is that if evidence is of equal value then we should randomly select it rather than show a bias to one source of evidence. But the concept of selection bias has and never will apply to two evidence of varying credibility, since we should obviously tend to weigh more credibly evidence over less credible evidence, and this isn’t a bias but good sense and something firmly established in evidence law.

Again, and I’ve told you this before, we should prefer direct testimony to rumours, and it isn’t “selection bias” to do so.

As with Pettersson comments, I have referenced, verbatim, his testimony on the matter. You can argue that because said he had to train around the injury that it’s serious, but he also said, and I’m paraphrasing, that his knee was fine and there is no pain. Read into it as you will, but the topic at hand was Alvin’s publicly disparaging comments.

Again, you can very easily interpret Pettersson’s comments as him declaring the injury was minor. In fact, if it wasn’t, then why would he basically say his knee was fine and there was no pain? And you basically have Allvin and Tochett also making comments consistent with Pettersson not having a significant injury, so why not take Pettersson’s comments at face value. Again, the current subject is regarding Allvin’s comments, Pettersson’s earlier comments have been debated ad nauseum.

Ultimately, of course, we don’t know.

We don't know, but you keep making inferences like you do. That's the problem. It's "he's injured", but he "felt fine despite it" and 'look what Allvin and Tocchet said'. Etc... And on and on. You are incapable of leaving it at 'he's injured" and his play has dropped, that's it. Correlation. Even if we can't determine cause.

Allvin calling out Pettersson's play is logical if Allvin disagrees with Pettersson on the extent of the injury.

Both managers made a statement against the player. For Rutherford/Pettersson, you chose Brisson in spite of more (frequency and quality) evidence to the contrary. For Allvin/Pettersson, you choose Allvin despite primary (quality) evidence to the contrary.

Re Selection Bias: You decided the credibility of Brisson's evidence trumped everything to the contrary. That is selecting evidence with bias. The statistical term does not apply, but the concept does. Call it 'cherry picking' if it satisfies the tenet of evidence law for you.

 

[Hodgy]

We don't know, but you keep making inferences like you do.

I have acknowledged that we don’t obviously know why Pettersson has struggled - this should be obvious to anyone; but that’s doesn’t mean we can’t analyze the evidence and conclude, one way or the other, as to whether his injury is predominately the cause for his bad play.

That's the problem. It's "he's injured", but he "felt fine despite it" and 'look what Allvin and Tocchet said'. Etc...

This is just analyzing the evidence. If you don’t like interpreting what Pettersson or Alvin’s own comments suggest in terms of why he may not be playing poorly then I suggest you stop further discussing this subject.

And on and on. You are incapable of leaving it at 'he's injured" and his play has dropped, that's it. Correlation. Even if we can't determine cause.

Again, if you don’t want to analyze the evidence, then stop posting about it. And yes, there was a correlation last year, and this year we don’t even know if there is a correlation since we don’t know if he still has patellar tendinitis. His training camp comments aren’t conclusive either way. And he’s had a poor stretch in the past two years ago when there was no known lower body injury, and therefore, no known correlation there either.

Allvin calling out Pettersson's play is logical if Allvin disagrees with Pettersson on the extent of the injury.

You think a GM is going to sign a player, to an 8 year contract, the largest in franchise history, and that franchise player is going to struggle for basically a calendar year and tell the GM he has a significant on going injury, and then that GM is going to come out and publicly blast the player he just signed essentially calling him lazy? That’s totally illogical. If Allvin disagrees about the extent of the injury he’s not calling out and embarrassing the player he just signed to a historically large contract.

Both managers made a statement against the player. For Rutherford/Pettersson, you chose Brisson in spite of more (frequency and quality) evidence to the contrary.

Yes, direct testimony could generally preferred to rumours. Characterizing the rumours regarding the Pettersson trade and contract as better quality evidence then the direct testimony given by his agent is a hilariously bad take. Admittedly, the rumours could be true, and the direct testimony y could be false, but the presumption should be to favour the former.

For Allvin/Pettersson, you choose Allvin despite primary (quality) evidence to the contrary.

What is the primary (quality) evidence contrary? I’m just taking Alvin’s direct testimony at face value: that he thinks Pettersson needs to work harder and be more committed and that his struggles are a result of those perceived shortcomings and not some rumoured significant injury.

Re Selection Bias: You decided the credibility of Brisson's evidence trumped everything to the contrary. That is selecting evidence with bias.

You are so wrong on this. I haven’t “decided” that direct testimony is more credible than rumours, this is just settled evidence law, and frankly, just common sense. The presumption is always going to be that direct testimony given by a person on events is more credible than rumours regarding those events. It doesn’t always mean the presumption will be correct, and rumours may sometimes prove to be correct, but that’s the obvious presumption.

