As you say, it really doesn’t matter. I don’t believe they can afford to go long term on either deal right now, at least not without moving out Myers. Two bridge deals, hopefully that expire in different years so we don’t have to do this same thing again in 3 years:
- 1970vintage

They can afford it but they are putting a choke hold on the team if the cap crawls up year to year or stays flat.

I think teams like Oilers Avs and about another eight to ten teams have crippled their future .

They can afford it but they are putting a choke hold on the team if the cap crawls up year to year or stays flat.

I think teams like Oilers Avs and about another eight to ten teams have crippled their future .
- VANTEL

I don’t believe they can afford 6+ year deals. It would take them past the $16m they have to spend. I guess we’ll see.

Remember the good ol' days when the annual average salary came down in a long term deal? Now it significantly goes up for term...

I love the narrative that Pettersson “isn’t durable”. It’s just as good as “Benning is a good General Manager”
- 1970vintage

Personally I like Jim Benning but honestly he is not a great GM imo. He has his moments and he did good this offseason. Fans are going to love Garland who is super nifty with a nose for the net. OEL hopefully gets new life because he has not been anything special the last couple years. As for Petey the guy has skill coming out of his butt but man I worry about him getting killed out there. He really needs to add some pounds and strength or he will continue to get manhandled and hurt. Petey is no Svechnikov physically and despite OVI knocking his lights out early on in his career he will always be tougher than Petey. Hoping for the best for the Nucks, like 47 days till puck drop.

Great blog as usual Carol, we are very lucky to have a blogger as dedicated and right on top of the facts the way you are. Much appreciated.

Remember the good ol' days when the annual average salary came down in a long term deal? Now it significantly goes up for term...
- boonerbuck

Goes up for young players (you're buying their "prime" years and their UFA years).

Goes down for older players (usually signing as a UFA) as you're buying into their downtrend and offsetting that against their last few good years.

I love the narrative that Pettersson “isn’t durable”. It’s just as good as “Benning is a good General Manager”
- 1970vintage

There will tears abd complaining no matter whaf anybody does, bank on it!

There will tears abd complaining no matter whaf anybody does, bank on it!
- neem55

After Petey signs his long-term deal...

lol

Personally I like Jim Benning but honestly he is not a great GM imo. He has his moments and he did good this offseason. Fans are going to love Garland who is super nifty with a nose for the net. OEL hopefully gets new life because he has not been anything special the last couple years. As for Petey the guy has skill coming out of his butt but man I worry about him getting killed out there. He really needs to add some pounds and strength or he will continue to get manhandled and hurt. Petey is no Svechnikov physically and despite OVI knocking his lights out early on in his career he will always be tougher than Petey. Hoping for the best for the Nucks, like 47 days till puck drop.
- joegreif17

Not that I’m saying one is the other, but Mikko Rantanen is “big” and has never played a full season but I don’t read a lot of fans complaining about his salary/durability.

I for one am not the least bit worried about Pettersson’s injury prospects.

Goes up for young players (you're buying their "prime" years and their UFA years).

Goes down for older players (usually signing as a UFA) as you're buying into their downtrend and offsetting that against their last few good years.
- NewYorkNuck

Generally true, except for the Flyers.

But I think Booner is referring to deals like Rick DiPietro or Ilya Kovalchuk or Suter/Parise (yes, I understand they were UFA’s) where the term went really long to get the average down. I mean, at 26 Suter would probably have gotten $10 per on a five year deal.

Because he's the best player the franchise has had since the Sedins
- NorthNuck

I would go even further than that... Bure.

After Petey signs his long-term deal...

lol
- LordHumungous

I would be ecstatic of petey signed a max 8x8.5 deal.

I would be ecstatic of petey signed a max 8x8.5 deal.
- Codes1087

It will end up being a bargain like the Draisaitl deal. Remember how many scoffed at that contract lol

I would be ecstatic of petey signed a max 8x8.5 deal.
- Codes1087

Pretty much. In year 3 forward that deal would be a steal.

