Player Discussion Elias Pettersson - Please, Be Civil

[Bleach Clean]

Youre right i missed the i think part

You don't need it because I understood that it was your assertion. (It is understood by everyone here)

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I'll just address both replies at the same time.

I get what you both are saying, and there are definitely valid reasons for some of the actions he has taken. I don't blame him for not extending when Benning was still running the show, and I also don't hold it against him to extend as soon as Allvin took over because he understandably wants to see that things have changed.

However, he didn't need to do the Elliot Friedman interview, he didn't need to repeatedly and publicly say that he wants to play for a winning team. By doing all these, he is clearly putting the pressure on management that "you better put a winning team on the ice or else..." Had he played it quietly and just say "I'll let my agent handle it" or something like that, it would've been much less threatening.

By winter of 2023, the team was already winning, they extended his running mate (Kuzmenko), the dollar and terms the team is willing to offer is more than fair, management has proven to be competent, coaching has appeared to stabilized. What else is he waiting for at that time? A player that wants to play for a winner (which the team was at the time), offers max term at fair market value (if not more), and surrounded by good players, is refusing to sign? What other logical conclusion can you draw, aside from the fact that he isn't all that committed to staying?

Sure it is well within his right to wait until the summer like he wanted, but he and his agent HAS to know the kind of awkward situation that puts the team in. They cannot let Petey go into the offseason without a contract, and open themselves to an offer sheet. They cannot plan beyond the 2023-24 season unless they know whether their 1C is staying, and how much it would cost. They cannot risk the Tkachuk situation and torpedo the team's competitive window. He didn't HAVE TO request a trade, his (in)action inevitably leads to one unless he sign an extension before free agency. I can understand why management were feeling antsy about the situation and had to resort to "threatening" him with a trade.

All that plus the Friedman interview and his past quotes, it seems reasonable to conclude that this player is either the most oblivious person in the world (which is unlikely as his agent would've advise him on such issues), or he isn't really all that commit to staying.

I think ultimately why he extended when he did was, partially, due to his declining performance. Had he played out the season and the playoff the way he ended last season, I doubt he gets $11.6m. He knew he was injured, his production had started to suffer as a result, it was no longer in his best interest to hold off. Is that the sole reason? Probably not, but I think its a factor.

I realize this is all just me speculating, I have no problem with anybody disagreeing with me. But none of us know what he was thinking throughout the last few years, why he said what he said, etc, so I think we are ALL speculating at this point. I hope those that disagree will at least respect the conclusion I have arrived at, I don't think I made any unreasonable assumption here. Of course I can be wrong, but until further information comes out, this to me is the most likely explanation.

You are using a ton of words to say basically two things, correct me if Im mistaken;

Why he didnt extend when we were doing good?

Maybe he knew that the contract extension negotiations during the season would mess up his game. Maybe they did the last time. So he tried to stop that from happening. They wrung his arm with public pressure and trade threats.

The Friedman interview?

Him saying to Friedman that he wants to play for a winner should not be anything you get upset over. Whats the other option? "I just want to make a ton of money and dont care where I make it."?

 

[rypper]

This explains it all:

https://thehockeynews.com/international/latest-news/elias-pettersson-defrauded-by-convicted-swedish-real-estate-broker

 

[sandwichbird2023]

In sequence:

- I'm glad you have acknowledged that players saying they want to win is not special/abnormal. That shows you are ahead of some people still stuck on that statement alone. Next, if he makes that mundane statement via IMac instead of Friedman, are you still suspicious of timing or is the boat interview with Friedman itself the outlier? If it's the latter, you have your answer.

- We agree that management pressured Pettersson to re-sign at the TDL. He left them in an uncertain situation with little indication he would re-sign until the CAR rumour came out. It's fair to question why he did it.

- The Tkachuk situation required a team decline, a star leaving, and a trade request. Here, the team was already bad, and there were no red flags behind the scenes. A cordial relationship. I do think the team hedged against uncertainty with the Lindholm deal, but an insistence to talk in the offseason is not the same as requesting a trade. That's a suboptimal situation rather than a disastrous one. There were steps that had to happen before Tkachuk 2.0.

