IBatch Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 19 hours ago, BPA said: Let’s say EP wants $12M and JR/PA aren’t budging from their best offer (say $11.5M). Would you trade EP to CBJ for Fantilli, Johnson, and Jiricek? CBJ gets their #1C to play with Gaudreau and Laine. VAN gets 3 top players/prospects on cheap ELC contracts. Answer is no thanks. Prefer to extend EP, even if it's Mathews money. We aren't in that cycle anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Hronek Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 In the off-season, extend Lindholm and move Pettersson for a boatload of picks and prospects. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Does anyone know Petey and Lindholms relationship? Could this be the piece Peteys been waiting for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 6 minutes ago, Marty_Blopper said: Does anyone know Petey and Lindholms relationship? Could this be the piece Peteys been waiting for? Part of me wonders about that... if Petey wanted guarantees that he will be playing with a true top 6 player for the foreseeable future. Of course that would likely mean Petey can't be greedy and take money away from the cap that could help retain Lindholm. If anything, acquiring Lindholm gives Petey more reason to stay. It also gives the Canucks more leverage in negotiations. All positive things from the Canucks perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 17 minutes ago, HKSR said: Part of me wonders about that... if Petey wanted guarantees that he will be playing with a true top 6 player for the foreseeable future. Of course that would likely mean Petey can't be greedy and take money away from the cap that could help retain Lindholm. If anything, acquiring Lindholm gives Petey more reason to stay. It also gives the Canucks more leverage in negotiations. All positive things from the Canucks perspective. Exactly! All good things. Maybe he’ll take a friendlier deal? He said his deal wouldn’t look like Nylanders… he’ll take less and that lets Lindy re-sign. Pure speculation, but hey, isn’t that why we’re here . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 Just now, Marty_Blopper said: Exactly! All good things. Maybe he’ll take a friendlier deal? He said his deal wouldn’t look like Nylanders… he’ll take less and that lets Lindy re-sign. Pure speculation, but hey, isn’t that why we’re here . When did he say his deal wouldn't look like Nylander's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 17 minutes ago, HKSR said: When did he say his deal wouldn't look like Nylander's? There was a Swedish interview with Petey and they asked if his contract would look like Nylanders and he said “No, and you’ll see that when I re-sign” or something to that effect. I couldn’t find the article, it was here or on Reddit. But I could be very wrong, but for some reason remember reading it and it being discussed… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 hours ago, Jeremy Hronek said: In the off-season, extend Lindholm and move Pettersson for a boatload of picks and prospects. Nah, I'd keep Pettersson. Lindholm trade or not, we are not the cup guarantee some folks want to believe/pretend we are. If the goal is to chase a cup Pettersson lengthens our window, Lindholm is also not Pettersson. Having Pettersson peaking should hopefully negate some of Miller's inevitable decline. Nobody was expecting Miller to fall off immediately, but most forwards don't age as gracefully as Crosby and Pavelski. If you can keep all three, great. Play the Elias's together and maybe one of them wins a Selke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 19 minutes ago, Coconuts said: Nah, I'd keep Pettersson. Lindholm trade or not, we are not the cup guarantee some folks want to believe/pretend we are. If the goal is to chase a cup Pettersson lengthens our window, Lindholm is also not Pettersson. Having Pettersson peaking should hopefully negate some of Miller's inevitable decline. Nobody was expecting Miller to fall off immediately, but most forwards don't age as gracefully as Crosby and Pavelski. If you can keep all three, great. Play the Elias's together and maybe one of them wins a Selke. Pavelski is unreal. People don't realize sometimes that he turns 40 years old this calendar year! The guy is still putting up top 6 numbers! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 minute ago, HKSR said: Pavelski is unreal. People don't realize sometimes that he turns 40 years old this calendar year! The guy is still putting up top 6 numbers! Dude is a unicorn, one of the all-time American greats. It cannot be emphasized enough how impressive, and unusual, it is for players to maintain his level of play for as long as he has. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayDangles Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 hour ago, Marty_Blopper said: There was a Swedish interview with Petey and they asked if his contract would look like Nylanders and he said “No, and you’ll see that when I re-sign” or something to that effect. I couldn’t find the article, it was here or on Reddit. But I could be very wrong, but for some reason remember reading it and it being discussed… I wouldn't put that out there if you cant quote an actual article. If that were true i'm pretty sure it would have been tweeted by guys like Friedman and we all would have heard it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey God Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 JP Barry will make sure that EP gets paid, just like all of his clients, so no hometown discount. He's also on record as saying he likes the Auston Matthews deal, and sees a comparable with Nylander in some respects. To me, all of that says that EP signs for at least 12 million per year, maybe 13, and probably only signs for 4 years, to maximize his chances for a bigger contract in his prime. So, that being said, if that is the request from EP's side, I look to trade him for a solid young defenseman or young forward, plus picks, to round out the team going forward, and keep Lindholm, which I'm guessing is how Rutherford looks at it, given he was high on Lindholm when he drafted him in Carolina, and he is a good fit age-wise with what they currently have on the roster. Allvin made the trade, but this one has Jim's fingerprints all over it, and he knows how valuable a Plan B is, especially with the OEL buyout issues in the near future. Hate to say it, but I think we may be nearing the end of EP40's time in Vancouver, and that the team may be the better for it when all is said and done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 6 minutes ago, Hockey God said: JP Barry will make sure that EP gets paid, just like all of his clients, so no hometown discount. He's also on record as saying he likes the Auston Matthews deal, and sees a comparable with Nylander in some respects. To me, all of that says that EP signs for at least 12 million per year, maybe 13, and probably only