- Shuswap Wap

lol hopefully that me betting Woodbine today...

I don’t believe they can afford 6+ year deals. It would take them past the $16m they have to spend. I guess we’ll see.
- 1970vintage

I guess my problem is I can't picture Hughes as an 8 million dollar player. I have trouble picturing him as a 6 mil player.

I really hope they just sign a bridge deal and see what they really have. That was the whole purpose of the NHL introducing the bridge deal so that GMs would stop making the same mistakes over and over.

Remember the good ol' days when the annual average salary came down in a long term deal? Now it significantly goes up for term...
- boonerbuck

Ya, I also remember the good old days where young guys would sign a 4 or 5 year deal for less, and then get their 7-8 year deal at high dollar figures and everyone is complaining after year 3 or 4. I hope the NHL goes to pay younger players and lower the amount they get as older players.

lol hopefully that me betting Woodbine today...


- LordHumungous

I miss that atmosphere. Except for the brutally sharp turns at Hastings Park, I always enjoyed the big races.
Edit: also the greasy hamburgers with caramelized onions.

84.7 lbs caught and released Rivers Inlet

I guess my problem is I can't picture Hughes as an 8 million dollar player. I have trouble picturing him as a 6 mil player.

I really hope they just sign a bridge deal and see what they really have. That was the whole purpose of the NHL introducing the bridge deal so that GMs would stop making the same mistakes over and over.
- VANTEL

Yeah, I get it, but going into UFA years will cost a lot more. Was listening to the guy from Puckpedia talking about Hughes (and Petey). He suggested that on a similar length deal to Makar Hughes would probably be looking at $7.5-$8.25!

I see both ends of the argument. Pay less now and see how he progresses. Lock him up long term because going short could end up costing WAY more later.

It's a risk either way.

I guess my problem is I can't picture Hughes as an 8 million dollar player. I have trouble picturing him as a 6 mil player.

I really hope they just sign a bridge deal and see what they really have. That was the whole purpose of the NHL introducing the bridge deal so that GMs would stop making the same mistakes over and over.
- VANTEL

Here's the issue. Bridge would've been done. But the Canucks want long term.

Bridge was on the table prior to the Canucks cap shuffle. Their agents were accepting of doing bridge. But as we were right about the aggressive moves and cap the Canucks 1 upped us getting rid of LE too.

All this both cleared cap while also improving the roster. This also gave a huge sell to their top players.

So with talks still on the Canucks are pushing to lock up their top 2 talents long term.

Yeah, I get it, but going into UFA years will cost a lot more. Was listening to the guy from Puckpedia talking about Hughes (and Petey). He suggested that on a similar length deal to Makar Hughes would probably be looking at $7.5-$8.25!

I see both ends of the argument. Pay less now and see how he progresses. Lock him up long term because going short could end up costing WAY more later.

It's a risk either way.
- 1970vintage

That's the play now. They can do QH at $7.5M if Petey takes no more then $8.5M. There's your 8 year deals.

Yeah, I get it, but going into UFA years will cost a lot more. Was listening to the guy from Puckpedia talking about Hughes (and Petey). He suggested that on a similar length deal to Makar Hughes would probably be looking at $7.5-$8.25!

I see both ends of the argument. Pay less now and see how he progresses. Lock him up long term because going short could end up costing WAY more later.

It's a risk either way.
- 1970vintage

Or if you sign him shorter for less, you find out he's Paul Coffey-lite but is more detriment to team defense and therefore should be moved on from. A shorter, cheaper deal is easier to trade than a long term expensive deal, especially for a D-man (see OEL)

Or if you sign him shorter for less, you find out he's Paul Coffey-lite but is more detriment to team defense and therefore should be moved on from. A shorter, cheaper deal is easier to trade than a long term expensive deal, especially for a D-man (see OEL)
- DariusKnight

I think you win more games with Hughes in your lineup than you do if he's gone. If the other 5 guys on the team weren't absolute garbage it wouldn't even be an issue.