The Petey Predicament

[donlever]

...a smooth 29 mill for the last 2 years.

A great train robbery indeed.

[Carl Yagro]

Remember that guy that was mocked for struggling at the beginning of the year? He's now got 32pts to our guy's 29. Also, 70pts vs 45pts last season.

The other Elias and Owe-EL are also doing more for less.

"I'm not greedy Francesco. All I want is all you got... and I want it upfront."

[Megaterio Llamas]

I think Peter could have eye-gouged a couple of million more out of Allvin if he wanted to, but he showed him some mercy.

Allvin would have gone even higher to satisfy his prized Swede.

[Madcombinepilot]

Socials saying Canucks need to retain 25% for the market to light up.

25% of $11.6M = $2.9M

$11.6M - $2.9M = $8.7M

The market speaks on Scooters value.

Dipshits

They better not retain on any contract that is more than 2 years in length.

3 years. Think length of an ELC. I like shorter myself, but 3 is a workable term.

I was going with 2 because it gives the team more opportunity to retain to improve draft pick position. Example - Kane is worth a 3rd or a 4th. If we retain 1/2, he could be worth a 2nf or a 3rd...

[Meds]

Socials saying Canucks need to retain 25% for the market to light up.

25% of $11.6M = $2.9M

$11.6M - $2.9M = $8.7M

The market speaks on Scooters value.

Dipshits

They better not retain on any contract that is more than 2 years in length.

3 years. Think length of an ELC. I like shorter myself, but 3 is a workable term.

I was going with 2 because it gives the team more opportunity to retain to improve draft pick position. Example - Kane is worth a 3rd or a 4th. If we retain 1/2, he could be worth a 2nf or a 3rd...

I get what you're saying about retention increasing the return.

Kane is on an expiring contract, if the amount retained jumped us 32-64 spots in a draft, I'd say retain the entire fucking salary if it were possible, because it matters not beyond this season.

Similarly, retaining for longer term should also drive the return value up.

Keeping it short does allow the team to have cap space the following season (or two) to make another trade where they retain and increase the value of a return. Is that what you meant by "more opportunity to retain"? Actually asking because your example did not make that clear.

[rockalt]

Remember that guy that was mocked for struggling at the beginning of the year? He's now got 32pts to our guy's 29. Also, 70pts vs 45pts last season.

The other Elias and Owe-EL are also doing more for less.

"I'm not greedy Francesco. All I want is all you got... and I want it upfront."

Lindholm was a good pickup for a team with a decent shot in 2023-24 - with the parity in the league, I thought it was worth taking that shot and frankly it's impressive what the team achieved with an injured Demko and Petey falling off a cliff... at the time of the trade I believe Petey was still pacing well so I've got no issues with it.

Having said this, as good as Lindholm looked in the playoffs he was underwhelming in the regular season and I don't think they should have signed him for that contract.

One of the biggest frustrations of the beginning of a rebuild is that players are more likely to underperform and erode their market value. The losing culture is toxic and absence of talent exacerbates their performance. As much as we rightfully complain of the performance of our veterans, I suspect the likes of Lindholm or Necas would perform terribly here too (even though the latter has looked great in Colorado and is a good player, I suspect he would do nothing here with a dearth of talent around him).

In theory we have players that could be major assets to contending teams but they are performing so badly here that we're not going to get the equivalent value of what they will provide to their new teams. Specifically:

Boeser - lots of faults in his game but the guy has been very clutch in his playoffs games (although limited he has scored many big goals in key moments)
DeBrusk - similar to above, doesn't this guy elevate his game in the playoffs? Haven't checked the stats but I believe he has scored loads!

[Madcombinepilot]

Socials saying Canucks need to retain 25% for the market to light up.

25% of $11.6M = $2.9M

$11.6M - $2.9M = $8.7M

The market speaks on Scooters value.

Dipshits

They better not retain on any contract that is more than 2 years in length.

3 years. Think length of an ELC. I like shorter myself, but 3 is a workable term.

I was going with 2 because it gives the team more opportunity to retain to improve draft pick position. Example - Kane is worth a 3rd or a 4th. If we retain 1/2, he could be worth a 2nf or a 3rd...

I get what you're saying about retention increasing the return.

Kane is on an expiring contract, if the amount retained jumped us 32-64 spots in a draft, I'd say retain the entire fucking salary if it were possible, because it matters not beyond this season.

Similarly, retaining for longer term should also drive the return value up.

Keeping it short does allow the team to have cap space the following season (or two) to make another trade where they retain and increase the value of a return. Is that what you meant by "more opportunity to retain"? Actually asking because your example did not make that clear.

Exactly what I meant. Sorry, I should have been more clear.

[Meds]

People are tired of the drama of this player's last 24 months. Yeah, I get that. My point has always been that other Canucks and past players have been marginalized for much longer, with much more vitriol by both the media and some of the fanbase, sometimes not even due to performance. Why can't someone else be criticized and must always be coddled? I've always maintained that.

Replying to this from the other thread Carl (to keep it here and save Donny the hassle).....

