It seems like full circle season in Vancouver.

Just when you thought you’d seen the last of them, the JT Miller trade rumours first returned in full force and then finally came to fruition on this past Friday.

And now, here we are, once again arguing about the pros and cons of a Pettersson contract extension.

Only this time, we’re not talking about Elias (or Elias, for that matter). Instead, we’re talking about Marcus Pettersson, one of two pending UFAs the Canucks acquired from the Pittsburgh Penguins in their second of two Friday transactions.

As with any good argument, the debate over whether or not GM Patrik Allvin and Co. should ink this Pettersson to a contract extension right away has valid points on either side. So, we thought we’d take some time to break down both the pros and the cons, as we presume the Vancouver front office has already started doing themselves.

The first, and naturally the most reactionary, argument for extending Pettersson as soon as possible is because the Canucks just traded a first round pick for him. The same first round pick they acquired from the Rangers for Miller, at that!

Don’t worry, we’ll come back to the sunken-cost side of this in the next section. But even with that in mind, the emotional reaction is a valid one, and it’s not just pure sentimentality, either. Teams can’t just keep trading first rounders for rentals endlessly without it having consequences. The Canucks have already dealt away more than their fair share, including for what turned out to be a rental Elias Lindholm last season. But if Pettersson is extended, then it’s not a case of trading a first for a rental, and that’s just significantly easier to swallow.

Especially since this might not be the year! There are obviously hopes that the Canucks can mount some sort of a bounce back post-trades, but until that happens, an all-in approach on 2024/25 just doesn’t make sense. Signing Pettersson on to future years ups the odds of the Canucks winning something in the Quinn Hughes Window of Contention™, not just this year. It also helps that, as a LHD, Pettersson could theoretically complete a hoped-for future top-four of he and Hughes on the left, and Filip Hronek and Tom Willander on the right.

Speaking of future years, the Canucks were going to have to add some quality to their blueline at some point. If not Pettersson, they’ll surely end up signing or trading for someone else. We can look at the 2025 UFA market for defence and see that Pettersson is either the first-, second-, or at worst third-best defender available, depending on one’s preference.

If the Canucks are pretty much guaranteed to add a high-salaried D at some point in the next few months, why not corner the market on a defender they obviously like, and one with which they’ve currently got exclusive negotiating rights?

All this, of course, assumes Pettersson is willing to sign a reasonable extension. But then, with all the shared connections between Vancouver and Pittsburgh, we doubt this deal would have been made without at least a little pre-knowledge on that topic.

This may also be an opportune time to talk terms with Pettersson. Technically, Pettersson is currently experiencing his highest points-per-game rate ever at 0.38, but that just barely exceeds last season’s 0.37 and the previous year’s 0.35. There is little doubt he is still very much a competent top-four defender on any team, and should be paid accordingly.

But he also has his first ever minus rating and only a so-so defensive line, including allowing five-on-five goals against at a higher rate than his notoriously-porous teammate, Erik Karlsson.

Most would agree any blemishes on Pettersson’s 2024/25 record are a result of his being over-relied upon on a weak Pittsburgh roster. But if any of that can be used to get him to agree to a contract well under what he might negotiate on the open market, that’s a positive. 

Let’s go back to that first, reactionary take, that it should be done so as to feel better about the sequence of trades. That’s what philosophers call a ‘sunk cost fallacy.’ It’s when you’ve already put plenty of resources into something, and so you feel invested and motivated to continue to put resources in to see it through – even when the more efficient choice may be to cut ties and stop spending.

Obviously, we’re not saying that’s the case with Pettersson. Only that the Canucks should avoid using that line of thinking in justifying an extension.

The most inarguable point in favour of waiting on a Pettersson extension is simply that it is possible. It’s still more than a month until the 2025 Trade Deadline, Never mind the July 1 Free Agent Frenzy. The Canucks aren’t technically in any rush here, no one else is currently allowed to negotiate with Pettersson, and they can afford to wait. At the very least, they can wait to see how his first foray in Vancouver Canucks hockey goes.

There are risks in that, but they’re not dealbreakers. Sure, Pettersson could get injured. But then that doesn’t necessarily preclude them from extending him anyway. It may even help. Pettersson might also look really, really good in his first stint of Canucks hockey, which is always a good problem to have. In that case, the cost to extend him may go up, but by how much? As a 28-year-old with eight years of NHL experience, he’s mostly negotiating as a known quantity here.

Waiting on Pettersson also leaves the door open for management to change their minds and flip him at the Trade Deadline. He’d still probably be the best D rental available, and there would be no shortage of suitors. Getting a first round pick back – though not necessarily one as good as the one the Canucks traded away – seems like a guarantee. Maybe more, depending on the bidding war.

It could be that Pettersson doesn’t look like a fit in Vancouver over the next month. It could be that the Canucks fall out of the playoffs in that month, and decide to cash in on all their UFAs like Brock Boeser, Kevin Lankinen, and Pettersson, too.

Either way, delaying the signing of an extension now keeps the Trade Deadline flip option on the table, and options are always a good thing to have.