dougieL

Best of luck with the new forum! I've had a great time here, but think it's time to move on.

I think it will become clear this season that we should have traded him instead of signing him.

We're going to regret this contract big time.

I've been wondering this for years. Posted something about it a few years ago but people seemed to not place great importance on colors matching...

Thanks...I thought I saw that too somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it meant it was actually a one-year deal.

Anyone know how long the contract is for?

Well OP did say forget about the contract - but yeah, if you did factor that in, it's a no-brainer that it's Jack, and it's not even close.

For all those saying it's Pettersson by a mile, remember that Jack is two years younger. How much had Pettersson accomplished two years ago? I love Pettersson, and I think he's more solid defensively (for now). But Jack looks more offensively dynamic to me (admittedly I've watched way more of Pettersson than of Hughes). But either way, there's no telling where Jack will be two years from now. Who knows - maybe Pettersson absolutely takes off this season. No one would like to see that more than me. I love the guy. But again, keep in mind that Jack has two years to catch up.

Wait...Calder trophy has zero bearing on trade value at this point in their careers... Second, it's true that if Pettersson joins NJ, he'd probably score more points, mostly because he'd be playing on the same team as Jack. Similarly, if Jack joins the Canucks, he'd probably score more points, mostly because he'd be playing on the same team as Pettersson...or do you mean if Pettersson took Jack's place on the NJ team, he'd score 120pts? I'd probably agree with you that Pettersson is more solid defensively at this point, though remember that Jack is 2 years younger. I could see a world though, where at their peaks, Pettersson is still the more complete player. But Jack is so young that I think it's hard to predict at this point. But I still come back to...Jack's cap hit is only 8m. I highly doubt we'd get Pettersson for anywhere near 8.

Remember that Jack is locked up at one of the most efficient deals in the NHL. His trade value is through the roof. Pettersson will presumably be looking for a deal that is way more lucrative than Jack's. Even if you think Pettersson is a better player (which I think is debatable), Jack's actual trade value is much higher simply because of the contract. Then even if you think Jack and Pettersson are a wash (which they aren't), then why would NJ trade Luke for Hoglander, Boeser (50% retained), 2nd round pick? We'd have to include Willander and multiple unprotected 1st round picks for NJ to even sniff at it.

I hope fans can show class. We cheered for Bo when he was a Canuck. As far as I can tell, he worked hard and did his job well as player and as captain - he doesn't all of a sudden become a piece of crap just because he's wearing a different uniform. He didn't screw us over or anything - we got good value for him in the trade. He had to do what he thought was right for him and his family. Let's respect that and be respectful.

I'd be more concerned about our captain being respected by players and officials around the league. Whether or not he scares people is not particularly important in my eyes. Why do you assume Hughes lacks fire?

Agree - I just think they could have easily made that point without saying what they did.

I think @BMorrison 7's point (which I completely agree with) is why repeat the statement over and over that "any one of Pettersson, Miller, or Demko could have been captain"? It almost makes it sound like they picked Hughes' name out of a hat containing the names of Hughes, Pettersson, Miller, and Demko. The very first time Tocchet spoke, he literally says "it could have easily been one of those guys, Quinn knows that." That is absolutely unnecessary. And to include Demko in that statement - that he could have easily been captain - given how poorly it worked out for Luongo as captain (no fault to Luongo at all), it's just idiotic. It's the day they're announcing Hughes as captain. There were so many other ways to make it clear that the other players are part of the leadership group without saying that "they could have easily been the captain".

They literally said any one of Miller, Pettersson, and Demko could have been captain.

Agree. And Demko could have been captain??? Did they actually think that was a viable option???

Absolutely the right choice. Couldn't be happier for the team and for Hughes. Well-deserved.

He said in his presser that he hasn't drawn on the Sedin's much for advice so far during his time here, but that he will. It seems he's been doing absolutely great without them. I hope this was just something he was told to say. I really hope he continues ahead the way he has, forge his own way as captain, and be a better one than Henrik was. I see no reason and no need for every Canucks captain after the Sedin's to be advised by them.

Thanks - that's what I was most interested in, actually - whether there was precedent for building beneath existing structures. Did they have to shut down Brentwood Mall for it?

I can see that point of view. I'd point to Edmonton's arena as an example though. Obviously a very different situation, but they built a practice rink right beside the arena. Much easier to do, of course, than trying to build one below an existing arena, but they clearly thought it was worth the millions to put the practice rink there.

Why do you seem so irritated...I was just throwing an idea out and asking a few questions. It reminds of when Holden Caulfield was in a cab and asked the driver where the ducks go in the winter when the lagoon in Central Park freezes over. The cab driver got all sore at him for no reason and basically told Holden to buzz off... Anyway...I indeed don't know anything about zoning bylaws in Vancouver, but I also didn't know from where you got your timeline estimates, which is why I asked. Even so, it seems to me they'd need to get a similar permit no matter where they built (below Rogers or elsewhere), unless they renovate an existing structure. I suppose that's where the SFU option comes in, but that is a horrendous idea. I wonder by how much players would even prefer the SFU option to the current arrangement, or if they would prefer it at all.

Yeah definitely agree - never said it would be easy to do. But if the options are 1) build a rink in SFU for relatively cheap, 2) buy new land to build a facility, or 3) build one beneath Rogers, I feel like (3) is not completely ridiculous given how desirable the outcome would be for the players (practice rink right where they play their games), how expensive (2) would be, and what a terrible option (1) seems to be. I guess this relates to my initial question...has there been precedent anywhere for adding a structure beneath an existing structure? I honestly can't imagine that it hasn't been done before (e.g., adding additional levels of parking), and I wonder if the above structure would have to be shutdown for that long. I mean, couldn't you build additional temporary supports while you excavate below?

BTW...I suspect Petey would prefer having to park across the street over having to drive 30mins each way to and from practice at SFU...

As I said, build it below the parkade. As I mentioned, there is a building near Rogers that has a parkade that goes a few levels further below ground than the parkade at Rogers. I'm not sure where the 4-5 year estimate comes from, but that seems to be at least equal to the amount of time the Canucks have spent trying to decide on where to build it. If they had taken action 4-5 years ago, maybe it would be approved by now

There is a parkade below the rink. You'd build it below the parkade. I'm kind of spitballing here, but I'm sure there is precedent for adding a structure beneath an existing structure. There are buildings near Rogers that have parkades that extend farther below ground than the parkade at Rogers, so I would imagine the depth is not an issue. I agree that Aquilini most likely would have looked into it. I'm wondering whether it's a cost or feasibility issue. Obviously, building it at SFU would be much cheaper than building it below Rogers Arena, as it would be far less complex of an operation.