signs for 4 years, to maximize his chances for a bigger contract in his prime. So, that being said, if that is the request from EP's side, I look to trade him for a solid young defenseman or young forward, plus picks, to round out the team going forward, and keep Lindholm, which I'm guessing is how Rutherford looks at it, given he was high on Lindholm when he drafted him in Carolina, and he is a good fit age-wise with what they currently have on the roster. Allvin made the trade, but this one has Jim's fingerprints all over it, and he knows how valuable a Plan B is, especially with the OEL buyout issues in the near future. Hate to say it, but I think we may be nearing the end of EP40's time in Vancouver, and that the team may be the better for it when all is said and done. Yeah if Petey wants over $12M, then trade him. He could never live up to that contract. It's clear he can't drive a line on his own and requires another top 6 forward to play with, so that makes him an elite top 6 forward, not a superstar (Mackinnon, Matthews, McDavid level). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 25 minutes ago, Hockey God said: JP Barry will make sure that EP gets paid, just like all of his clients, so no hometown discount. He's also on record as saying he likes the Auston Matthews deal, and sees a comparable with Nylander in some respects. To me, all of that says that EP signs for at least 12 million per year, maybe 13, and probably only signs for 4 years, to maximize his chances for a bigger contract in his prime. So, that being said, if that is the request from EP's side, I look to trade him for a solid young defenseman or young forward, plus picks, to round out the team going forward, and keep Lindholm, which I'm guessing is how Rutherford looks at it, given he was high on Lindholm when he drafted him in Carolina, and he is a good fit age-wise with what they currently have on the roster. Allvin made the trade, but this one has Jim's fingerprints all over it, and he knows how valuable a Plan B is, especially with the OEL buyout issues in the near future. Hate to say it, but I think we may be nearing the end of EP40's time in Vancouver, and that the team may be the better for it when all is said and done. The Sedins took very fair deals. They were built different though. The team was everything to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 47 minutes ago, JayDangles said: I wouldn't put that out there if you cant quote an actual article. If that were true i'm pretty sure it would have been tweeted by guys like Friedman and we all would have there are hundreds of pages, hard to find something this specific. But here you are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 3 minutes ago, Marty_Blopper said: there are hundreds of pages, hard to find something this specific. But here you are. Lol, so that could mean lower than Nylander, but it COULD also mean higher than Nylander haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 1 minute ago, HKSR said: Lol, so that could mean lower than Nylander, but it COULD also mean higher than Nylander haha. Yup, vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Canuck Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 2 minutes ago, HKSR said: Lol, so that could mean lower than Nylander, but it COULD also mean higher than Nylander haha. Also, term wise as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 3 minutes ago, HKSR said: Lol, so that could mean lower than Nylander, but it COULD also mean higher than Nylander haha. He’s either saying I’m going max dollars baby! Or he’s simply going to take a shorter deal like Matthews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hockey God Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 13 minutes ago, DeNiro said: The Sedins took very fair deals. They were built different though. The team was everything to them. The Sedins did take fair deals, but I think, for them, the fact that they could play together their entire careers trumped financial considerations to a degree, as no other team would have been able to acquire both of them and keep them together for any length of time once they had big money contracts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronning4center Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 (edited) 3 hours ago, HKSR said: Part of me wonders about that... if Petey wanted guarantees that he will be playing with a true top 6 player for the foreseeable future. Of course that would likely mean Petey can't be greedy and take money away from the cap that could help retain Lindholm. If anything, acquiring Lindholm gives Petey more reason to stay. It also gives the Canucks more leverage in negotiations. All positive things from the Canucks perspective. Who is this guy anyway. We have to structure a team exactly the way one player wants or he holds us ransom. Reminds me of a spoiled step child that will make everyone life hell unless he gets a ps5. What are we talking about here. If he doesn't like the team then let him go. Why offend and piss off 29 other players to make one happy. I'm starting resent this situation. He doesn't own the team. He should want to and be greatful for the chance to play here. If he isn't....let him walk Edited February 1 by ronning4center 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_Blopper Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 You’re in a rumour forum, it’s all speculation. We won’t know anything until it’s done. Petey said he doesn’t want to talk until the end of the year. Gotta respect his wishes… Want another Gretzky all over again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 At this point I think I might actually prefer if Petey takes a shorter term deal. With the Canucks going all in this year, and hopefully for the next few, we might need another re-tool after the current window closes. Having Petey on a contract that's either expiring or only has a couple of years left might provide the Canucks more flexibility during a future re-tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayDangles Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 21 minutes ago, Marty_Blopper said: there are hundreds of pages, hard to find something this specific. But here you are. Awesome. Good job digging that up. So it could go either way. Nylander signed for an average of $11.5m per year over 8 years. But the question wasnt "do you see similarities between his contract and yours" it was "do you see any similarities between his contract SITUATION and yours" Totally different question. Petey's response makes sense, his contract situation is different because he is RFA and Nylander would have been UFA. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted February 1 Share Posted February 1 35 minutes ago, HKSR said: Lol, so that could mean lower than Nylander, but it COULD also mean higher than Nylander haha. what it likely means is short term instead of long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts