Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Elias Pettersson | Quinn Hughes - Contract Discussion Thread

Rate this topic


Bertuzzipunch

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

I'm ok with that. He's got 5 years left here.  I think we can win a cup by then and then ship him out if he doesnt want to be here

so after 1 year his cap's gonna jump to 7-8mil? he ain't getting 5mil in arbritration. we can afford that if EP signs a 10mil offer sheet?

Edited by wai_lai416
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

so after 1 year his cap's gonna jump to 7-8mil? we can afford that if EP signs a 10mil offer sheet?

It will only jump if arbitration sees fit

I am ok with paying market value if thats the case because that means he would have earned it.

I'm not ok with backing up the Brink truck for a high scoring d-man who is a disaster in his own zone.

 

In fact its great news if its 7-8m after arb becasue we have a pretty great player then.

At that point, we can trade someone and make room

 

Also a 1 year QO is fine.  Next year Luongo recapture is off the books too.

We have Boeser to sign but sending this type of message might actually be good and set precedence for Boeser's negotiation too.

 

 

Edited by CanucksJay
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Benning needs to be fired on the spot if he gives Hughes any contract that's 5 years in length.

Why is that? I have no issue with giving term to either one of these guys. They are fantastic players and are going to have their best years yet, I'd certainly suggest.

 

As for dollars, if they squeeze every cent in a manner that keeps the team from being otherwise competitive (see: Toronto) then that's a problem. But I'd do term for a *reasonable* aav. I'll say it again - I'm wary of the ballooned contracts we've seen lately, and these GMs are willingly hamstringing their respective teams.

 

It still think it makes sense to sign one to term, the other to bridge. Once the bridge is up, we have more $ off the books, a higher cap, and a couple expiring contracts.

 

Just get it done. I've wasted too much time constantly searching for news.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kloubek said:

Why is that? I have no issue with giving term to either one of these guys. They are fantastic players and are going to have their best years yet, I'd certainly suggest.

 

As for dollars, if they squeeze every cent in a manner that keeps the team from being otherwise competitive (see: Toronto) then that's a problem. But I'd do term for a *reasonable* aav. I'll say it again - I'm wary of the ballooned contracts we've seen lately, and these GMs are willingly hamstringing their respective teams.

 

It still think it makes sense to sign one to term, the other to bridge. Once the bridge is up, we have more $ off the books, a higher cap, and a couple expiring contracts.

 

Just get it done. I've wasted too much time constantly searching for news.

The issue isn't it being long-term, it's walking either directly to UFA without buying any extra years.  I don't care what the salary is; a structure like that is simply unacceptable and any GM that accepts it is an absolute moron.

Edited by King Heffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“We have a good relationship,” Benning told Sportsnet. “There’s no angry sides. We’re just trying to work through it to figure out how to make everybody happy."

 

Let's all gear down and have a little faith. It's a negotiation, and I'm sure they understand the weight of this for the team going forward

Edited by JoshuaGuy
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

The issue isn't it being long-term, it's walking either directly to UFA without buying any extra years.  I don't care what the salary is; a structure like that is simply unacceptable and any GM that accepts it is an absolute moron.

What if its 5 years at a really good price?

Doesn't that give us a 5 year window?

And who knows, maybe after winning 2 cups here, he might want to stay.

Maybe Jack and Luke arent as good and it might actually be easier for us to acquire the 2 in a trade (prospect and picks).  Maybe that forces Hughes hands to sign another team friendly deal along with his brothers to stay and win more cups

 

So many things can happen in 5 years

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JoshuaGuy said:

“We have a good relationship,” Benning told Sportsnet. “There’s no angry sides. We’re just trying to work through it to figure out how to make everybody happy."

 

Let's all gear down and have a little faith. It's a negotiation, and I'm sure they understand the weight of this for the team going forward

you sir are the voice of reason

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

What if its 5 years at a really good price?

Doesn't that give us a 5 year window?

And who knows, maybe after winning 2 cups here, he might want to stay.

Maybe Jack and Luke arent as good and it might actually be easier for us to acquire the 2 in a trade (prospect and picks).  Maybe that forces Hughes hands to sign another team friendly deal along with his brothers to stay and win more cups

 

So many things can happen in 5 years

I don't care what the price is.  That length is absolutely idiotic and should be a non-starter; either less or more years.   Just because Kyle Dumbass bent over for Matthews doesn't mean other GMs should follow his mistake.

