HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Pettinger to Tampa, claimed on Waivers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-21-2008, 02:09 PM
  #76
PuckMunchkin
Registered User
 
PuckMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lapland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasualty View Post
Our value returned for trading cooke and not letting him walk: a cap hit of 500k.

Shoulda let him walk.
Exactly.. Gillis turned Pettinger in to negative value for the team.

PuckMunchkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:19 PM
  #77
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,413
vCash: 500
Gillis is the GM, so ultimately the buck stops with him, but I think this is a Vigneault move as much as anything.

Vigneault likes "grit", and therefore, Brown is a better fit than Wellwood or Pettinger.

It's like last season where they wasted how many call-ups on the likes of Nathan McIver instead of giving Bourdon some much needed icetime. I don't know that Dave Nonis would done that of his own volition.

Of course, Pettinger isn't a huge loss, and the cap hit doesn't really hurt them, but would it not have been nice to have a guy like Pettinger to slide in and out of the line-up, as opposed to a one-dimensional player like Brown?

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:50 PM
  #78
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,636
vCash: 500
if there was a mistake here it was not keeping Brown and losing Pettinger it was originally keeping Wellwood.

Now obvious that Wellwood could make it make and forth easily on waivers

Canucks should have kept Brown and Pettinger up at the beginning and sent down Wellwood for conditioning. Now obvious they could have brought him up later if necessary.

Pettinger provided decent depth, some PK ability and was adequate fillin on the bottom lines. Exposing him to waivers rather than Wellwood was a mistake on Gillis's part IMO.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:55 PM
  #79
Flinch*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Gillis is the GM, so ultimately the buck stops with him, but I think this is a Vigneault move as much as anything.

Vigneault likes "grit", and therefore, Brown is a better fit than Wellwood or Pettinger.
If that's the case, AV is on the fast track to getting canned with decisions like that.

Flinch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:57 PM
  #80
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss View Post
Losing him on waivers is unfortunate but at least they arent paying him $1million+ to play for the Moose.

Yeah, now they get to pay 500,000+ for him to play for Tampa Bay.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:57 PM
  #81
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
if there was a mistake here it was not keeping Brown and losing Pettinger it was originally keeping Wellwood.

Now obvious that Wellwood could make it make and forth easily on waivers

Canucks should have kept Brown and Pettinger up at the beginning and sent down Wellwood for conditioning. Now obvious they could have brought him up later if necessary.

Pettinger provided decent depth, some PK ability and was adequate fillin on the bottom lines. Exposing him to waivers rather than Wellwood was a mistake on Gillis's part IMO.
Especially considering that Wellwood was in such high standing that he was waived after playing a whopping one game.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 02:59 PM
  #82
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flinch View Post
If that's the case, AV is on the fast track to getting canned with decisions like that.
One can hope.

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:11 PM
  #83
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,141
vCash: 50
I love that everyone is freaking out about paying half his salary. Are you guys chipping in or something? Who gives a crap, it's a measly 500,000 for one year against our cap. We have 10 million in room, I think we'll survive.

Last week no one cared that he got waived and now because our filthy rich owner has to pay a little money everyone is bent out of shape. Hilarious!

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:13 PM
  #84
snepsts27
Registered User
 
snepsts27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kamloops BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
I love that everyone is freaking out about paying half his salary. Are you guys chipping in or something? Who gives a crap, it's a measly 500,000 for one year against our cap. We have 10 million in room, I think we'll survive.

Last week no one cared that he got waived and now because our filthy rich owner has to pay a little money everyone is bent out of shape. Hilarious!
That 500k could prevent us from having enough cap space to sign Sundin!

snepsts27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:15 PM
  #85
Alan Jackson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Langley, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
I love that everyone is freaking out about paying half his salary. Are you guys chipping in or something? Who gives a crap, it's a measly 500,000 for one year against our cap. We have 10 million in room, I think we'll survive.

Last week no one cared that he got waived and now because our filthy rich owner has to pay a little money everyone is bent out of shape. Hilarious!
Simply not true.

Several posters were against keeping both Rypien and Brown on the roster at the expense of Pettinger, who offers some versatility the others do not.

Alan Jackson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:18 PM
  #86
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
I love that everyone is freaking out about paying half his salary. Are you guys chipping in or something? Who gives a crap, it's a measly 500,000 for one year against our cap. We have 10 million in room, I think we'll survive.

Last week no one cared that he got waived and now because our filthy rich owner has to pay a little money everyone is bent out of shape. Hilarious!
You're kind of missing the point.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:21 PM
  #87
letterH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Kamloops, BC
Posts: 241
vCash: 500
This reaction is mind-boggling. Throughout the summer and into Sept., posts on here and CDC regarding the potential lineup had Pettinger on the 4th line or as an extra, not even in the top 12. Now everyone is angry about losing him when half of you didnt even want him in the top 12.

*****ing bout keeping Brown and Rypien yet whenever Rypien is not around all the posts are about how he needs to be here. IMHO the problem lies with a teams top 9 forwards and not the bottom 3-5 forwards. If anyone thinks Matt P being gone is gonna cost us games than you are watching a different game than I.

What next, Pyatt leaves and everyone will call for the GM's head saying how can we lose Pyatt?

letterH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:21 PM
  #88
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
You're kind of missing the point.
OK, what's the point I'm missing?

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:23 PM
  #89
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by letterH View Post
This reaction is mind-boggling. Throughout the summer and into Sept., posts on here and CDC regarding the potential lineup had Pettinger on the 4th line or as an extra, not even in the top 12. Now everyone is angry about losing him when half of you didnt even want him in the top 12.

