The Petey Predicament

[Hockey Widow]

We dont have anyone better that him in the organization right now. I don't see the hurry in trading him. I really don't. Or course if we get a very good offer we have to consider it. To me a very good offer is a 1st, a good prospect and a good roster player. No retention but willing to take a bad contract back. Something with short term. If we take someone with 2-4 years of term that allows his contract to age nicely and gives us another roster player for a few years while our prospects continue to develop. You try to get a centre back in another trade if you can.

I would be more inclined to trade Debrusk or Boeser or Garland. All because none of them are top six centres.

Keep in mind that for players with term the TDD means shit. Players can still be traded just that they cannot play in the playoffs this year, if traded after TDD. So we could still trade any of our players with term after and for a player like Garland that may open up more markets. The others of course may not be willing to waive if they can't play in the playoffs this year. That would be an incentive for players with term.

A player like Myers can be dealt after July 1st.

But back toPettersson, I just don't want to see a panic sell off. If you can't get a good return you keep him.

[Megaterio Llamas]

Peter is this franchise's cornerstone; he's the player these guys decided to keep as their building block.

Not only do they keep him, they put the 'C' on his sweater.

[BoS]

Interesting proposal Don.

Wids, following his no-show in the Olympics, he’s now a diminishing asset - with half a dozen years to go, cut bait, remove the drama and get on with the rebuild.

[Meds]

Interesting proposal Don.

Wids, following his no-show in the Olympics, he’s now a diminishing asset - with half a dozen years to go, cut bait, remove the drama and get on with the rebuild.

Yeah, this franchise has a long history of trading the wrong guy too soon or tying themselves to the mast of a sinking ship until it's way too late.....and just to be clear, trading a player who has been with the franchise for 8 seasons is NOT too soon.

[Hockey Widow]

Interesting proposal Don.

Wids, following his no-show in the Olympics, he’s now a diminishing asset - with half a dozen years to go, cut bait, remove the drama and get on with the rebuild.

Yeah, this franchise has a long history of trading the wrong guy too soon or tying themselves to the mast of a sinking ship until it's way too late.....and just to be clear, trading a player who has been with the franchise for 8 seasons is NOT too soon.

I get all of that. I guess what I am saying is this, he is by far the best centre we currently have. So if you can get a good return that helps us with the rebuild yes, you go for it. But I do not advocate trading him just to get him off the team and move on. That seems self defeating to me. Trading him just because does not undo the mistakes of the past. He is over paid for what he is producing. No one will argue otherwise. But you have to replace him positionally no?

So if you can get a very good return that as I have said to me is, a 1st, a top prospect and a good to top roster player, with no retention, and if you need to bring back a salary with some term, then go for it. Hope you then can replace the centre position via a different trade. But if you cannot get that type of return then you keep him. It doesn't mean you stop trying to move him, not at all. I just do not believe in dumping him for the sake of getting him off the team. That makes no sense to me.

Now if there is evidence that he is a hinderance to the team in other ways that creates a different scenario. We have seen top players moved for well less than value because the team felt they had to move them out for off ice reasons. Spezza, Karlsson, come to mind. Or because they would only move to one or two teams and handcuffed the trading team. And that may end being a problem here with Pettersson. We may desire to move him but are stuck with where he will waive to so any return may be greatly suppressed.

He has value. He has value to this team. He is still a top 6 centre.

[Lancer]

Would agree with Wids; unless management can get a replacement top-6 centre to complement Rossi in the near-term - or has a replacement ready in the system - you keep Petey unless management fears he'll be a bad influence on the kids there or coming core.

1Cs don't grow on trees - even washed-up, broken-down ones like Petey. Management will be lucky to get someone who can competently fill Petey's shoes in return, and even then they'd be even more lucky if that replacement can score more points than Petey afterward.

Unless (or until) Cootes shows himself a serviceable option at 1C, keeping Petey is the prudent (if putrid) move for management.

[Madcombinepilot]

Peter is this franchise's cornerstone; he's the player these guys decided to keep as their building block.

Not only do they keep him, they put the 'C' on his sweater.

Jesus. I woke up to this.


[edit] - I think that putting the best player (or most skilled) as the captain in this market ruins them as players (too many examples of this in our history. As soon as the Media turns on a guy, then the fans turn and its downhill from there). You need a strong character guy with great mental health and work ethic to be the captain.

Garland should be our next captain. Nobody expects more than 50 points, his work ethic is unmatched on this team and he is ok with the media.

If the media turns on him because he is short, we are not wrecking the best player on the team.

