-Vintage Canuck-

Elias Pettersson | #40 | C

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

What a guy. Back on the ice already after a few weeks off. He's going to bring us the Stanley Cup one day.

  • Like 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2020 at 12:59 AM, 250Integra said:

What a guy. Back on the ice already after a few weeks off. He's going to bring us the Stanley Cup one day.

Hopefully that kind of work ethic will instill a culture inside of the locker room. Not that our players aren't already good professionals. Having your best player do this goes a very long way for young teams. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I'm questioning the work ethic of our star, but anyone else wondering why there is ice at RA at this time?  And...why would he be working out there?  Isn't there any contractual issues that prevent players from interacting with coaches/using team practice facilities during the off season?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good 

11 hours ago, skategal said:

Not that I'm questioning the work ethic of our star, but anyone else wondering why there is ice at RA at this time?  And...why would he be working out there?  Isn't there any contractual issues that prevent players from interacting with coaches/using team practice facilities during the off season?  

Good point but I believe it's a case of the teams are not permitted to instruct or have then follow a work out plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if Benning has seriously considered trying to extend Petey and Hughes now.

 

It would give you some cost certainty going forward so you know what you can commit to in other contracts beyond this year.  You can also leverage their desire to have better line mates.  “Hey Petey, we REALLY want to re-sign Toffoli but can’t squeeze him in right now unless you can sign for $8 million or less” ... same with Hughes and Tanev.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Provost said:

I wonder if Benning has seriously considered trying to extend Petey and Hughes now.

 

It would give you some cost certainty going forward so you know what you can commit to in other contracts beyond this year.  You can also leverage their desire to have better line mates.  “Hey Petey, we REALLY want to re-sign Toffoli but can’t squeeze him in right now unless you can sign for $8 million or less” ... same with Hughes and Tanev.

 

 

I honestly don't want him to undermine their worth at all by pressuring them by tying in "other guys" as if their decision impacts anything other than their relationship with the team.  They're selfless players but I don't know that you should exploit that in any way when it comes down to their status and security.  Don't cut corners here or "guilt" them into anything.  Don't want them to have baggage involved with signing on the dotted line. 

 

Others?  Sure.  Petey/Quinn....hell no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

I honestly don't want him to undermine their worth at all by pressuring them by tying in "other guys" as if their decision impacts anything other than their relationship with the team.  They're selfless players but I don't know that you should exploit that in any way when it comes down to their status and security.  Don't cut corners here or "guilt" them into anything.  Don't want them to have baggage involved with signing on the dotted line. 

 

Others?  Sure.  Petey/Quinn....hell no.

Except for it is the truth and not manipulation.  If we have a $10 million per year cap hit for each of them looming, we can't sign really sign much of anyone beyond this year as our cap crunch next year is hellacious especially including a potential/likely ELC bonus hit of around $4 million pushed into that same year.

It can easily be tied to events out of the team's control so no blowback on their relationship.  We didn't foresee the pandemic flattening the cap, we didn't foresee the team being so far ahead so early, etc, etc.  We as an organization will commit to spending to the cap and trying to keep making our chances better, you are key pieces of the organization so partnering with us really gives us the best chance to have a perennial winner for years.  Gillis/Gilman employed this strategy in signing players and it worked, no one was ruffled by it at all, and to this day you hear the players from that era say with pride that they all worked together and with management to give the best chance to win.  They all left something on the table to ice a contender.

  • Hydration 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2020 at 6:50 AM, Mackcanuck said:

Petey being Petey!  :goat:

 

 

Still can't get over how EP looks like some nerdy high-school kid in that tweet (no offense to nerdy high school kids) but he's a legit NHL superstar! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/25/2020 at 6:13 AM, skategal said:

Not that I'm questioning the work ethic of our star, but anyone else wondering why there is ice at RA at this time?  And...why would he be working out there?  Isn't there any contractual issues that prevent players from interacting with coaches/using team practice facilities during the off season?  

