Guntrix Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 The McKinnon comparisons became predictable once Petey signed the new deal. Instead of burying our heads in the sand (the CDC way), I do think these types of analyses are important for the purpose of gauging where we stand in terms of value/cost. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 36 minutes ago, 43isprime said: I was only responding to your Pettersson-MacKinnon comparison. Ridicule me all you want. Ridiculing someone for providing facts that don't fit your own opinions is about as intellectually bankrupt as it gets. Calling posters a bunch of goofs because of a Petey/MacKinnon comparison is about as intellectually bankrupt as it gets. If you want an intelligent conversation with me it might be best not to use laughing emojis after every one of your sentences. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Guntrix said: The McKinnon comparisons became predictable once Petey signed the new deal. Instead of burying our heads in the sand (the CDC way), I do think these types of analyses are important for the purpose of gauging where we stand in terms of value/cost. Both yes and no.... contracts are going to head north. Wait and see the value contract being signed by the top players from now on. If we only look at value cost, lets bring Millers contract in? He is unreal atm, so he should be paid better? If you compare value for what a player brings and points v his salary, then you could maybe argue Millers contract is better than MacKinnons? or at least even value? Great for Avs, if MacKinnons contract is good, but that doesn't mean Peteys is bad. can I just add that MacKinnons contract goes until he's 36, while Peteys contract goes until he's 34... The years they pay for (age of the player) matters, just like Millers contract. Edited March 16 by spook007 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 5 hours ago, Gawdzukes said: How about talking about the hockey part of hockey instead of complaining about reffing ad nauseum every time we lose a game, or even if we win? Maybe accept that it is what it is and always has been and oh, I don't know, limit yourself to 5-8 games a year where you just talk nauseatingly on and on about how we were cheated and everyone is out to get us. How about realizing reffing is a constant (how long have people here been watching hockey anyway?) and you don't need to complain about it every second sentence and every single game. Water is wet, the sky is blue, and women have secrets (Norm from Cheers), and referees are human. These are things we know already and don't need repeating every second sentence. If you guys hate it so much, why even bother watching? That's the frustrating part for the rest of us. Especially in an almost meaningless game 67 where the team very clearly blew it on their own and the reffing had so little to do with it. How about save all the whining and complaining for a game where it actually matters, like a playoff game, or when we're fighting for a wildcard spot? Or most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, how about save it for a game where the refereeing was actually a main culprit in the loss? Anyone complaining about the refereeing losing this game is completely out to lunch. Both of those calls in the third were actually penalties (even if the one was kind of weak it is still illegal) so the outrage and anger itself isn't even warranted. Like what the hell was Cole doing getting his stick in on Mackinnon's hands? Totally dumb. We were also up 3-0 with 2 seconds left in the second and we gave up a dumb goal. No powerplay involved. We were also up 3-2 with 12 minutes left in the third and they scored ... again without any penalties. The OT goal was an automatic penalty. We got hemmed in our own zone for 2 minutes straight to start the third and took a dumb penalty when we missed an easy opportunity to clear the puck seconds earlier. Place the blame where it belongs, on the team. If you complained when the refs actually caused a loss it would be far more acceptable. Is there any time when you can just admit we lost a hockey game, and it wasn't the refs fault? This is just 100% whining for no reason at all. Like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum in a crowded restaurant. Try watching a game where Vancouver is not playing. Sit back and watch all the calls that are made, and not made without all the emotion invested. Maybe then you will begin to understand that the game is not ever reffed perfectly and it's just another facet of the game. You try not to get penalties, if you do you kill them off. That simple. No need to flip out. Hola amigo. Just a quick one here, but if there's a hit to the head is that not normally a 5min major? Fair enough if its not seen, but just surprised to see only a 2min penalty handed out for a hit to the head of Miller... PS. Good to see you back. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43isprime Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 4 hours ago, spook007 said: If you say you don't show a dislike towards our players, I'll take you word for it... I'm too old and too tired to go back and look for examples... As for Pettersson contract, maybe instead of comparing it to MacKinnon, we should compare it to other players getting contracts now after cap is rising again... Alternatively we could start to compare Millers contract to everyone else, and I'm sure a lot of contracts would look like garbage... MacKinnon's contract only just started this year. Are you trying to claim that MacKinnon and the Avs didn't anticipate the cap rising over the next 7 years when they signed it? The only thing that matters is that Pettersson and MacKinnon will be separated by only 1m for the next 7 years - that's 4 years beyond our Hughes window. At some point during the next 7 years, I'd bet 1m will be less than league minimum salary. That's how little of a difference 1m is. And who cares about the 2 year age difference when the respective contracts end when gulf between the two players is this massive? I'll say it again: MacKinnon had 3 runner-ups/finalists for the Hart, plus a Stanley Cup prior to signing that deal. He was an established, top echelon superstar. He's far and away the superior player no matter how these other posters have tried to do the comparison. The fact that he also happens to be in our conference makes the comparison that much more pertinent. Why not compare to Nylander? Same reason we don't say Pettersson's 11.6m looks great next to Huberdeau's 10.5m. To win the Cup, you have to beat the best, especially when it's in our conference. So the comparison has to be against the best. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 1 minute ago, 43isprime said: MacKinnon's contract only just started this year. Are you trying to claim that MacKinnon and the Avs didn't anticipate the cap rising over the next 7 years when they signed it? The only thing that matters is that Pettersson and MacKinnon will be separated by only 1m for the next 7 years - that's 4 years beyond our Hughes window. At some point during the next 7 years, I'd bet 1m will be less than league minimum salary. That's how little of a difference 1m is. And who cares about the 2 year age difference when the respective contracts end when gulf between the two players is this massive? I'll say it again: MacKinnon had 3 runner-ups/finalists for the Hart, plus a Stanley Cup prior to signing that deal. He was an established, top echelon superstar. He's far and away the superior player no matter how these other posters have tried to do the comparison. The fact that he also happens to be in our conference makes the comparison that much more pertinent. Why not compare to Nylander? Same reason we don't say Pettersson's 11.6m looks great next to Huberdeau's 10.5m. To win the Cup, you have to beat the best, especially when it's in our conference. So the comparison has to be against the best. That's why. Lets just start there right away... Who cares if Millers Contract goes 2 years beyond MacKinnons... Yeah right, sounds daft, doesn't it? Miller is paid 8M, does that mean MacKinnon isn't worth his contract? Or is MacKinnon paid for what has done only, and not because they hope, what he is about to do? What about McD Why did Oilers pay him $12.5M at such a young age? Because what they hoped he would do? same as Petey... By your account salaries wouldn't be rising because Crosby was paid $8.7M only... As I said before, MacKinnons contract is good for Avs, but that does not not mean Peteys contract is garbage...Some players out perform their contracts and some don't... again Miller is a great example... Lets see What Leon Draiseitls next contract is going to look like, and he is not even the best player... Maybe we let the ink be dry on Peteys contract ,before we say, he isn't worthy of tying NMs laces... As for beating the best, who says, we can't beat the best? Its a team sport, and while having the best players in world is an advantage, its not the only deciding factor... If so, why hasn't TO or Oilers won it yet? As an added bonus there is also tax advantage of playing south of the border... I think in a previous tread it was calculated the advantage was about $.7M for Mackinnons contract. Take that away from Peteys contract, its not just 1M difference... Finally, Petey plays for the Canucks, and he has earned his pay rise. MacKinnon plays for Avalanche, and I could care less if he is only $5 or $100M as it hs very little influence on the Canucks, but if you think that MacKinnons contract isn't going to be passed either next summer or the following 2 years, I'll say good luck... The Cap is rising and you mark my word, MacKinnons contract will soon be passed left, right and centre... Just like Crosbys was. The Nylander and Huberdeau contracts are on you... But Nylander is the sign that players will be wanting better contracts. Finally, Its pretty damn hard to be a stand out as a teenager, when you play on a team that suck ass for so long.... Look at what players like McD, McKinnon, Matthews etc have had to play with compared to Petey... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miss Korea Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 @spook007 Whatever Pettersson is being paid now, keep in mind he isn't going to reach his true point ceiling unless he consistently plays alongside elite linemates. #97 has Draisaitl. #29 has Rantanen. #34 had Marner, and now has Nylander. Rarely do we see only one forward pulling their weight on a line. But the reality is that unless we load up on a Lotto Line, #40 doesn't have great linemates to play with. Suter, Lafferty, Mikheyev... these aren't big guns. And given our current cap situation, it'll be near impossible to find more fitting replacements. So what we are seeing right now is largely what we'll get. The only hope is that he can make a bigger impact individually and do it with greater consistency. As for finding insane chemistry on 5v5, don't count on it. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) 26 minutes ago, Miss Korea said: @spook007 Whatever Pettersson is being paid now, keep in mind he isn't going to reach his true point ceiling unless he consistently plays alongside elite linemates. #97 has Draisaitl. #29 has Rantanen. #34 had Marner, and now has Nylander. Rarely do we see only one forward pulling their weight on a line. But the reality is that unless we load up on a Lotto Line, #40 doesn't have great linemates to play with. Suter, Lafferty, Mikheyev... these aren't big guns. And given our current cap situation, it'll be near impossible to find more fitting replacements. So what we are seeing right now is largely what we'll get. The only hope is that he can make a bigger impact individually and do it with greater consistency. As for finding insane chemistry on 5v5, don't count on it. I get that and agree.... The issue was saying how much MacKinnon has won, and how much his production is etc... If Petey has superstar line mates, he would also likely be higher in both numbers and production...and maybe in the conversation for personal trophies.. Hence, to get Petey to actually want to play with 'plugs' you have to pay him as well... If McD had to play with these players, he's ask for a trade... same with Matthews, and probably NM as well... Hopefully in a couple of years we'll have Hogs well established (Or a bigger player) and Lekkerimaki on Peteys wing, and then see his how he fares... What we have now (season stat wise) is likely going to be, what we'll get, until we are through the toughest of CAP penalty gone ie in 3 years time (unless we see some trades involving Garland or Mika)... Time line would likely fit with Lekkerimaki and Willander... And Petey being in his prime... I do believe Petey is still evolving, as he is still getting stronger, and that will help him improve... ie making even bigger impact individually and more importantly with more consistency... Edited March 16 by spook007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43isprime Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 45 minutes ago, spook007 said: Lets just start there right away... Who cares if Millers Contract goes 2 years beyond MacKinnons... Yeah right, sounds daft, doesn't it? Miller is paid 8M, does that mean MacKinnon isn't worth his contract? Or is MacKinnon paid for what has done only, and not because they hope, what he is about to do? What about McD Why did Oilers pay him $12.5M at such a young age? Because what they hoped he would do? same as Petey... By your account salaries wouldn't be rising because Crosby was paid $8.7M only... As I said before, MacKinnons contract is good for Avs, but that does not not mean Peteys contract is garbage...Some players out perform their contracts and some don't... again Miller is a great example... Lets see What Leon Draiseitls next contract is going to look like, and he is not even the best player... Maybe we let the ink be dry on Peteys contract ,before we say, he isn't worthy of tying NMs laces... As for beating the best, who says, we can't beat the best? Its a team sport, and while having the best players in world is an advantage, its not the only deciding factor... If so, why hasn't TO or Oilers won it yet? As an added bonus there is also tax advantage of playing south of the border... I think in a previous tread it was calculated the advantage was about $.7M for Mackinnons contract. Take that away from Peteys contract, its not just 1M difference... Finally, Petey plays for the Canucks, and he has earned his pay rise. MacKinnon plays for Avalanche, and I could care less if he is only $5 or $100M as it hs very little influence on the Canucks, but if you think that MacKinnons contract isn't going to be passed either next summer or the following 2 years, I'll say good luck... The Cap is rising and you mark my word, MacKinnons contract will soon be passed left, right and centre... Just like Crosbys was. The Nylander and Huberdeau contracts are on you... But Nylander is the sign that players will be wanting better contracts. Finally, Its pretty damn hard to be a stand out as a teenager, when you play on a team that suck ass for so long.... Look at what players like McD, McKinnon, Matthews etc have had to play with compared to Petey... Wait...are you suggesting that Miller is providing better value at 8m right now than MacKinnon is at 12.6m? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 4 hours ago, 43isprime said: MacKinnon's contract only just started this year. Are you trying to claim that MacKinnon and the Avs didn't anticipate the cap rising over the next 7 years when they signed it? The only thing that matters is that Pettersson and MacKinnon will be separated by only 1m for the next 7 years - that's 4 years beyond our Hughes window. At some point during the next 7 years, I'd bet 1m will be less than league minimum salary. That's how little of a difference 1m is. And who cares about the 2 year age difference when the respective contracts end when gulf between the two players is this massive? I'll say it again: MacKinnon had 3 runner-ups/finalists for the Hart, plus a Stanley Cup prior to signing that deal. He was an established, top echelon superstar. He's far and away the superior player no matter how these other posters have tried to do the comparison. The fact that he also happens to be in our conference makes the comparison that much more pertinent. Why not compare to Nylander? Same reason we don't say Pettersson's 11.6m looks great next to Huberdeau's 10.5m. To win the Cup, you have to beat the best, especially when it's in our conference. So the comparison has to be against the best. That's why. I gave my Beagle a toy hamburger. She loved that thing. Played with it daily. Even took it to her bed. It's nothing compared to your love of this rant. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 8 hours ago, Guntrix said: The McKinnon comparisons became predictable once Petey signed the new deal. Instead of burying our heads in the sand (the CDC way), I do think these types of analyses are important for the purpose of gauging where we stand in terms of value/cost. Yes, but not as a novel in the gdt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 8 hours ago, Guntrix said: The McKinnon comparisons became predictable once Petey signed the new deal. Instead of burying our heads in the sand (the CDC way), I do think these types of analyses are important for the purpose of gauging where we stand in terms of value/cost. I'm as hard on Petey as most here, but even I will cut him some slack for now since he's technically still on his $7.35M contract. Once he gets paid 11.6M, then we can analyze his cap value/cost. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
