Elias Pettersson | Quinn Hughes - Contract Discussion Thread

[DeNiro]

29 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Barry actually laughs when Dhaliwal brings up Loui. What a dick. 

Yea hilarious that your client has been paid 33 million to mail it in. Real respectable.

 

Also I love how he says we’ll have a discussion before the buyout window and see if that’s the way to go. Like he has any say in it.

 

There won’t be any discussion if they decide to buy him out. It will be Benning saying thanks for nothing.

[JM_]

15 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Yea hilarious that your client has been paid 33 million to mail it in. Real respectable.

 

Also I love how he says we’ll have a discussion before the buyout window and see if that’s the way to go. Like he has any say in it.

 

There won’t be any discussion if they decide to buy him out. It will be Benning saying thanks for nothing.

I don't want him bought out and see his salary on the books for even more time. 

 

I think the CBA allows it, we should loan him to the NYI Bridgeport team and get Ladd into Abby. I'm sure we can flip NYI a 7th round pick for their trouble for "future considerations". 

[wallstreetamigo]

6 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

lol Barzal is carrying his team to the semi final? u mean pageau and defense/goalie?? i like how you pump Barzal's tire and then belittle Pettersson who have a higher points per game and plays good defense and works hard on his backcheck, and a superior scorer.. and then you'll prolly say Pettersson have better linemates blah blah.. pettersson put up pretty much the same stats in his rookie year as he did with JT miller.. so no Miller didn't make Pettersson better other than he helps him with the faceoff.. Barzal plays with 2 perennial 20 goal scorer on his line in Anders Lee and Jordan Erbele both been consistent 20 goal scorer before Barzal was even there. Barzal is not the only good player on the islander contrary to believe.. they have 5 20 goal scorers on their team unlike the canucks.. Islander is in the semi's because of trotz coaching and goaltending.. 1000% not because of Barzal carrying his team lol.. and it's not like Pettersson didn't "carry" his team to a play in series win first round upset over the defending champs and game 7 against a top 2 stanley cup favorites last year. 

 

other than his first season where he got a ton of PP time with tavares and finished the 85 points in 82 games... he's been on pace for 66-68 points every other season.. a far lower clip then Pettersson.. but whatever Pettersson is at best no better than Barzal lol despite every stats is in pettersson's favor..

 

as for Pettersson missing so much time? other than this season where he injured his wrist on a harmless play.. you can blame him for any of the other injury?? getting picked up and slammed to the ice by mathesson? the can opener by kotkaniemi?? those are more like attempts to injured more than a normal injury coz he pulled or tweaked something lol. he missed a grand total of 12 games in his 1st 2 season before this one 11 of those came from the mathesson and kotkaniemi cheap shot.. i hardly call that injury prone. 

 

no one cares what you or i think pettersson is worth.. there will be teams out there that have the cap space. it's not out of the realm of possibility someone will take a gamble on pettersson and offer 8-8.5 for 5+ years just like Montreal did with Aho.. all it cost is a 1st 2nd and a 3rd.. most 2nd and 3rd don't work out in the NHL anyways.. and more likely than not ur 1st will not be half the player Pettersson is. Benning better get this done one way or another before they get to the offer sheet period. Kraken would be a prime candidate that would consider an offer sheet.. getting a superstar in Pettersson and the 2nd overall pick to start ur team off?? cap wouldn't even be an issue with them.. and they'll be loaded with draft picks from side deals from other teams.

Maybe its possible that both Barzal and Petterssen are fantastic young players. Dragging one down and minimizing their play diesnt raise the other one up. 

 

If I were the Kraken I would absolutely consider an offer sheet for EP if Benning lets him twist in the wind long enough. Its no lose for them. They get EP for pretty cheap or they force the Canucks to spend more cap than they want to in order to keep him.

[zimmy]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Maybe its possible that both Barzal and Petterssen are fantastic young players. Dragging one down and minimizing their play diesnt raise the other one up. 

 

If I were the Kraken I would absolutely consider an offer sheet for EP if Benning lets him twist in the wind long enough. Its no lose for them. They get EP for pretty cheap or they force the Canucks to spend more cap than they want to in order to keep him.

are you anticipating the twisting in the wind or are you inferring that the twisting is already underway? Is it your view that JBGM is a habitual wind twister? Have you ignored evidence to the contrary that he avoids twisting from time to time (Pearson, Demko). Your "clean slate" is a bit muddy I think.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, zimmy said:

are you anticipating the twisting in the wind or are you inferring that the twisting is already underway? Is it your view that JBGM is a habitual wind twister? Have you ignored evidence to the contrary that he avoids twisting from time to time (Pearson, Demko). Your "clean slate" is a bit muddy I think.

