Management Thread | Regular Season Edition

[F A N]

Maybe i overrate stone but maybe other factors played into it maybe he only wanted vegas.. or only two teams or something

Still junk

I underrated Stone at the time but that is besides the point.

Brannstrom at the time was a highly regarded prospect. The return for Stone is similar to what we traded for Hronek. Again the point isn't whether it is a good or fair return but if Stone's return is the only thing you were interested in discussing then ok and we'll move on.

 

[andora]

If you are in a situation where the player handcuffs you into limited trade partners the return will never be great

The other team simply says - ok we will wait the year

I underrated Stone at the time but that is besides the point.

Brannstrom at the time was a highly regarded prospect. The return for Stone is similar to what we traded for Hronek. Again the point isn't whether it is a good or fair return but if Stone's return is the only thing you were interested in discussing then ok and we'll move on.

 

[RandV]

I underrated Stone at the time but that is besides the point.

Brannstrom at the time was a highly regarded prospect. The return for Stone is similar to what we traded for Hronek. Again the point isn't whether it is a good or fair return but if Stone's return is the only thing you were interested in discussing then ok and we'll move on.

Which is kind of the point, a "highly regarded prospect" still has a high failure rate to become a highly regarded NHL player. Fans get excited about picks and prospects and talk like they're getting a "haul", but if you're theoretically talking about a guy like Pettersson then the vast majority of times any trades become a failure state.

There's also the minor point that again theoretically should Pettersson not want to extend long term and want to go UFA in 2025, but the Canucks are still a likely playoff team in 2024-25, then we're not selling him as a trade deadline rental.

 

[TruGr1t]

Why’d this thread turn into the ballad of Mark Stone?

 

[I Hart Conor Garland]

Why’d this thread turn into the ballad of Mark Stone?

I think he's the new manager.

 

[F A N]

If you are in a situation where the player handcuffs you into limited trade partners the return will never be great

The other team simply says - ok we will wait the year

Nothing wrong with what you're saying here but you're missing the point of the discussion that you stepped in.

Which is kind of the point, a "highly regarded prospect" still has a high failure rate to become a highly regarded NHL player. Fans get excited about picks and prospects and talk like they're getting a "haul", but if you're theoretically talking about a guy like Pettersson then the vast majority of times any trades become a failure state.

The point is that that "highly regarded prospect" + late 2nd round pick is the equivalent value of a mid 1st round pick + late 2nd round pick. It's not a "haul" but it's still more than a "negligible" return. Are you saying that a mid 1st round pick + late 2nd round pick is a negligible return?

And again, it's not like the Canucks are restricted to asking for a highly regarded prospect who might bust. The chances are the acquiring team needs to send a contract back. The team could target a young roster player in return similar to Eichel's return where Buffalo got Tuch. Again, to be clear to others jumping into the discussion we're not talking about whether it's a good enough return here.

There's also the minor point that again theoretically should Pettersson not want to extend long term and want to go UFA in 2025, but the Canucks are still a likely playoff team in 2024-25, then we're not selling him as a trade deadline rental.

That's a choice. The point is that the choice to recoup (greater than neglible) assets for Petey in a trade (absent injuries) is there.

In YOUR worst case scenario the Canucks can trade Petey earlier rather than wait until the deadline where the best deal available would likely be a highly regarded prospect + draft picks + money contract coming back. Obviously Petey signing his QO hampers his trade value unlike Tkachuk's scenario. As a minor point, the Canucks could elect arbitration to buy themselves time (with the obvious risk being Petey for sure gets more than his QO).

 

[andora]

Nothing wrong with what you're saying here but you're missing the point of the discussion that you stepped in.


The point is that that "highly regarded prospect" + late 2nd round pick is the equivalent value of a mid 1st round pick + late 2nd round pick. It's not a "haul" but it's still more than a "negligible" return. Are you saying that a mid 1st round pick + late 2nd round pick is a negligible return?

And again, it's not like the Canucks are restricted to asking for a highly regarded prospect who might bust. The chances are the acquiring team needs to send a contract back. The team could target a young roster player in return similar to Eichel's return where Buffalo got Tuch. Again, to be clear to others jumping into the discussion we're not talking about whether it's a good enough return here.