[Meds]

Interesting proposal Don.

Wids, following his no-show in the Olympics, he’s now a diminishing asset - with half a dozen years to go, cut bait, remove the drama and get on with the rebuild.

Yeah, this franchise has a long history of trading the wrong guy too soon or tying themselves to the mast of a sinking ship until it's way too late.....and just to be clear, trading a player who has been with the franchise for 8 seasons is NOT too soon.

I get all of that. I guess what I am saying is this, he is by far the best centre we currently have. So if you can get a good return that helps us with the rebuild yes, you go for it. But I do not advocate trading him just to get him off the team and move on. That seems self defeating to me. Trading him just because does not undo the mistakes of the past. He is over paid for what he is producing. No one will argue otherwise. But you have to replace him positionally no?

Two points.

First as a clarification/qualification of my original statement. I am predicated it on the word, diminishing, and therein lays the rub. A later trade brings a lesser return the more he diminishes, and/or the greater any expected retention will be, or the greater sweetener need be attached. With Petey as a top-6 pivot this team is 32nd out of 32 teams.....should we really worry how much worse it can get if we can get any sort of future return AND out from under that contract?

Second, when a player has an established level of talent, has been a central part (note I said part) of a trifecta of in-house drama that resulted in the implosion of an up-and-coming competitive roster, and he is being paid as a top-10 player in the league, then he absolutely has to earn that and lead the way. When he doesn't, that alone sends bad messages.....

To the fans: The organization doesn't really care.

To the established NHL'ers in the room: Accountability is optional.

To young players: Have a couple of good seasons and that put the screws to this organization and be set for life without ever having to work hard for it again.

If the team, and other NHL GM's, believe this his struggling play is more of a situational issue based on the aforementioned drama, and that a change of scenery results in the old player returning, then you move him, even for a diminished return, because under that mindset he won't ever be worth more than a diminished return without that change, and you may as well do it now to fully commit to your pathway to rebuild sooner than later.

[UWSaint]

First as a clarification/qualification of my original statement. I am predicated it on the word, diminishing, and therein lays the rub. A later trade brings a lesser return the more he diminishes, and/or the greater any expected retention will be, or the greater sweetener need be attached. With Petey as a top-6 pivot this team is 32nd out of 32 teams.....should we really worry how much worse it can get if we can get any sort of future return AND out from under that contract?

Of course you should worry about the return and maximizing it.

Also, this asset doesn't diminish even if Petey just sticks to being a 50-60 point strong defensive center and doesn't find the high end offensive game again. That's because the years on the contract drag it down (as did Miller's).

As for getting out from "under that contract," I don't care what ownership pays a guy until it affects other decisions. If its keeping the Canucks from weaponizing cap space, that's one thing, but if its the owner's money to the player? Not my money. And ticket prices are set by demand, not costs -- and the more this ownership struggles with an operating budget, the sooner they will look to getting out of the ownership business.

Thing is, I think a team or two (and that's all you need) is going to see Petey for what could be again instead of what is. But you have to wait until their eyes get big. Then you strike the deal. (We agree on this, you note the possibility). If it doesn't happen between now and the start of next season, then the asset matures as the future liability relaxes and the percentage of the cap diminishes.

Second, when a player has an established level of talent, has been a central part (note I said part) of a trifecta of in-house drama that resulted in the implosion of an up-and-coming competitive roster, and he is being paid as a top-10 player in the league, then he absolutely has to earn that and lead the way. When he doesn't, that alone sends bad messages.....

To the fans: The organization doesn't really care.

To the established NHL'ers in the room: Accountability is optional.

To young players: Have a couple of good seasons and that put the screws to this organization and be set for life without ever having to work hard for it again.

I think you are overthinking it. I don't think fans care about whether the organization cares. I think the hockey fans care when the hockey sucks. And those who don't care terribly about the hockey like having players they have heard of -- but I am confident they aren't analyzing the "caring score" of management.

As for the effect on players, I tend to think they are much more internally motivated and the young players push each other, but I at least agree there's not anything particularly valuable about EP40's presence outside of his on-ice contributions. But more than getting rid of guys who psychologically weak men might learn bad lessons from is getting people in who demonstrate the positive. That "leader" group seems to be missing outside of possibly Hronek. Its a problem.

[Cousin Strawberry]

If anyone takes him without retention, that IS the return.