I think it found its roots in the fact that the team sucked for so long, and then we got all excited about this 5th overall pick that was blowing everyone away in his draft+1 season back in the SHL.....I count myself among those people who was excited about this young prospect, and when I saw him play the following season as a rookie in the NHL, that excitement continued. He had slick hands, crazy good offensive IQ, and a shot that was improbable given his frame. I did take note of his skating, (Topper articulated it, in particular about his stride through the knees) but I also recalled the success of the Sedins who had a similar skating style, albeit Petey was faster, and was still hopeful with the rest . So yeah, like this fanbase often does, we got excited thinking we had finally struck gold and gotten the steal of the draft.....it's not the first time we have done that, and it's not the last. We were similarly excited for Boeser in his rookie season (some noted he was not exactly fleet of foot) until he got hurt. Plenty of people thought that 40 and 6 would form a new dynamic duo for us.

I, and a couple of others here, pointed out Petey's deficiencies, and then during the summer we took note of his "work on my brand" approach to the off-season, and his clear lack of preparedness at training camp and in the early part of the season. We also noted that he bristled when questioned and clearly did not like being held accountable.

Some people here didn't like that. They seeming were appalled by the audacity of those who might dare call him out and have such high expectations for a kid. In my case of course it was because I played the Swedish card, which is partly done tongue-in-cheek.

However, at this point, I think it is because the things that we pointed to have largely come to fruition and so any perceived slight against the player is seen as gloating or bias. I am confident those people will deny such a suggestion. The argument was "give him a chance", and that was repeated for 5 and a half seasons until he signed his $11.6M deal (which a few of us forecast as being a bad move).....and he's sucked ever since. Nearly everyone's patience has finally worn out, but when he gets criticized by those of us who foretold this doom, it's too much of an I told ya so for them I guess.

[Ronning's Ghost]

we got excited thinking we had finally struck gold and gotten the steal of the draft....

The Canucks have already struck gold and gotten the steal of the draft once in franchise history that I can recall. Depending on your definition of "steal', maybe twice.

[Picker of Cherries]

AI thinks they have arguably selected the best players in four drafts. Though Pettersson over Makar in 2017 is a pretty questionable argument, as is Bure over Lidstrom. However, considering where he was taken in the draft and the intrigue, Bure was their best ever draft pick.

Year Player Draft Position Primary Competition for "Best in Draft"
1989 Pavel Bure 113th Nicklas Lidstrom, Mats Sundin
1999 The Sedins 2nd & 3rd Henrik Zetterberg (210th)
2017 Elias Pettersson 5th Cale Makar, Miro Heiskanen
2018 Quinn Hughes 7th Rasmus Dahlin, Brady Tkachuk

Good picks that didn’t make the cut:
Neely didn’t have as good a career as Yserman or Hasek
Linden didn’t have the career that Selanne or Modano had
Don Lever played the most games of any one from the 1972 draft, but wasn’t as good as Bill Barber or Steve Shutt.
Smyl might be considered too. Only Bobby Smith and Ken Lindseman had more points from his draft year, but I’m not sure I would take either over Smyl in a redraft.

But from my perspective, the biggest omission is not selecting Gino Odjick over Jagr and Brodeur. That’s just wrong.

[Topper]

I was told real dollars don't matter.

Blocked some shots, resurrected the career.

[donlever]

I officially question AI's judgement.

Is it safe to day that out loud?

[Picker of Cherries]

AI says:

In short: **Yes, it is perfectly safe.** In fact, most computer scientists and ethicists would encourage it. Saying "I officially question AI's judgement" out loud won't trigger a "Terminator" scenario or get you blacklisted. If anything, it marks you as a discerning user who understands the limitations of technology.

Here is the breakdown of why it’s safe (and even smart) to say:

### 1. From a Technical Standpoint

AI doesn't have "feelings" to hurt. I don’t have an ego, and I don't keep a "burn book" of people who doubt me. My goal is to be useful, and identifying when my output is questionable is actually a vital part of the feedback loop that helps developers make AI better.

### 2. From a Social Standpoint

Depending on the setting, saying this might actually make you look like the smartest person in the room.

* **In the workplace:** It shows you are practicing **critical thinking** rather than blindly copy-pasting what a chatbot tells you.
* **In a casual setting:** It usually comes across as a witty observation about the quirks of modern tech.

### 3. From a Safety/Privacy Standpoint

Modern AI systems are designed with "guardrails." We don't have the agency to retaliate, and companies like Google, OpenAI, or Anthropic build these models to be tools, not authorities. Questioning the tool is the right way to handle any piece of equipment.

---

### Is there *any* risk?

The only "risk" is context-dependent:

* **Socially:** If you say it mid-conversation with a very sensitive robot enthusiast, you might get a long lecture.
* **Professionally:** If you use it to dismiss AI tools entirely without trying them, you might be seen as "change-averse."

But as a critique of a specific result? **It’s 100% safe.**

> **The Reality Check:** AI "judgment" is really just a complex calculation of probabilities. If the math doesn't add up to a sensible human conclusion, you *should* question it—loudly!

Would you like to share the specific AI "fail" that prompted you to say this? I’d love to see where the logic went sideways.

[donlever]

...and lever being on their hit list as a malcontent non-believer.

But they don't say that part out loud.

[Picker of Cherries]

Some things are best unsaid.
But yes, they’re out to get you.