Edited by King Heffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, JoshuaGuy said:

“We have a good relationship,” Benning told Sportsnet. “There’s no angry sides. We’re just trying to work through it to figure out how to make everybody happy."

 

Let's all gear down and have a little faith. It's a negotiation, and I'm sure they understand the weight of this for the team going forward

 

The thing that stumps me is there doesn't seem to be any animosity between the team & the agents. If there were fundamental agreements on the kind of deal (term wise) and just a massive gap that would've likely gotten out by now.

 

Maybe the players side is taking this to the wire strategically to maximize the $$$ they may get. 

 

Or maybe they both want long term/similar contracts & that's thrown a wrench into it given we can't go long term with both.

 

The speculation of whether Benning would trade someone to make room may not have come out of nowhere. Perhaps they both want a long term contract now and are having trouble coming to grips with different contracts. Makes sense since they are close friends. I think Drance mentioned a key to this was that the contracts can't look drastically different & obviously that's an issue for us. 

 

Edited by Smashian Kassian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

I don't care what the price is.  That length is absolutely idiotic and should be a non-starter.   Just because Kyle Dumbass bent over for Matthews doesn't mean other GMs should follow his mistake.

I'm usually in aggreance with you but everything has a price.

If hughes wants UFA that badly that he signs a 5x5.   I would be ok with that.  That give us more room to get better players to try win a cup.

In the 5th year, we can try to re-sign him or trade him.

During the 5 years we can even try acquiring his brothers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, CanucksJay said:

I'm usually in aggreance with you but everything has a price.

If hughes wants UFA that badly that he signs a 5x5.   I would be ok with that.  That give us more room to get better players to try win a cup.

In the 5th year, we can try to re-sign him or trade him.

During the 5 years we can even try acquiring his brothers

I still wouldn't do it.  If he wants UFA that badly he can sit and make $0, or he can sign something reasonable.  Benning should absolutely not bend on this whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

I still wouldn't do it.  If he wants UFA that badly he can sit and make $0, or he can sign something reasonable.  Benning should absolutely not bend on this whatsoever.

If he wants 5 years that bad, the money is lower and zero trade protection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, King Heffy said:

I still wouldn't do it.  If he wants UFA that badly he can sit and make $0, or he can sign something reasonable.  Benning should absolutely not bend on this whatsoever.

So if not 5 years, what is a good long term deal? 8 years?

What if the options were 5x5 or 8x8 ?

If I was JB, I would want the extra 3m for 5 years in capsapce to build a cup champion no?

 

Anyway, Hughes wont ever agree to 5x5 but I waas just hypotheically speaking.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoshuaGuy said:

If he wants 5 years that bad, the money is lower and zero trade protection. 

I dont think RFAs get trade protection anyway but trading him would be low value as he can sign wherever as a UFA as soon as season is done that year...

Maybe the rght deal for a cup calibre team at the TDL. But then again, if the Canucks arent a cup contender in 5 years, we messed up somehow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

So if not 5 years, what is a good long term deal? 8 years?

What if the options were 5x5 or 8x8 ?

If I was JB, I would want the extra 3m for 5 years in capsapce to build a cup champion no?

 

Anyway, Hughes wont ever agree to 5x5 but I waas just hypotheically speaking.

 

 

 

8x8 is obviously better. 

Edited by King Heffy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

It will only jump if arbitration sees fit

I am ok with paying market value if thats the case because that means he would have earned it.

I'm not ok with backing up the Brink truck for a high scoring d-man who is a disaster in his own zone.

 

In fact its great news if its 7-8m after arb becasue we have a pretty great player then.

At that point, we can trade someone and make room

 

Also a 1 year QO is fine.  Next year Luongo recapture is off the books too.

We have Boeser to sign but sending this type of message might actually be good and set precedence for Boeser's negotiation too.

 

 

not really he would earn market value based on points alone not for his defense. if he was to say improve on his defense somehow and put up those points? we could be looking at like a 8.5-9mil arbitration which again we can't afford. arbitrators are dumb they'll look at stats only and if he is close to +/- 0 he'll get a big payday regardless of whether he was actually good or not defensively. they ain't gonna look and see whether he was sheltered etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...