That's a choice. The point is that the choice to recoup (greater than neglible) assets for Petey in a trade (absent injuries) is there.

In YOUR worst case scenario the Canucks can trade Petey earlier rather than wait until the deadline where the best deal available would likely be a highly regarded prospect + draft picks + money contract coming back. Obviously Petey signing his QO hampers his trade value unlike Tkachuk's scenario. As a minor point, the Canucks could elect arbitration to buy themselves time (with the obvious risk being Petey for sure gets more than his QO).

To be honest i dont even think you have made a point.. this started cause @RandV called a return negligible - correct me if im wrong. Being forced to trade a franchise player - yeah a return will likely be negligible

 

[F A N]

To be honest i dont even think you have made a point.. this started cause @RandV called a return negligible - correct me if im wrong. Being forced to trade a franchise player - yeah a return will likely be negligible.

Then no point discussing this then. If Petey refuses to sign an extension it makes absolutely no difference whether we trade him or not according to you and RandV since any return will be negligible or likely be negligible.

 

[andora]

Then no point discussing this then. If Petey refuses to sign an extension it makes absolutely no difference whether we trade him or not according to you and RandV since any return will be negligible or likely be negligible.

This is what both of us have said? Explicitly this?

 

[F A N]

This is what both of us have said? Explicitly this?

You said “Being forced to trade a franchise player - yeah a return will likely be negligible.” You seem to be in support of RandV’s assertion that a return consisting of at least a mid 1st round + 2nd round picks is a negligible return.

I think the natural implication of that thinking is that it makes no difference from an asset management point of view whether the team trades Petey or not should Petey refuse to sign an extension with the Canucks.

If you disagree with what I wrote here, please bear with me and point out and explain your disagreement. Thanks.

 

[credulous]

You said “Being forced to trade a franchise player - yeah a return will likely be negligible.” You seem to be in support of RandV’s assertion that a return consisting of at least a mid 1st round + 2nd round picks is a negligible return.

I think the natural implication of that thinking is that it makes no difference from an asset management point of view whether the team trades Petey or not should Petey refuse to sign an extension with the Canucks.

If you disagree with what I wrote here, please bear with me and point out and explain your disagreement. Thanks.

if you go by the dictionary definition of neglible then yeah getting a neglible return in a trade means you should just walk pettersson to free agency and see what happens

i think people are using the colloquial definition and just mean the return isn't going to be commensurate with pettersson's value. of course you'd rather have a mid 1st and maybe some other stuff than nothing but you're not gonna be happy with that transaction and it's going to be very difficult to not take a step back as a team if that's the end result of the pettersson saga

 

[andora]

You said “Being forced to trade a franchise player - yeah a return will likely be negligible.” You seem to be in support of RandV’s assertion that a return consisting of at least a mid 1st round + 2nd round picks is a negligible return.

I think the natural implication of that thinking is that it makes no difference from an asset management point of view whether the team trades Petey or not should Petey refuse to sign an extension with the Canucks.

If you disagree with what I wrote here, please bear with me and point out and explain your disagreement. Thanks.

@credulous already said it well. it is my main intent with this meaning that the return is a fraction of what his actual impact is. now, aside from the colloquial use it can be a literal sense as well. if this team feels they are in a position to contend next year but are faced with pettersson only doing one year or trading him for this draft pick package, it's not as simple as 'well it's better than getting nothing'. aside from it being a disingenuous approach anyway (since you literally have a year/season of pettersson) - you have to decide of whether to push for that year with the best forward still here versus a future trade which sets you back from your perceived position of the team.

now this can branch off into 'well just parlay what you get into a replacement' as if it is simple to do. if you have a pulse of what's out there and available, maybe someone is, or nobody of impact is. what is the upcoming free agent group look like, is there a replacement there? of course there are so many layers it can go down - but versus what is right in front of you, a team that if you perceive to be a contender with pillar players at every position i can't say i wouldn't just keep the player and push.

 

[theguardianII]

Happy New Year Ya'll!

More thoughts on a possible senario and comments on poster's thoughts about our Petey.

