Confirmed with Link: [VAN/Pit] Vincent Desharnais, Danton Heinen, Melvin Fernstrom, & 1st (NYR) for Marcus Pettersson (LD) & Drew O'Connor (W)

[Reverend Mayhem]

Their own first. I've said that a few times.

Doesn't really answer the second question.

 

[bossram]

Doesn't really answer the second question.

Convince Aquilini? To compete in the short-term? Is that supposed to be difficult?

 

[Ernie]

Convince Aquilini? To compete in the short-term? Is that supposed to be difficult?

Probably not hard to sell Aquilini on it.

But management will also get the blame if they miss the playoffs and it turns into a high pick.

 

[MS]

Their own first. I've said that a few times.

When Hronek was hurt, our 1st was like 22nd overall.

The pick they've given up is a lot better than that, and it wasn't an asset we had to give then.

 

[God]

Yeah I sometimes wonder what the owner/FO politics are like. This trade definitely could've been done earlier in the year, possibly even before the JTM incident.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Or you blunder securing the bag and misread the market like Klingberg's agent, or blow your knee out before July 1 and lose out on it all.

If they feel it's a mutual fit and are being offered a fair contract that secures his financial future, you bet he'll be signing.

Klingber had double hip surfacing and lets just say his rehab has not gone as planned.

Im sure youll get to read about it sooner or later.

 

[me2]

Most of NYR's core is old. There is definitely a real chance they drop off hard. Zib is already cooked and Kreider's slowing down. A Shesty injury drops them to lottery contention overnight.

Canucks, like the Rangers, would have protected their pick this year. The Canucks could crumble down the stretch, keep this year's pick, give up next year's unprotected first.

Imagine having a terrible year next year and watching something other team draft top 6 with the Canucks pick. If your team stinks at least your can look forward to a top 10 pick if you keep your own pick. Controlling your destiny seems better to me, being in a position to make trades that hurt his but help later.

 

[Wisp]

edit: wrong thread

 

[Reverend Mayhem]

Convince Aquilini? To compete in the short-term? Is that supposed to be difficult?

You’d think not….but it’s hard to sell a salesmen anything. They kind of have to really f***ing want to make the purchase. So I agree, another 1st must be spent.

 

[racerjoe]

I would guess the Canucks first for whatever reason wasn’t getting the trade done. It’s again my guess they knew whose first would and why we have heard a first had to be included.

They probably knew X teams first plus Y gets us Pettersson and O’Connor, and then they were just trying to make sure any trade gave them the correct parts to get it done.

Now why ours wasn’t good enough… no clue, though I do agree I bet earlier we didn’t want to part with it until we had worked out some things and that is why we kept hearing management wants to see what this team is.

 

[bossram]

When Hronek was hurt, our 1st was like 22nd overall.

The pick they've given up is a lot better than that, and it wasn't an asset we had to give then.

Yeah, I agree.

 

[bossram]

Canucks, like the Rangers, would have protected their pick this year. The Canucks could crumble down the stretch, keep this year's pick, give up next year's unprotected first.

Imagine having a terrible year next year and watching something other team draft top 6 with the Canucks pick. If your team stinks at least your can look forward to a top 10 pick if you keep your own pick. Controlling your destiny seems better to me, being in a position to make trades that hurt his but help later.

If they thought the team sucked that bad and was likely enough to crumble down the standings, why are they adding rentals at all?

Sure, protect the pick this year. If you're adding rentals, you're not expecting to be in the lottery this season. Control your destiny: Win some games.

 

[me2]

If they thought the team sucked that bad and was likely enough to crumble down the standings, why are they adding rentals at all?

Negotiating rights. We paid a 1st to be able to get first crack at M Petterson.

 

[F A N]

Canucks, like the Rangers, would have protected their pick this year. The Canucks could crumble down the stretch, keep this year's pick, give up next year's unprotected first.

Imagine having a terrible year next year and watching something other team draft top 6 with the Canucks pick. If your team stinks at least your can look forward to a top 10 pick if you keep your own pick. Controlling your destiny seems better to me, being in a position to make trades that hurt his but help later.

I was following along until that last sentence. To me, controlling your own destiny means giving up your own pick instead of NYRs. You can't control what NYRs do and how they play but you can control how your team plays and what the team does. Bet on yourself.

The condition on the draft pick doesn't have to simply be lottery protected. It could be a "choice" protection where the Canucks get to choose which pick to give up.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Negotiating rights. We paid a 1st to be able to get first crack at M Petterson.

This gives MP quite a bit of leverage...

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

If they thought the team sucked that bad and was likely enough to crumble down the standings, why are they adding rentals at all?

Sure, protect the pick this year. If you're adding rentals, you're not expecting to be in the lottery this season. Control your destiny: Win some games.

I don't think this should be viewed as rentals.

Given our braintrust's history with the players, I suspect we sign them quite easily.

I suppose if we get sticker shock, the opportunity still exists to trade them for a similar return.

But with the history Rutherford, Scott Young, and Gonchar have with Pettersson (and O'Connor for at least Rutherford I think), I suspect it's a bit of a formality to get them signed.

There's just no way a team in our position trades a 1st (ours or otherwise) for a rental.

 

[bossram]

I don't think this should be viewed as rentals.

Given our braintrust's history with the players, I suspect we sign them quite easily.

I suppose if we get sticker shock, the opportunity still exists to trade them for a similar return.

But with the history Rutherford, Scott Young, and Gonchar have with Pettersson (and O'Connor for at least Rutherford I think), I suspect it's a bit of a formality to get them signed.

There's just no way a team in our position trades a 1st (ours or otherwise) for a rental.

I do also think they'll be signed, FWIW.

I'm extending the logic of the other poster. He thinks they wouldn't be trading 1sts if the team was bad, which is why they didn't move their own 1st. But they still moved a 1st to bolster the lineup. If you planned to be bad, you're not gonna be selling futures and buying prime-age players.