So there is no bias in preferring direct testimony to rumours, and in fact, it makes common sense.

The statistical term does not apply, but the concept does. Call it 'cherry picking' if it satisfies the tenet of evidence law for you.

Again, you are just wrong on this. Your take is at odds with settled law and common sense.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I have acknowledged that we don’t obviously know why Pettersson has struggled - this should be obvious to anyone; but that’s doesn’t mean we can’t analyze the evidence and conclude, one way or the other, as to whether his injury is predominately the cause for his bad play.

This is just analyzing the evidence. If you don’t like interpreting what Pettersson or Alvin’s own comments suggest in terms of why he may not be playing poorly then I suggest you stop further discussing this subject.

Again, if you don’t want to analyze the evidence, then stop posting about it. And yes, there was a correlation last year, and this year we don’t even know if there is a correlation since we don’t know if he still has patellar tendinitis. His training camp comments aren’t conclusive either way. And he’s had a poor stretch in the past two years ago when there was no known lower body injury, and therefore, no known correlation there either.

You think a GM is going to sign a player, to an 8 year contract, the largest in franchise history, and that franchise player is going to struggle for basically a calendar year and tell the GM he has a significant on going injury, and then that GM is going to come out and publicly blast the player he just signed essentially calling him lazy? That’s totally illogical. If Allvin disagrees about the extent of the injury he’s not calling out and embarrassing the player he just signed to a historically large contract.

Yes, direct testimony could generally preferred to rumours. Characterizing the rumours regarding the Pettersson trade and contract as better quality evidence then the direct testimony given by his agent is a hilariously bad take. Admittedly, the rumours could be true, and the direct testimony y could be false, but the presumption should be to favour the former.

What is the primary (quality) evidence contrary? I’m just taking Alvin’s direct testimony at face value: that he thinks Pettersson needs to work harder and be more committed and that his struggles are a result of those perceived shortcomings and not some rumoured significant injury.

You are so wrong on this. I haven’t “decided” that direct testimony is more credible than rumours, this is just settled evidence law, and frankly, just common sense. The presumption is always going to be that direct testimony given by a person on events is more credible than rumours regarding those events. It doesn’t always mean the presumption will be correct, and rumours may sometimes prove to be correct, but that’s the obvious presumption.

So there is no bias in preferring direct testimony to rumours, and in fact, it makes common sense.

Again, you are just wrong on this. Your take is at odds with settled law and common sense.

Your take is at odds with common sense.

Rutherford offered direct testimony, you chose Brisson's Baghdad Bob speech. You chose it over the insurance policy (Lindholm trade), the CAR rumour (Friedman, Dhaliwal), Rutherford's 'direct testimony' implying that the trade scared Pettersson, Pettersson not re-signing until the TDL etc... What evidence did you analyze? All you did was triple down on a bad take because the majority of evidence spoke against your working theory. It's the same here.

Here, Allvin said something that aligns with what you already believe (Pettersson not seriously injured enough so as to have it affect his play) and are working backwards from that presumption. Therefore, anything that fits, like Allvin calling out the player, is greenlit. Anything that doesn't, like Pettersson confirming the existence of the injury when returning, is red lighted/argued away. This is not analysis, it's confirmation bias.

There is a disconnect between Allvin/Tocchet and Pettersson with regards to injuries and how injuries should affect play:
- Tocchet called out Pettersson's play in the playoffs (while he was injured)
- Pettersson disclosed an injury in the year end presser (shocking management per Johnston)
- Pettersson trains around said injury, but is ready to start
- His play still isn't right
- Pettersson leaves team with injury (same or otherwise) on Dec 23rd, 2024
- Allvin calls him out for preparation while he's injured on Dec 31, 2024
- Throughout, other players have played through injures: Hughes against SJ, Miller early on.

Allvin's preperation comment aligns with Tocchet's 'everyone is dinged up' comment in the playoffs. They're both frustrated with Pettersson, and were surprised by his injury disclosure. Pettersson re-iterated the presence of the injury when coming back. Their medical staff remains highly suspect. Pettersson's play seems impaired (correlation). Based upon that information alone you have to allow room for a disconnect between parties. And if you do, then the logic holds.

Did disagreeing on the extent of the injury prevent Tocchet from calling Pettersson out in the playoffs? He had already signed his 8 year agreement. No? Then why it would it prevent Allvin from doing so now? While Pettersson is injured, no less...They don't respect Pettersson's assessment of his own injuries.

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

blah blah blah bloopiddy blah blah blah