My hope is we can talk Petey under 12M and Hronek under 8M. In Petey's case, 11.5M on a 4-5 year term might just be the perfect compromise. He'll have another huge deal coming while we'll be out of the dog years of OEL's buyout to offer him said deal.

Is that likely? Probably not when Matthews just inked 13M but I'm crossing my fingers Petey doesn't want to straggle every cent he can.

For Petey it might not or isn't, going by his statements/comments over the last 2.5 years, just about the money but for his agent that is HIS job. An agent will just point out that Petey's value TO THE TEAM is the same or bigger than Mathew's value to TO mostly because TO has more younger star level forwards in Marner and Nylander whereas the Canucks have ONLY Petey.

Pettersson is quickly losing ground on even strength primary point prosuxtion to matthews to even sniff asking for similar pay

I mean how much does defensive play cover in the difference?

Perey and his agent know full well that Tocchet has had a lot to do with the loss of point production, the 102 point season proves what he can do. Tocchet's assignment of a rotating wingers hurt his production. EP is just entering the middle of his prime years so what happens this year just enhances his value because everyone can see the deployment differences and how that didn't negate his scoring as much as it would have a lesser skilled player.

And I don't think I can get to a place where I would feel that losing a Myers/Zadorov pairing would cause a "step back" in any improved defensive play.

Definitely a fan's thought. A coach and GM looks at the bigger picture and should be building for the playoffs and not just the easy season.

There's also the minor point that again theoretically should Pettersson not want to extend long term and want to go UFA in 2025, but the Canucks are still a likely playoff team in 2024-25, then we're not selling him as a trade deadline rental.

If there is to be a Petersson trade it should be before the end of his last contract. It should be just before the draft.
A trade made AFTER the lottery so the first draft pick selection could be known.
I have no doubt Petersson's number and age will garner a couple of 1rst round picks and younger players.

AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY; Trade with Columbus for two first round picks and younger players
This year's first, which does them no good for immediate impact next year. They should have a top 3 pick so not too bad for the future Canucks, Canuck team could absorb a brand new top 2 pick into the lineup. The second 1rst an unconditional in 2026.
The two younger players, Johnson and Sillinger. Not at Petey's level but not dog food either.
IF not the second 1rst pick then a couple of 2nds and an additional player.
Or
This year's first and Marchenko, Voronkov and Chinakhov. Although that would throw Tocchet into a fit no doubt. Petey might even get more in return.

Why would Columbus do this? Desperation.
They need to make an impact NOW, time is their enemy and they have extra assets.
The Star power and Petey has shown he can play with a fire hydrant(s). They would still have Sillinger, Johnson, Laine and Johnny hockey combined with their young defence.

For the Canucks, a complete second line potential (better chances that one or two turn out better than average, less chance of total failure), a possible replacement super star in Celebrini, Eiserman, Demindov or Silyaev (D) and of course the corresponding cap space it gives the team.

Actually this is a very good deal for both teams on several levels. CB's are EP's age group on average, they have loads of young players and they are not in the conference so EP only haunts the arena once a year.
Canucks get youth for a (re)build/retool and cap control just as OEL's buyout hits giving them more trade ability AND they still have their #1 to use either for a trade or drafting.

I think, IMO, a trade at the TDL would get as much as knowing what the pick number is, Canuck luck would have them picking #5 somehow in a lottery but trading after insures which player they will get. A TDL trade would get a load but not as much in an auction when all the teams could bid on him, right after the regular season is over. Trades can be made but players cannot play until the next year.

 

[Canucker]

Happy New Year Ya'll!


Definitely a fan's thought. A coach and GM looks at the bigger picture and should be building for the playoffs and not just the easy season.

Happy New Year!

So the idea is that Myers and Zadorov are built to be playoff performers? Because they are big? Their defensive gaffes will just disappear and they'll just pulverize their opponents? Is that the idea?

 

[krutovsdonut]

draft picks as a return are a worse than roulette table risk level just to break even if you are trading a player like ep. over 4 years from 2016 to 2019 there were maybe 7-8 players drafted who are in the conversation with or better than pettersson. only two of those players went 1oa so a lot of scouting departments misjudged them.

if we had to trade him, we'd be better to target players who by the sum of their parts could fill roles that put this team over the top immediately. any attempt to replace him by gambling on getting a player of his quality back is very high risk.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Happy New Year!