I am not anticipating anything one way or the other. Simply saying its a possibility. There are lots of examples of him dragging things out and increasing the risk. And others where he didnt. 

 

You also ignore the fact that its not just up to Benning if a deal gets done early. EP and his agent could not like what they are being offered and hold out to see if an offer sheet is presented. 

 

As a side note, if there was any player Benning should have waited to sign, it was Pearson. Gave out a prime deal and used up an expansion spot unnecessarily on a player in the middle of a serious regression. I dont count that as a plus for Benning.

[86Viking]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Barry actually laughs when Dhaliwal brings up Loui. What a dick. 

Cause he knows JB is stuck with him unless he pays up to trade him or the worse move is to buy him out

[wallstreetamigo]

53 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Yea hilarious that your client has been paid 33 million to mail it in. Real respectable.

 

Also I love how he says we’ll have a discussion before the buyout window and see if that’s the way to go. Like he has any say in it.

 

There won’t be any discussion if they decide to buy him out. It will be Benning saying thanks for nothing.

As frustrating as Eriksson has been, I dont blame him at all for not terminating his contract and giving up on millions of dollars. Literally no one here would do so in the sane situation.

 

The ire directed at Eriksson is deserved for how he has played. But the ire for giving him such a terrible contract in the first place is squarely on Benning.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Cause he knows JB is stuck with him unless he pays up to trade him or the worse move is to buy him out

nice. So how's that helping Barry's younger clients? 

[86Viking]

8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As a side note, if there was any player Benning should have waited to sign, it was Pearson. Gave out a prime deal and used up an expansion spot unnecessarily on a player in the middle of a serious regression. I dont count that as a plus for Benning.

This is 100% correct and to me (maybe others too) it showed me that JB is still making poor GM decisions how many years into his tenure...too many is the correct answer. We should have told Pearson we like you and are interested in keeping you but we want to wait till after expansion to leave open as many spots as possible for us to make trades PRE expansion draft to try and improve our team and then we can talk contract with you. But after how last off season went down, I don't think JB can juggle that sort of thing...he couldn't get away from the OEL talks to see what Tanev or Toffoli would have signed here for PRE FA!

[86Viking]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As frustrating as Eriksson has been, I dont blame him at all for not terminating his contract and giving up on millions of dollars. Literally no one here would do so in the sane situation.

 

The ire directed at Eriksson is deserved for how he has played. But the ire for giving him such a terrible contract in the first place is squarely on Benning.

Bang on! guaranteed contracts are a bad thing in a cap world as they can totally screw the team over. It will never happen but the way the NFL contracts work while looking like huge $$ upfront there is a base guaranteed amount and then a bunch of incentives that must be reached to get the full amount. There have been very few NFL contracts that have been fully guaranteed

[86Viking]

4 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

nice. So how's that helping Barry's younger clients? 

Just because a player has the same agent does NOT mean that agent takes his OTHER clients previous dealings with the team into consideration. Each player contract is dealt on it's own, the only time an agent SHOULD have more than 1 players contract discussed at a time is if you are trying to do near identical contracts like Chicago did with Toews and Kane.

 

But hey, that is just how I think it should go

[JM_]

10 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As frustrating as Eriksson has been, I dont blame him at all for not terminating his contract and giving up on millions of dollars. Literally no one here would do so in the sane situation.

 

The ire directed at Eriksson is deserved for how he has played. But the ire for giving him such a terrible contract in the first place is squarely on Benning.

other players have done it.

 

Yes ire is owed for Loui's part in the deal. He's taken 32 million in part with the understanding of good faith that there would have been some good return. Its been a disaster, no one can deny that. 

 

If Loui had the integrity of a Naslund, e.g., he'd terminate and let Barry go get him a 35+ deal with performance bonuses. 

 

Goodwill plays a big part in all contracts, and Loui has not lived up to that part of his deal. 

[JM_]

6 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Just because a player has the same agent does NOT mean that agent takes his OTHER clients previous dealings with the team into consideration. Each player contract is dealt on it's own, the only time an agent SHOULD have more than 1 players contract discussed at a time is if you are trying to do near identical contracts like Chicago did with Toews and Kane.