43isprime Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 12 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I gave my Beagle a toy hamburger. She loved that thing. Played with it daily. Even took it to her bed. It's nothing compared to your love of this rant. Once you find yourself resorting to ridicule over reason, it's probably time to take an extra second to think just a bit more deeply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammertime Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 (edited) 10 hours ago, spook007 said: Sure, and its not disliking Podz at all, but that line got owned v Avs, and don't want Petey to spend his talent in the D-zone... Only one way to find out I guess, but that was why I wanted Lindholm with Petey. Not that I disagree at all. I've just been perusing Pete's line combo's and deployments. On the games he's been successful and the ones he's struggled. https://moneypuck.com/player.htm?p=8480012 One thing I've noticed fairly consistently is the games where Pete has a greater ratio of D zone starts to O zone starts seem to be his best games. For example. VS En mass it seems and especially since the all star break Pete has better games when starting more shifts from the D zone. My theory is that Pete is better at creating offense off the rush than when he already has zone advantage. It may also be a reason the PP is flacid. Edited March 16 by Hammertime 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 9 minutes ago, 43isprime said: Once you find yourself resorting to ridicule over reason, it's probably time to take an extra second to think just a bit more deeply. Or calling people goofs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 10 minutes ago, 43isprime said: Once you find yourself resorting to ridicule over reason, it's probably time to take an extra second to think just a bit more deeply. I'm just poking you. But you're a bit obsessed on this point. OK lets say Petey is overpaid by 1 million right now. Who cares? what difference does it make to this teams core? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 14 hours ago, 43isprime said: You should try comparing their age 20-24 seasons (i.e., the ages at which Pettersson played his first 5 seasons save for his first month in the NHL)...not sure you'll like what you find given that two of those seasons had Mackinnon runner-up for the Hart Nate ^ Petey ^ What I notice is that when they both started out Nate was getting more assists and less goals than Petey. Petey had to do more on his own. Besides, we can compare later, after Petey's played the amount Nate has. You conveniently glanced over the fact that at this stage, Nate's played almost double the seasons Petey has and should be further ahead. He's got more experience and kicks at the can. Plus, look at the teammates they've had. You've used the "2 year" age difference but you don't factor in that Nate was expected to be better...he was a first overall pick. Petey's contract is none of anyone's business and you don't just line up those numbers to make a point. What Nate and Petey get paid has nothing to do with much other than their personal finance. Factors like what their team could afford and future needs, what their team valued them at in line with that, their ages, what their agents negotiated for, etc. Has Nate become a great player? Sure. But most of us don't care and that's somehow being lost in this novel. Not sure we need to blow....his horn here quite so loudly. And Petey's demonstrated some greatness of his own. Extracting only what he's doing now, when he's not lighting up the goal light (like he can) is cherry picking. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 23 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I'm just poking you. But you're a bit obsessed on this point. OK lets say Petey is overpaid by 1 million right now. Who cares? what difference does it make to this teams core? And we can't even say that because his contract has to play out before we know the true value in it. Using hindsight with Nate to compare against Petey...you can't use Nate's here and now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 2 minutes ago, -dlc- said: Nate ^ Petey ^ What I notice is that when they both started out Nate was getting more assists and less goals than Petey. Petey had to do more on his own. Besides, we can compare later, after Petey's played the amount Nate has. You conveniently glanced over the fact that at this stage, Nate's played almost double the seasons Petey has and should be further ahead. He's got more experience and kicks at the can. Plus, look at the teammates they've had. You've used the "2 year" age difference but you don't factor in that Nate was expected to be better...he was a first overall pick. Petey's contract is none of anyone's business and you don't just line up those numbers to make a point. What Nate and Petey get paid has nothing to do with much other than their personal finance. Factors like what their team could afford and future needs, what their team valued them at in line with that, their ages, what their agents negotiated for, etc. Has Nate become a great player? Sure. But most of us don't care and that's somehow being lost in this novel. Not sure we need to blow....his horn here quite so loudly. We have Miller and Petey for a combined 19.6. Eichel and Stone, 19.5. Colorado has Nate and Mike at 21.85. Draibaby and McDiver come in a 21. Seems to me we're in the ballpark of the price for locking down two top 6 C's. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 4 minutes ago, -dlc- said: And we can't even say that because his contract has to play out before we know the true value in it. Using hindsight with Nate to compare against Petey...you can't use Nate's here and now. we're locked in at good value for our top Cs. Obsessing over what seems to be maybe a current "overpay" by 1 mil seems unnecessary and tbh I don't know what the alternative is? We had the chance to lock up Petey, not Mac. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 Using the Hart is also something to address. When he was in the mix, he was 5 seasons in and beyond. Petey's just hitting that point and so we can't determine what the future holds. But the team paying him shows their level of confidence in him and his importance on this team. MacKinnon: picked first overall Petey: Picked 5th Also, look who Nate's played with. So maybe it matters too. FTR, he's got the same award as Petey and most valuable player nomination (Hart) has to also include the team that helps them get there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-dlc- Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 The body slam to the ice that Petey took has NOTHING on his dangerous play. #tougher #stronger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 8 hours ago, spook007 said: Hola amigo. Just a quick one here, but if there's a hit to the head is that not normally a 5min major? Fair enough if its not seen, but just surprised to see only a 2min penalty handed out for a hit to the head of Miller... PS. Good to see you back. Hey mate. Yes, it could have probably been a major in hindsight. However, this is just yet another example of the over-reacting on this site and then working everyone into a scathing referee witch hunt. If you watch the play honestly (I did at least 20 times today) you can clearly see Manson tries to square his body and lay a solid back of his body to body hit, in an attempt to separate Miller from the puck. You can also see in his reaction he is upset that Miller hit his head and is remorseful of the poorly timed hit. He actually doesn't initially even realize Miller hit his head. He was clearly aiming for the body. It wasn't malicious or targeted in any way but he needs to have better control of his actions. It was careless and ultimately unsafe. So yeah it probably should have been 5 in retrospect but it was pretty borderline. These are the types of plays that are subjective in real time and are sometimes called and sometimes not. This is the thing though we were up 2-0 ... we still got a PP, we sucked balls on the PP anyway. It didn't really change the game much. We still went up 3-0 later. In addition as MacIntyre pointed out in intermission if Miller lays on the ice it probably helps with the call. That's not on the referees though, that's just Miller not being a faker, he also wasn't hurt on the play. They should be able to go review that play on video to see exactly what happened though. The video rule should be changed. It's not like they in any way are in the practice of allowing heat shots against Canuck players. That's silly. This is a situation where as a fan I say "geez I think that should have been 5". Then it's over though and I move on. I don't need to take out an article in the Sun, or write 18 pages balling my eyes out about it in the PGT either. It had no bearing on the game anyway which should be the takeaway. Sorry for the Saturday morning essay. Hope your day is going well. Should be a fun one tonight. Cheers Spook! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
high flying Vee Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 Lack of playoff seasoning on display Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gawdzukes Posted March 16 Share Posted March 16 2 hours ago, Hammertime said: Not that I disagree at all. I've just been perusing Pete's line combo's and deployments. On the games he's been successful and the ones he's struggled. https://moneypuck.com/player.htm?p=8480012 One thing I've noticed fairly consistently is the games where Pete has a greater ratio of D zone starts to O zone starts seem to be his best games. For example. VS En mass it seems and especially since the all star break Pete has better games when starting more shifts from the D zone. My theory is that Pete is better at creating offense off the rush than when he already has zone advantage. It may also be a reason the PP is flacid. Great insight and the reason I come to these boards. That makes sense to me as well. I think he needs to be more engaged and feel relied on during the game. I also agree he is a great rush player and that's what scares the opposition and opens everything up. His speed and ability to make plays at speed is an elite skill. It wears the opponent down when you're more worried about the other team than scoring goals yourself. One other thing with Petey is his strengths in knocking pucks out of the air, anticipation on opposition passes, subtle body positioning and change of direction, and being in the right spots is elite. If he doesn't happen to get those takeaways and put the puck in the net his overall game can look rather lethargic. Another reason to get him more involved with defensive zone starts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.