So the idea is that Myers and Zadorov are built to be playoff performers? Because they are big? Their defensive gaffes will just disappear and they'll just pulverize their opponents? Is that the idea?

i am more concerned about offensive gaffes with those two. if they will ust play conservative playoff defence it could work.

 

[theguardianII]

Happy New Year!

So the idea is that Myers and Zadorov are built to be playoff performers? Because they are big? Their defensive gaffes will just disappear and they'll just pulverize their opponents? Is that the idea?

Have you watched as Hughes and Hronek have been manhandled? Or just listened to the radio? Because Shorty is putting the best face on their gaffe's in the dzone.

The whole defence is built for playoff hockey now. They are a very large defensive squad.
Might as well try for larger dmen because all the pygmy defence of the last 6 years were much worse than this year.

Do you deny that the defence is better this year? Going from 26th in the league in GA to tied for 3rd in GA/gm? The addition of larger dmen, 6'5" Soucy, 6'1" Cole, 6'2" Juulsen, 6'1" McWard and 6'6" Zadorov are not as good as last year's group? Last year the Canucks were under the league average in size on defence and that was with Myers, without they were much smaller and they have been for years. At least this year they are larger than league average.

As far as playoffs, just look at the winning teams. As far back as before Tampa won they were searching for large players, StLouis defence has huge their year, Vegas, over and over again, Colorado still searches for larger dmen to add to the playoff runs. Just about every successful playoff team has large humans on the back end and now they are starting to search for larger players on the forward lines too.

There is the easy season, the season they sell season tickets and then the real season, the hard season. It is very hard to play all out for 82 games, but the playoffs. One seven game series at a time, only 7 games of all out at a time makes for more intense games, more hitting, added effort. It is just harder to move or injure a big man by a smaller man. Size matters.

 

[Canucker]

i am more concerned about offensive gaffes with those two. if they will ust play conservative playoff defence it could work.

If they would simply leave Myers off the PK my angst level will be somewhat reduced.

 

[theguardianII]

draft picks as a return are a worse than roulette table risk level just to break even if you are trading a player like ep. over 4 years from 2016 to 2019 there were maybe 7-8 players drafted who are in the conversation with or better than pettersson. only two of those players went 1oa so a lot of scouting departments misjudged them.

if we had to trade him, we'd be better to target players who by the sum of their parts could fill roles that put this team over the top immediately. any attempt to replace him by gambling on getting a player of his quality back is very high risk.

I think you were posting to my thread here.

The draft picks, yes I agree. Almost with certainty once EP is on the other team that draft pick declines in value that is why I suggested after the lottery so at least the selection number will be known. I am not sure that this year's crop is all that impactful as last years but there should be players that make the show.

Two 60 point players can equal one 120 point player. Just not as shiny as the big silver dollar.

I think any trade would be better than the PLD trade and hopefully no where near the Tkachuk trade.

 

[Canucker]

Have you watched as Hughes and Hronek have been manhandled? Or just listened to the radio? Because Shorty is putting the best face on their gaffe's in the dzone.

The whole defence is built for playoff hockey now. They are a very large defensive squad.
Might as well try for larger dmen because all the pygmy defence of the last 6 years were much worse than this year.

Do you deny that the defence is better this year? Going from 26th in the league in GA to tied for 3rd in GA/gm? The addition of larger dmen, 6'5" Soucy, 6'1" Cole, 6'2" Juulsen, 6'1" McWard and 6'6" Zadorov are not as good as last year's group? Last year the Canucks were under the league average in size on defence and that was with Myers, without they were much smaller and they have been for years. At least this year they are larger than league average.

As far as playoffs, just look at the winning teams. As far back as before Tampa won they were searching for large players, StLouis defence has huge their year, Vegas, over and over again, Colorado still searches for larger dmen to add to the playoff runs. Just about every successful playoff team has large humans on the back end and now they are starting to search for larger players on the forward lines too.

There is the easy season, the season they sell season tickets and then the real season, the hard season. It is very hard to play all out for 82 games, but the playoffs. One seven game series at a time, only 7 games of all out at a time makes for more intense games, more hitting, added effort. It is just harder to move or injure a big man by a smaller man. Size matters.

The defense looks a whole lot better because of a better level of goaltending to start. And no, I don't see Hughes and Hronek getting "manhandled"...and the defense is better largely because of Hughes and Hronek. The initial argument, before you went off on some alternate tangent, was that losing Myers and Zadorov would have a detrimental effect on our defense...Myers is a mess of a defenseman, 6'7" or not, Zadorov is prone to defensive brain-farts, 6'6" or not...just because they are big doesn't automatically make them some ideal pairing in the playoffs...being large is great and all, but you still need to be able to play, otherwise why not make another run for Guddy? He's big and mean...he must be a good playoff defenseman. Size matters but it doesn't matter as much as you're making it out.

 

[theguardianII]

The defense looks a whole lot better because of a better level of goaltending to start. And no, I don't see Hughes and Hronek getting "manhandled"...and the defense is better largely because of Hughes and Hronek. The initial argument, before you went off on some alternate tangent, was that losing Myers and Zadorov would have a detrimental effect on our defense...Myers is a mess of a defenseman, 6'7" or not, Zadorov is prone to defensive brain-farts, 6'6" or not...just because they are big doesn't automatically make them some ideal pairing in the playoffs...being large is great and all, but you still need to be able to play, otherwise why not make another run for Guddy? He's big and mean...he must be a good playoff defenseman. Size matters but it doesn't matter as much as you're making it out.

The players seem to think so.
And again you make a statement that goes against facts.
Even the last game, which was the worst by Zadorov since getting here, they ended up better and no worse than Hughes and Hronek as far as being on the ice when a goal was scored against them. Even with Zadorov's major league brain fart. The worst player as far as stats was not a defenceman, if was Brock Boeser.

Since Zadorov and Myers, 12 games, are together they are plus players allowing only 6 goals against, including PP goals when together.

I think your fixation on Myers being a horrible defenceman is more the fault of his contract and what Benning said he was to be. For most of his time here so far he has played far beyond his comfort zone. That he wasn't worth the 6 million a year there is no doubt BUT that was the fault of Benning, not Myers.

As far a big defencemen making a difference, just look at the good teams and decide. Big does not automatically mean good but it does make it harder for forwards. Board battles aren't scoring goals but if your team wins most of them then your team has the best chance. Hoglander is a real outlier being only 5'9", he is a tank and one of the only sub 5'11" forwards that win most board battles.

The other people that think big is better are the one's running the team. And most other GM's.

 

[Canucker]

The players seem to think so.
And again you make a statement that goes against facts.
Even the last game, which was the worst by Zadorov since getting here, they ended up better and no worse than Hughes and Hronek as far as being on the ice when a goal was scored against them. Even with Zadorov's major league brain fart. The worst player as far as stats was not a defenceman, if was Brock Boeser.

Since Zadorov and Myers, 12 games, are together they are plus players allowing only 6 goals against, including PP goals when together.

I think your fixation on Myers being a horrible defenceman is more the fault of his contract and what Benning said he was to be. For most of his time here so far he has played far beyond his comfort zone. That he wasn't worth the 6 million a year there is no doubt BUT that was the fault of Benning, not Myers.

As far a big defencemen making a difference, just look at the good teams and decide. Big does not automatically mean good but it does make it harder for forwards. Board battles aren't scoring goals but if your team wins most of them then your team has the best chance. Hoglander is a real outlier being only 5'9", he is a tank and one of the only sub 5'11" forwards that win most board battles.

The other people that think big is better are the one's running the team. And most other GM's.

So Myers and Zadorov are our new 1st pairing? Cool. I'm just going to disagree and move on. Cheers.

 

[HairyKneel]

WHY do fans keep forgetting about the trade requests? Boeser asked twice Garland three times.
That they are having good seasons is to be expected because they need to improve their trade value.
Last year the rumours had retention of 2 mil for Garland and 3 mil for Boeser as sweeteners
Fans were all on board, as was the media, of Kuzmenko replacing Boeser, scoring at a hotter pace, healthier, cheaper and able to play with any of the top six players.
Last year even Tocchet played Kuz with Pettersson and they thrived.