Teams can leave their facilities open as part of the protocol for off-season training.  

https://media.nhl.com/public/news/14439

 

NEW YORK (Sept. 24, 2020) – The National Hockey League announced today the Protocol for Off-Season Training ahead of the 2020-21 season, which is effective for each Club at the conclusion of the 2020 Stanley Cup Final. Start dates for both Training Camp and the 2020-21 regular season have not yet been set.

 

The health and safety of all Players and Club personnel continue to be of top priority, and will dictate how the Protocol for Off-Season Training, and any progression thereafter, may evolve.

 

The Protocol, which is similar to the Phase 2 Protocol from the 2019-20 Return to Play plan, was agreed to by the NHL and National Hockey League Players’ Association. It was also developed with the input of both the NHL and the NHLPA’s respective medical, epidemiology and infectious disease experts as well as Club medical personnel.

 

As outlined in the attached Protocol for Off-Season Training, each Club can open its training facility in the Club’s home city or allow gatherings of small groups of Players to engage in individualized training activities on a volunteer basis.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, smokes said:

Time to give the man an "A"

I don't think we'll strip it from an existing alternate, but if Tanman leaves, Petey's a good candidate. I could see Miller getting it before Petey though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just looking deep at the currently permitted contract variability in the new CBA extension.  Folks have been talking about it as an absolute limit on the amount a contract can vary from start to finish.  I hadn't actually read the language before so didn't question it.

The ACTUAL language only pertains to FRONT LOADED contracts (where the average of the first half exceeds the average of the 2nd half).  In this flat cap/escrow world, we aren't like to see front-loaded contracts often at all.  Players and agents are going to want to push money to the end of the contract and avoid as much escrow as possible.  This is a unique situation.

CBA §50.7(a) amended to provide as follows: For all "Front-Loaded SPCs" (as defined below), the difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any immediately adjacent League Years of that SPC cannot exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the stated Player Salary and Bonuses of the first League Year of such Front-Loaded SPC. Additionally, under no circumstances may the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any League Year of a Front-Loaded SPC be less than Page 26 of 71 sixty (60) percent of the highest stated Player Salary and Bonuses in a League Year of that same Front-Loaded SPC.

The effect of this means to me that my assumption of a bridge deal being preferable to agents could be wrong.  A max term deal allows A LOT more flexibility to push money into later years and effectively increase the take home on those dollars by 20% (once escrow is mostly out of the picture).

The "non front loaded" language just says that the raise/decrease from consecutive year to year can't be more than 50% of the lower of their salary/bonuses of the first two years of the contract.  It doesn't say anything about how any year can't be more than XX% higher or lower than any other year.

If I am reading that right, that could mean an 8 year contract with almost all paid out in years 5-8.

$4 million in year one
$4 million in year two
$5 million in year three
$7 million in year four
$9 million in year five
$11 million in year six
$13 million in year seven
$15 million in year eight
= $8.5 AAV

A structure like that escapes millions in escrow in the early compared with a bridge deal that doesn't have the ability to take advantage of backloading that much.  The agent would be betting that escrow is dramatically reduced or eliminated in the later years of the contract when all the new TV money is coming in and the players have paid back the owners what they will owe.

 

This is probably behind the Pietrangelo walking away from negotiations when his camp said that it wasn’t the AAV, but the “structure” that was the problem and St. Louis not willing to move on that.  Obviously teams will (oddly) want to front load star contracts now as they get 20% back right away and it will cost them millions less in real dollars over the contract.
 

Edited by Provost
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Provost said:

Players and agents are going to want to push money to the end of the contract and avoid as much escrow as possible.  This is a unique situation.

Really, really interesting observation!

  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

Really, really interesting observation!

I think we knew they would likely want to push money later... I just didn’t know the CBA allowed it with the new rules.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/24/2020 at 9:13 PM, skategal said:

Not that I'm questioning the work ethic of our star, but anyone else wondering why there is ice at RA at this time?  And...why would he be working out there?  Isn't there any contractual issues that prevent players from interacting with coaches/using team practice facilities during the off season?  

I think Bettman said they have to treat this off-season differently in regards with training with COVID. We might not play till December/January and non playoff teams last year would have gone a long time away from quality training and hockey. 
 

It’s good to see Petey taking advantage. Hope that other players are like OJ. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Provost said:

I was just looking deep at the currently permitted contract variability in the new CBA extension.  Folks have been talking about it as an absolute limit on the amount a contract can vary from start to finish.  I hadn't actually read the language before so didn't question it.

The ACTUAL language only pertains to FRONT LOADED contracts (where the average of the first half exceeds the average of the 2nd half).  In this flat cap/escrow world, we aren't like to see front-loaded contracts often at all.  Players and agents are going to want to push money to the end of the contract and avoid as much escrow as possible.  This is a unique situation.

CBA §50.7(a) amended to provide as follows: For all "Front-Loaded SPCs" (as defined below), the difference between the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any immediately adjacent League Years of that SPC cannot exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the stated Player Salary and Bonuses of the first League Year of such Front-Loaded SPC. Additionally, under no circumstances may the stated Player Salary and Bonuses in any League Year of a Front-Loaded SPC be less than Page 26 of 71 sixty (60) percent of the highest stated Player Salary and Bonuses in a League Year of that same Front-Loaded SPC.

The effect of this means to me that my assumption of a bridge deal being preferable to agents could be wrong.  A max term deal allows A LOT more flexibility to push money into later years and effectively increase the take home on those dollars by 20% (once escrow is mostly out of the picture).

The "non front loaded" language just says that the raise/decrease from consecutive year to year can't be more than 50% of the lower of their salary/bonuses of the first two years of the contract.  It doesn't say anything about how any year can't be more than XX% higher or lower than any other year.

If I am reading that right, that could mean an 8 year contract with almost all paid out in years 5-8.

$4 million in year one
$4 million in year two
$5 million in year three
$7 million in year four
$9 million in year five
$11 million in year six
$13 million in year seven
$15 million in year eight
= $8.5 AAV

A structure like that escapes millions in escrow in the early compared with a bridge deal that doesn't have the ability to take advantage of backloading that much.  The agent would be betting that escrow is dramatically reduced or eliminated in the later years of the contract when all the new TV money is coming in and the players have paid back the owners what they will owe.

 

This is probably behind the Pietrangelo walking away from negotiations when his camp said that it wasn’t the AAV, but the “structure” that was the problem and St. Louis not willing to move on that.  Obviously teams will (oddly) want to front load star contracts now as they get 20% back right away and it will cost them millions less in real dollars over the contract.
 

 

$4 million in year one            2020/21       20% escrow
$4 million in year two            2021/22        14%-18% dependent on revenue
$5 million in year three         2022/23        10%
$7 million in year four           2023/24         6%  thereafter
$9 million in year five           2024/25              
$11 million in year six          2025/26
$13 million in year seven                    automatic extension or renegotiation  
$15 million in year eight

 

Escrow drops to 6% as of 2023/24.  It's more likely going to be a bell shape on long term deals.  Less at the start but also at the end of the contract.  Players are going to want to guard themselves from a buyout.  Don't see teams wanting to pay that high signing bonuses towards the end as it does not allow for a buyout.  Would think that it's still more advantageous for players to get the bulk of their contract during their productive years.  They will likely structure the contract in a way where a buyout does not become a better option than letting the player play out the rest of his contract.  

 

Also 2026/27 could be an automatic extension or a renegotiation.  There isn't a fix escrow for that year so could be another reason why players might prefer less on those later years.   

 

In event of an Extension Year, (i) the Escrow Percentage for the 2026/27 League Year shall not exceed 9% and (ii) there shall be no year-over-year increase to the Upper Limit as compared to the Upper Limit for the 2025/26 League Year. Subject to the limit described above, the Escrow Percentage for the 2026/27 League Year shall be set with the goal of ensuring that the Escrow Account for the 2026/27 League Year is sufficient to pay off the remaining Escrow Balance plus any estimated Overage for the 2026/27 League Year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AlwaysACanuckFan said:

 

Petey still in Vancouver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.