- Normally, I would agree, but it's the opposite for elite players. Matthews and Marner have likely made more total money this way.

- The long-term money on an elite player is better for the team, not the player. Look at Jack Hughes' contract, it's amazing. Quinn Hughes' contract!? Pettersson's talent was evident early, he wanted a long-term deal (to his detriment, same agent as Quinn) and they couldn't do it. He still re-signed on a bad team. Fast forward, and he re-signs again for max term on a team he cannot predict will be good for 8 years.

- You're right, he had a winning team, and he still didn't re-sign. It was puzzling and it was the key time he broke from all precedent. That's the time even I started questioning his intent. But I kept thinking: What has actually changed aside from his insistence on doing it in the offseason? Nothing. Yes, it sucked for management, but is that really his problem when negotiating against management? And look at how he re-signed? It was management pulling a maneuver against him. Is that a guy who wants to leave or just someone that is also negotiating (playing poker)?

Even now, after all the tactics and Allvin calling Pettersson out for his preparation, he asks to stay and they agree. Why do they do it if they have hint that he's going to Tkachuk out of here? Clearly, being slow to commit is not the same as not wanting to commit, to him or Allvin.

- I think it is more than that. If it was just the Friedman interview, it wouldn't have been an issue, but he was constantly saying how he wanted to play for a winner whenever anybody ask him about an extension, it was just strange. Hughes had his contract up at the exact same time and I don't recall him explicitly stating that once. Does that mean Hughes doesn't want to play for a winner? Having said that, if this was the only thing Petey did, it wouldn't have been an issue, but it is this PLUS his actions subsequent that makes his situation a bit strange, not only for himself but also for management and the team/his teammates.

- The Tkachuk situation was mainly due to him not wanting to stay in Canada, or so I read during that saga. For whatever reason, it was rumored that he wanted to play in the states only. All the other things are pretty inconsequential in his consideration, according to reports at the time (I am basing this off memory so I could be wrong, but I think that is how I remember the Tkachuk situation). There were rumblings that Petey was feeling the same. Is that true? Only Petey knows, but it was definitely something that caused concerns within the fanbase and maybe the organization.

- Didn't Marner signed a long term contract coming out of his ELC? Matthews was strange though, at the time he signed his second contract, the Leafs gave him the mega dollars but only settled on a 5 years term. Normally the shorter the contract, the lower the AAV, but he seem to have got the best of both world by maxing out his AAV while also committing to less than max term, so I'm not sure what happened there. I guess if the team is willing to give you the max dollars on a shorter term, that would be best for the player, but generally speaking that doesn't happen.

- Jack and Quinn Hughes were great young talents when they signed, but not without risk/questions at the time they extended. There are other players that extended long terms (ex: Cozens, Norris, Lafreniere, etc) that are probably glad they extended for big money while they are young, because otherwise their career earning could potentially be greatly diminished. I get that young players want to bet on themselves, maybe I'm just more risk averse but if I'm in their situation I prefer to locked in a big money max term deal to secure $50m+ first, that would be the most financially prudent action IMO.

- "What has actually changed aside from his insistence on doing it in the offseason?" Lots! He created a huge distraction for his teammates for months, it was asked in every cities he goes, it was a main talking point even though the team was playing great and winning games. In the end if you know you are going to sign, why insist on waiting till the end of the season and putting your team through this? Why not keep the focus on the ice? You can say "why can't the team just tune it out?" It is the same reason this whole JTM/EP drama has been a distraction in the room now, media/social media are talking about it everyday everywhere, you can't really hide from it. Don't forget the team was planning to load up at the TDL for a playoff run but didn't know if they can do that, or do they have to pivot to trading Petey and go for a restructuring of the core. Put yourself in Allvin's shoe for a second, how can you trade picks/prospects for rentals anticipating a playoff run, when you might be forced to trade your 1C a couple months before the playoff starts? It's impossible to manage the team that way.

- "but is that really his problem when negotiating against management?" It isn't, but it puts everybody else in a tough situation. His GM and teammates mainly, but the coach too I'm sure. So while he isn't technically obligated to do anything, the question comes back to "if you had always wanted to stay if the team and money were good, why drag it out?"