In all his years here Boeser hasn't played a full season, not his fault but .... his wrist has been an issue going back to his college days.

Regardless if both move then most of the cap issue and immediate future can be solved.

Pettersson will sign another bridge deal, 2/3 years 4 max. 12+ mil.
Zadorov and Myers resign at a neutral cap increase, just allocate some of Myers 6 to Zadorov. 10 mil split between them.

Hronek? This could be really interesting. He has a high points total right now. Playing with Hughes is his puck handling and scoring really needed?
Certainly he would have a high trade value.

Joshua? He is a 3rd liner, maybe 1.75 to 2 mil tops and that is being generous.

Better keep DeSmith. Demko looks to me like there could be another leg issue, left leg this time. Just small things, as the game goes on the pads going down, push off from side to side, leg extension. Like maybe medication wearing off? Probably nothing but I was right last year long before he stopped playing, I even posted it was his right leg/side.

They won’t sign Pettersson to a two or three year deal. Pull your head out.

So Myers and Zadorov are our new 1st pairing? Cool. I'm just going to disagree and move on. Cheers.

He has some absolutely bizarre takes.

 

[Javaman]

All indications are that the current management knows what they're doing, even if every transaction hasn't been perfect.

It might not be enough to win a Cup, bit it's clearly miles better than Benning and Co.

 

[F A N]

if you go by the dictionary definition of neglible then yeah getting a neglible return in a trade means you should just walk pettersson to free agency and see what happens

i think people are using the colloquial definition and just mean the return isn't going to be commensurate with pettersson's value. of course you'd rather have a mid 1st and maybe some other stuff than nothing but you're not gonna be happy with that transaction and it's going to be very difficult to not take a step back as a team if that's the end result of the pettersson saga

So you think a return that is equivalent in value of a mid 1st + 2nd round pick is a "negligible return" by colloquial terms here on HFboards? As an aside, I did ask androa and RandV whether they are suggesting that it is a "negligible return" but didn't get a direct response. Please also see below:

@credulous already said it well. it is my main intent with this meaning that the return is a fraction of what his actual impact is. now, aside from the colloquial use it can be a literal sense as well. if this team feels they are in a position to contend next year but are faced with pettersson only doing one year or trading him for this draft pick package, it's not as simple as 'well it's better than getting nothing'. aside from it being a disingenuous approach anyway (since you literally have a year/season of pettersson) - you have to decide of whether to push for that year with the best forward still here versus a future trade which sets you back from your perceived position of the team.

now this can branch off into 'well just parlay what you get into a replacement' as if it is simple to do. if you have a pulse of what's out there and available, maybe someone is, or nobody of impact is. what is the upcoming free agent group look like, is there a replacement there? of course there are so many layers it can go down - but versus what is right in front of you, a team that if you perceive to be a contender with pillar players at every position i can't say i wouldn't just keep the player and push.

Again, there's no fundamental disagreement here and I did ask you whether you thought the equivalent of a mid 1st round pick + 2nd is a negligible return.

To be clear, this whole discussion started when RandV responded with his worst case scenario to my comment: "Either way, the Canucks should be able to recoup assets for Petey should the Canucks fail to re-sign him." Yes the Canucks can CHOOSE to keep Petey, but my original point is that the Canucks SHOULD be able to recoup assets for Petey should the Canucks fail to re-sign him. Nothing you have said disproves my point.

Again, you can take the stance that if the Canucks are forced to trade Petey we are not going to receive assets commensurate with what Petey brings (I acknowlege that you phrased what you said with less certainty than RandV). That's fair. But that doesn't really leave us with any room for discussions? The Canucks can get Ottawa's Erik Karlsson type return and you can still take the stance that that is a "neglible return." I would obviously disagree with the position.

To be clear, the value equivalent to a mid-1st + 2nd is what I believe to be the minumum in which the the Canucks can get for trading Petey at the deadline. If Petey signs his QO (per RandV's worst case scenario) the Canucks can look to trade Petey for the best package. Keeping him for a potential Cup run is a choice and has nothing to do with what the Canucks can get in return for trading Petey. The team also doesn't have to target draft picks or prospects. We're talking about an elite level C here.