 

But hey, that is just how I think it should go

sure, that makes sense. And if we miss the playoffs again, I'm sure Loui can take Petey out for a nice lunch somewhere. 

[wallstreetamigo]

14 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

other players have done it.

 

Yes ire is owed for Loui's part in the deal. He's taken 32 million in part with the understanding of good faith that there would have been some good return. Its been a disaster, no one can deny that. 

 

If Loui had the integrity of a Naslund, e.g., he'd terminate and let Barry go get him a 35+ deal with performance bonuses. 

 

Goodwill plays a big part in all contracts, and Loui has not lived up to that part of his deal. 

Neither have the Canucks though. Eriksson was really never utilized to his strengths from day 1. It was obvious to some he wasnt the right fit when he was signed based on how Boston utilized him to get the most out of him.

 

The whole idea of guaranteed contracts is that the player has no obligation to terminate simply because the team wants him to.

 

So your theory is that Eriksson signed the contract with the goal of not playing well and simply collecting a paycheque? The fact he didnt fit and didnt play well is the risk that comes with a long term guaranteed contract.

 

Look at how the Canucks have treated Eriksson though on the flip side of that. Its been a gong show on both sides.

 

Eriksson and Benning signed a contract. Saying Eriksson has no integrity because he wont let Benning off the hook isnt really fair.

Edited June 16, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[DeNiro]

27 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

As frustrating as Eriksson has been, I dont blame him at all for not terminating his contract and giving up on millions of dollars. Literally no one here would do so in the sane situation.

 

The ire directed at Eriksson is deserved for how he has played. But the ire for giving him such a terrible contract in the first place is squarely on Benning.

No one here has 10’s of millions of dollars in the bank so that doesn’t mean much to compare him to the average person.

 

Walking away from 3 when you just made 33 in the last 5 years wouldn’t be that tough.

 

They both share equal blame. He is a professional athlete that gets paid to perform at a certain level. He didn’t even come close to reaching that level. In the real world he would have been fired for his performance.

[wallstreetamigo]

5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

No one here has 10’s of millions of dollars in the bank so that doesn’t mean much to compare him to the average person.

 

Walking away from 3 when you just made 33 in the last 5 years wouldn’t be that tough.

 

They both share equal blame. He is a professional athlete that gets paid to perform at a certain level. He didn’t even come close to reaching that level. In the real world he would have been fired for his performance.

Thats why the nhlpa wanted guaranteed contracts though. And they got them. So suggesting a player owes the team to opt out of his contract is not realistic. 

 

If Eriksson had become a consistent 100 point player would you be saying the team should let him opt out of his contract so that he could earn 7 or 8 million instead? Of course not. 

 

The risk with guaranteed contracts cuts both ways.

 

In the real world Benning would have been fired too for terrible financial management.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Bertuzzipunch]

8 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Neither have the Canucks though. Eriksson was really never utilized to his strengths from day 1. It was obvious to some he wasnt the right fit when he was signed based on how Boston utilized him to get the most out of him.

 

The whole idea of guaranteed contracts is that the player has no obligation to terminate simply because the team wants him to.

 

So your theory is that Eriksson signed the contract with the goal of not playing well and simply collecting a paycheque? The fact he didnt fit and didnt play well is the risk that comes with a long term guaranteed contract.

 

Look at how the Canucks have treated Eriksson though on the flip side of that. Its been a gong show on both sides.

 

Eriksson and Benning signed a contract. Saying Eriksson has no integrity because he wont let Benning off the hook isnt really fair.

You defend erikkson yet think quinn is a risk lmfao i dont think anyone should listen to you.

[Guest]

Loui would show integrity and respect for his own time by walking away from the last year.  
 

I’m not surprised that he hasn’t done it earlier but at this point with 33 out of 36 million in the bank, I would take a year off instead of toiling away in the AHL. 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Bertuzzipunch said:

You defend erikkson yet think quinn is a risk lmfao i dont think anyone should listen to you.

I am not an Eriksson fan. I would love to see him opt out of his contract. And I am not defending him. I am defending the process that was agreed to in the CBA around guaranteed contracts. Dont want that risk? Dont sign that contract.

[Bertuzzipunch]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

I am not an Eriksson fan. I would love to see him opt out of his contract. And I am not defending him. I am defending the process that was agreed to in the CBA around guaranteed contracts. Dont want that risk? Dont sign that contract.