- Why he wants to stay now is the question I'm asking too. Unless he just want to drag it out until his NTC kicks in so he can dictate where he goes? Or maybe he had always wanted to stay long term but just feels like creating a sh!tstorm during negotiation because he can? I don't know, nobody does except Petey. That's why I said back in the original post that "I don't get his guy."

You are using a ton of words to say basically two things, correct me if Im mistaken;

Why he didnt extend when we were doing good?

Maybe he knew that the contract extension negotiations during the season would mess up his game. Maybe they did the last time. So he tried to stop that from happening. They wrung his arm with public pressure and trade threats.

The Friedman interview?

Him saying to Friedman that he wants to play for a winner should not be anything you get upset over. Whats the other option? "I just want to make a ton of money and dont care where I make it."?

I mean it is way more nuanced than that if you read my "ton of words", but if that is how you like to summarize it or interpret it then sure. It wouldn't make sense for me to re-type everything again.

 

[Vector]

This explains it all:

https://thehockeynews.com/international/latest-news/elias-pettersson-defrauded-by-convicted-swedish-real-estate-broker

That actually does explain a little bit. Luckily he has a lot more coming his way.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

That actually does explain a little bit. Luckily he has a lot more coming his way.

Not really. The writer stated in the comments area that "This has apparently just come to light in Sweden even though it's been an ongoing story in the background for a couple of years now." A couple years implies that the period includes part of his 100 pts season. Even if you take out the 2022-23 season, Petey was on fire the first half of 2023-24 season, so this ordeal probably didn't bother him too much, at least not enough to hold him back from scoring over a PPG.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

I mean it is way more nuanced than that if you read my "ton of words", but if that is how you like to summarize it or interpret it then sure. It wouldn't make sense for me to re-type everything again.

Sorry. It did sound rude.

 

[Bobby9]

This explains it all:

https://thehockeynews.com/international/latest-news/elias-pettersson-defrauded-by-convicted-swedish-real-estate-broker

The builder was JT Miller

 

[Nucker101]

Not really. The writer stated in the comments area that "This has apparently just come to light in Sweden even though it's been an ongoing story in the background for a couple of years now." A couple years implies that the period includes part of his 100 pts season. Even if you take out the 2022-23 season, Petey was on fire the first half of 2023-24 season, so this ordeal probably didn't bother him too much, at least not enough to hold him back from scoring over a PPG.

So he plays better after he gets scammed

Someone call Petey and tell him he has a package seized at customs and owes money.

 

[Raistlin]

That actually does explain a little bit. Luckily he has a lot more coming his way.

what explains a little bit is Allvin finally coming out and admitting that EP came off a lingering injury and took a long time to recover. That explains a bit. But if the guy doesnt rebound after Miller is traded, then the unexplained part of his offensive decline would really infuriate the fanbase. His defense and effort is not substandard.

 

[Bleach Clean]

- I think it is more than that. If it was just the Friedman interview, it wouldn't have been an issue, but he was constantly saying how he wanted to play for a winner whenever anybody ask him about an extension, it was just strange. Hughes had his contract up at the exact same time and I don't recall him explicitly stating that once. Does that mean Hughes doesn't want to play for a winner? Having said that, if this was the only thing Petey did, it wouldn't have been an issue, but it is this PLUS his actions subsequent that makes his situation a bit strange, not only for himself but also for management and the team/his teammates.

- The Tkachuk situation was mainly due to him not wanting to stay in Canada, or so I read during that saga. For whatever reason, it was rumored that he wanted to play in the states only. All the other things are pretty inconsequential in his consideration, according to reports at the time (I am basing this off memory so I could be wrong, but I think that is how I remember the Tkachuk situation). There were rumblings that Petey was feeling the same. Is that true? Only Petey knows, but it was definitely something that caused concerns within the fanbase and maybe the organization.

- Didn't Marner signed a long term contract coming out of his ELC? Matthews was strange though, at the time he signed his second contract, the Leafs gave him the mega dollars but only settled on a 5 years term. Normally the shorter the contract, the lower the AAV, but he seem to have got the best of both world by maxing out his AAV while also committing to less than max term, so I'm not sure what happened there. I guess if the team is willing to give you the max dollars on a shorter term, that would be best for the player, but generally speaking that doesn't happen.