*****ing bout keeping Brown and Rypien yet whenever Rypien is not around all the posts are about how he needs to be here. IMHO the problem lies with a teams top 9 forwards and not the bottom 3-5 forwards. If anyone thinks Matt P being gone is gonna cost us games than you are watching a different game than I.

What next, Pyatt leaves and everyone will call for the GM's head saying how can we lose Pyatt?
Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. The same people who are disappointed about how this situation has been handled have been so for quite some time, and the people who have posted here and on CDC are completely different people who felt that way about Pettinger. You're lumping everyone together as 'generic Canuck fan' when in actuality the opinions have varied for months and people have been consistent with their opinions.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:24 PM
  #90
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Simply not true.

Several posters were against keeping both Rypien and Brown on the roster at the expense of Pettinger, who offers some versatility the others do not.
Count me in that boat. At least Pettinger can be used as a 3rd liner - at least one of those two players is a "13th forward" with the other being a 4th liner.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:25 PM
  #91
RobertKron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 8,615
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
OK, what's the point I'm missing?
Using "whatever, who cares! We have tons of cap space" to excuse an instance of pretty avoidable mismanagement is not something that should fly. Yeah, it's not a huge deal, but the whole situation is still a big, dumb mess.

RobertKron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:28 PM
  #92
hlrsr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Jackson View Post
Gillis is the GM, so ultimately the buck stops with him, but I think this is a Vigneault move as much as anything.

Vigneault likes "grit", and therefore, Brown is a better fit than Wellwood or Pettinger.
Maybe .. Gillis hasn't exactly hidden his love for 'toughness' either so it could easily be his own move, or they both agreed.

hlrsr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:31 PM
  #93
Balls Mahoney
The Tryamkin Era!!!
 
Balls Mahoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: +44 1252 230 607
Country: United States
Posts: 12,363
vCash: 500
Mike Pettinger is like a poor man's Sami Kapanen. A fast guy with decent hands for the bottom six who can fill in virtually anyway on the lineup and even take a couple of shifts or fill in a couple of games in the top six without hurting you too bad (the guys hands are underrated, last season he did a damn respectable job on the third line) and is assured to get at least ten to fifteen goals in your bottom six. We waived that in favor of Mike Brown middleweight pugilist who can't skate, score, or fight that well. I am rather annoyed by this whole thing.

If Gillis was that worried about it why didn't he trade Brown for a 7th round pick or for a worthless asset. I mean really what is the career potential of Brown? Fourth line middle-weight who's going to be at least a year and probably more away from being able to take a regular NHL shift without being exposed as a talentless hack for an already functional NHL ready third liner who can slot into your special teams. Sound management.

Balls Mahoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:32 PM
  #94
iceburg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 753
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamonddog01 View Post
So when all is said and done we got absolutely nothing in return for Matt Cooke. Fantastic asset management.
Incorrect. Vancouver got 20 games from Pettinger in exchange for Cooke who played 17 games for Washington. In other words, Vancouver got pretty much equal value for the pending UFA.

iceburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:36 PM
  #95
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by MW View Post
Using "whatever, who cares! We have tons of cap space" to excuse an instance of pretty avoidable mismanagement is not something that should fly. Yeah, it's not a huge deal, but the whole situation is still a big, dumb mess.
I guess I just can't relate to people viewing this as a big dumb mess. It is so inconsequential in every sense. It costs us next to nothing, he wouldn't have made a big impact in our lineup (which is why we waived him in the first place) and it's not a long term problem. He's an UFA at the end of the year with no trade value. Tampa Bay pretty much picked him up because he's buddies with them.

I just can't view this as gross mismanagement, it's too inconsequential to be upset about.

I think the real issue is that we've lost a few games in a row and people are fooling themselves into thinking that somehow Pettinger would have made a difference. I said myself that Pettinger was a useful bottom six player when we initially waived him but bottom six players aren't this teams problem right now.

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:42 PM
  #96
Barney Gumble
Registered User
 
Barney Gumble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20,121
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmyheadhurts View Post
Tampa Bay pretty much picked him up because he's buddies with them.

I just can't view this as gross mismanagement, it's too inconsequential to be upset about.
It begs to ask why didn't he try and unload Pettinger in the O'Brien/Krajicek deal. I would think a good GM would have been able to include him knowing the TB connection.

Barney Gumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:48 PM
  #97
FloydTheBarber
Registered User
 
FloydTheBarber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Can someone fill me on Pettinger's relationship with Tampa Bay? Who is he friends/investment partners with?

FloydTheBarber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:51 PM
  #98
mrmyheadhurts
Registered Loser
 
mrmyheadhurts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney Gumble View Post
It begs to ask why didn't he try and unload Pettinger in the O'Brien/Krajicek deal. I would think a good GM would have been able to include him knowing the TB connection.
Probably because, like Gillis, he didn't want to pay 1 million dollars for a 4th line player. It's not like Pettinger is Gillis' asset, he was traded for by Nonis. How do we know that Gillis didn't try to include him in the trade? For that matter, how do we know that they didn't agree to put him on re-entry waivers so they could split the difference? Teams take on salary all the time and it's usually a lot more than this.

Pettinger was passed on by every team in the NHL at 1 million dollars through waivers the first time through and now Gillis sucks because he didn't get someone to trade for him?

mrmyheadhurts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 03:57 PM
  #99
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloydTheBarber View Post
Can someone fill me on Pettinger's relationship with Tampa Bay? Who is he friends/investment partners with?
Len Barrie, one of their new owners, made a bunch of money on the Bear Mountain development in Victoria. According to the paper Pettinger is friends with and a business partner of Barrie.

pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-21-2008, 04:01 PM
  #100
robongo
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 42
vCash: 500
too bad washington got nothing in return also considering cooke is now in Sh*tsburgh

robongo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:02 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.