The Vancouver Canucks’ star centre is leading from the front and a play in Friday’s game shows exactly how he’s getting it done now.
When all was said and done Friday night, there was exactly one Vancouver Canuck whose five-on-five shots attempts for and against differential was positive.
Recommended Videos
But the Canucks struggled, badly, in the early going to contain the Columbus Blue Jackets’ speed. When they did find their game in the second and third periods, they mostly just held serve, then managed to make more of the chances they generated than Columbus did.
Early in the season, he was criticized on Hockey Night in Canada by ex-Canuck turned analyst Kevin Bieksa, who noted a play where the Canucks’ star got the puck in the corner and rather than making a bold, confident move to beat a defender out of the corner, he flipped the puck over behind the net, essentially saying “I got nothing but maybe one of my linemates can figure this out.”
Pettersson could have rimmed the puck around behind the net, which would have been a safe but uninspiring play.
Instead he tried a shimmy to the inside, freezing Fabbro, opening up an outside lane for Pettersson to attack.
He swooped around the net and tried a wraparound. He didn’t score, but it was a statement play.
And then he won the draw and Hughes made some magic, setting up Boeser to get the Canucks into the game. It was a big sequence, from the Canucks’ best players, to get things going in the direction they wanted.
“He’s coming up with moments. It’s like everybody, we’re trying to squeeze more. We need more from everybody. But I think he’s coming up with those big moments,” Tocchet said before Friday’s game.
“I think his approach to the game, the mental aspect, he’s really worked on. We’ve talked about it a lot. You know, you guys know me: with moving his feet, wanting the puck, shooting the puck, more things like that. And I see glimpses of it and chipping away at that,” he added.
More than anything he’s a player who has found his confidence again.
Never forget, twice last season he was an NHL star of the month. You don’t lose that talent or those instincts.
If he had to find a way to change the way he plays, he’s clearly done that, one way or another.
The Trouba deal
Got some interesting insight from former Panthers assistant general manager Steve Werier on how the Jacob Trouba situation may or may not have played out.
There’s been some suggestion from insiders that the Rangers threatened to waive Trouba and he was at risk of ending up with the Columbus Blue Jackets. (Has to be said, given how they’re playing and how close they re to being great, gotta wonder what adding a player of Trouba’s quality would have done for them.)
Werier:
“Having negotiated a number of NHL contracts involving no-trade and no-move requests, I think nuance is missing from both sides of the current debate.
First, saying a player with a no-trade clause should get no-movement (no-waive) rights is like saying a player with a $5 million salary should get paid $6 million.
“Deal terms aren’t negotiated in a vacuum. There’s a constant trade off. While there are some GMs who will say ‘we’re negotiating salary before term etc.’ that’s rare.
“Instead, in most negotiations you say to an agent “if you want no-trade or move protections (or bonuses) it will cost you in the form of a lower salary or shorter term.” Because as a club, those clauses lower your expected return if you need to get out from that deal.
“Everyone knows what each clause means and doesn’t mean. The language is standardized. So it’s up to the agent and player (where they have leverage) to decide what trade-offs between comp and control they’re willing to accept.
“(Of course, agent commissions are based off salary and not securing trade/move protections so there’s a potential misalignment of incentives here, but that’s another discussion.)
“Having said that, the intent of the CBA is surely not that clubs should be able to circumvent a NTC by entering into handshake deals where Team A agrees to place a player on waivers and Team B (who is on the no-trade list) claims the player as part of a trade for other assets. That seems like a conflict between the spirit and letter of the law.
“So perhaps the addition of language around that type of situation would be helpful. But it wouldn’t prevent teams from placing NTC players on waivers (or from negotiating with other teams to make claims once the player hits the waiver wire).
“And it shouldn’t. Because that’s what a no-move clause is for.”