- Jack and Quinn Hughes were great young talents when they signed, but not without risk/questions at the time they extended. There are other players that extended long terms (ex: Cozens, Norris, Lafreniere, etc) that are probably glad they extended for big money while they are young, because otherwise their career earning could potentially be greatly diminished. I get that young players want to bet on themselves, maybe I'm just more risk averse but if I'm in their situation I prefer to locked in a big money max term deal to secure $50m+ first, that would be the most financially prudent action IMO.

- "What has actually changed aside from his insistence on doing it in the offseason?" Lots! He created a huge distraction for his teammates for months, it was asked in every cities he goes, it was a main talking point even though the team was playing great and winning games. In the end if you know you are going to sign, why insist on waiting till the end of the season and putting your team through this? Why not keep the focus on the ice? You can say "why can't the team just tune it out?" It is the same reason this whole JTM/EP drama has been a distraction in the room now, media/social media are talking about it everyday everywhere, you can't really hide from it. Don't forget the team was planning to load up at the TDL for a playoff run but didn't know if they can do that, or do they have to pivot to trading Petey and go for a restructuring of the core. Put yourself in Allvin's shoe for a second, how can you trade picks/prospects for rentals anticipating a playoff run, when you might be forced to trade your 1C a couple months before the playoff starts? It's impossible to manage the team that way.

- "but is that really his problem when negotiating against management?" It isn't, but it puts everybody else in a tough situation. His GM and teammates mainly, but the coach too I'm sure. So while he isn't technically obligated to do anything, the question comes back to "if you had always wanted to stay if the team and money were good, why drag it out?"

- Why he wants to stay now is the question I'm asking too. Unless he just want to drag it out until his NTC kicks in so he can dictate where he goes? Or maybe he had always wanted to stay long term but just feels like creating a sh!tstorm during negotiation because he can? I don't know, nobody does except Petey. That's why I said back in the original post that "I don't get his guy."

I want to begin by re-stating where we agree:

1. Players saying they want to win is not special/abnormal.
2. Management pressured Pettersson to re-sign at the TDL.
3. VAN was a winning team, and he still didn't re-sign.
4. Lindholm trade was a hedge against Pettersson not re-signing.

Now in sequence:

- We are both treating "I want to win" as a mundane statement. Repeating it doesn't make it special. If it only becomes a threat when taken with other information, then that other information must be compelling enough on its own to reframe a mundane statement as a threat. Fair?

- There were rumblings Pettersson wanted to go to the states?

- Marner signed his 2nd contract at 13.37% of the cap (6 yrs). Matthews signed his 2nd contract at 14.27% of the cap (5 yrs). Those contracts still provided surplus value to TOR (Dom's model), even at absurd AAVs. Why? Elite talent. The same principle applies to Pettersson, who signed his 3rd contract at 13.18% of the cap, which projected to provide $800k of surplus value as early as this season! On balance, it still should as Pettersson rights himself.

- No risk, no reward. The team took on risk to extend Quinn to 6 yrs in order to reap surplus value later, and oh boy has it. Again, elite talent. Of the three players mentioned, Lafreniere could be considered elite, and he took 8.47% on his 2nd contract. More efficient than the 9%+ both Hughes and Pettersson took on their 2nd deals. Odds are that NYR will at least break even given that he's pacing 50~ points as a 23 year old.

- I have agreed that Pettersson's refusal to talk contract in season was the first sign of real doubt. His lack of awareness caused a distraction. That said, a lack of awareness is not a trade request. Again, no red flags behind the scenes throughout this time (Dhaliwal).

- My statement was rhetorical: He wants to stay because he has always wanted to stay. He just didn't negotiate on the team's timeline. If you isolate that action for what it was, everything else falls into place. With that understanding, we don't turn his mundane statements into threats, nor do we turn his 8 year commitment into a cash grab.

Even now, people (not just you) are reaching for the ulterior motive (trade protection) as the reason for his commitment to remain. The trade chatter on him has died down since. Meaning, management is taking his commitment at face value. Why can't we? Or, are we saying they're inept enough not to see through it? (Do you see how we have to keep concocting narratives to hold the initial false assertion up?)