Unfortunately at this time he's a negative equity asset so it's going to take some sort of sweetener be it taking back a bad contract or attaching assets to complete a trade

If someone wants him I'd say they can probably have him without sending us anything of value back other than cap space to complete the transaction

[Cornuck]

Some valid points made ^^ :

* It's not our money
* IF we had 11.6 in cap space all of a sudden, what would we do with it?
* Do we risk a lower return, the longer we wait?
* Do we really know the effect he will have, positive or negative, on 'the new core'?
* He's currently the best player on the team

To me, there's a lot of pros and cons happening here, and if anyone on the inside sees a problem (attitude rubbing off, etc) - then that's a huge factor in making a trade - but considering that management couldn't see the storm that blew up the teams, I'm not guessing they'll notice subtle attitude problems.

Bottom line is that we are in last place, and in a rebuild and need draft picks - if we get another first, it will (potentially) help more than EP40 in the long run.

[Meds]

Of course you should worry about the return and maximizing it.

As for getting out from "under that contract," I don't care what ownership pays a guy until it affects other decisions. If its keeping the Canucks from weaponizing cap space, that's one thing, but if its the owner's money to the player? Not my money.

The weaponizing of cap space is exactly what I mean. I really don’t care how much $$$ the Aqua men lose.

If it doesn't happen between now and the start of next season, then the asset matures as the future liability relaxes and the percentage of the cap diminishes.

Tie that to the weaponizing of cap space and I don’t think it has much impact. A player making 8 figures who is badly underachieving in perpetuity really is not going to be someone another team more likely risks on because of lesser term. The buyer’s gamble on Petey is that he can return to at least a semblance of what he was, the longer he stays what he currently is, the more certain the odds are that the gamble is greater.

To the fans: The organization doesn't really care.

To the established NHL'ers in the room: Accountability is optional.

To young players: Have a couple of good seasons and that put the screws to this organization and be set for life without ever having to work hard for it again.

I think you are overthinking it. I don't think fans care about whether the organization cares. I think the hockey fans care when the hockey sucks.

32nd overall. The hockey sucks. That’s the what I’m talking about. Owners and management are asking fans to pay a price for a shitty product…..he’s the highly paid headliner of it.

As for the effect on players, I tend to think they are much more internally motivated and the young players push each other, but I at least agree there's not anything particularly valuable about EP40's presence outside of his on-ice contributions. But more than getting rid of guys who psychologically weak men might learn bad lessons from is getting people in who demonstrate the positive. That "leader" group seems to be missing outside of possibly Hronek. Its a problem.

I think people are people. I think most people are products of their culture and environment. The exception to this may be found in players like Celebrini…..hopefully McKenna (or whoever we draft) is the same. However, I think your take here is 20 years out of date. We’ve seen way too many silver spoon-fed young players enter pro sports over the last decade. Look around the general workforce…..it’s the same everywhere. I agree with the latter half of your point, but I think you underestimate the negative impact of a player like Petey on the current generation in the former half.

[BoS]

The team needs a change in culture. That has been evident for over a year now.

Miller left because of Pettersson. Hughes left, in part, because of Pettersson. Bluegers recent comments on the lack of character were, IMO, a shot at the veterans including Pettersson.

You want a rebuild to be successful? Remove the malignant tumours that forced a rebuild to begin with, while there’s still a team willing to take him.

[UWSaint]

If anyone takes him without retention, that IS the return.

Unfortunately at this time he's a negative equity asset so it's going to take some sort of sweetener be it taking back a bad contract or attaching assets to complete a trade

If someone wants him I'd say they can probably have him without sending us anything of value back other than cap space to complete the transaction

Arizona got a pretty high first rounder for OEL for minimal retention, never forget it. It just took two teams (the only two he would go to) interested in a player that most of the league would've paid to get rid of.

Vancouver got a pretty high first rounder for JT Miller. The asset was beyond toxic, he was on the wrong side of 30 with several years left. No retention.

What both of these trades had in common (besides the Canucks....) was that there was a party willing to take a distressed asset as part of the return. Arizona had to take on what, $13M of junk for a season? Vancouver absorbed a guy and a $4.35M salary ($13M over 3 years....) who's most likely path was either early retirement via LTIR or an unreliable asset on and off IR.

Stop considering adding a sweetner to move EP40. It is dumb. Consider taking back an overweight asset. Make EP40s bloated 11.6 look like 7 by taking a guy in return that makes 7 and should make 3. Then get the return that EP40 at $7M would get, and that's at a first +. Think like winners, boys.

[BoS]

To be clear, I’m not looking to dump him for a bag of pucks, as I too agree he has trade value. But that bench warming last week was yet another indication of his downward trend.