I’d try to get more term out of Petey and Hughes at that AAV. You could probably get 6 years I would guess, maybe more

Canucks aren't trading their 2nd best prospect and a 1st just to move Myers. He's still serviceable just overpaid. The deals for Hughes and Pettersson are also high. They'll get 7-7.5x3. The deals for Gaudette, Edler, and Benn are also a little high. If they're gonna spend 3.5 mil on a back up they might as well just keep Holtby as well and they might as well just keep Roussel for one more year too

Hughes probably gets far less on a bridge deal. He's not eligible for an offersheet and he doesn't have arbitration rights so he has no leverage. He's only played 1 full season really. When he first came up and burned his 1st year of his ELC he only played 5 games. Vancouver did that so he wouldn't be eligible for an offersheet. Then last year was a full season (sorta with the pause) and this season is short with only 55 possible games played but maybe less by Vancouver. Charlie McAvoy will be a good comparison for him. Keep in mind that Hughes has more points on his ELC than McAvoy did, but a similar amount of games.

For Pettersson, he really should how dominant he can be and Vancouver would be smart to pay him and sign him long term based on potential alone. Jack Eichel would be the best comparable there. And Pettersson has more points per game on his ELC than Eichel did so he'll wanna get paid.

In the end, I think it looks closer to this:
Hughes- 3 years x $5.3M
Pettersson - 8 years x $10.8M

Pettersson comp is Barzal and they have the same agent....Bridge deal is a certainty, but more then Barzel - My guess $8M
Hughes I think will be closer to $6-$6.5 range

man your salaries are wack

Vancouver will not trade high draft picks to rid themselves of salary

Pettersson: 0.927 PPG - 153 points in 165 games played
Barzal: 0.884 PPG - 207 points in 234 games played
Eichel: 0.846 PPG - 177 points in 209 games played

Eichel would be used more as a comparable due to a closer amount of games played. & trust me, Vancouver is gonna wanna use that comparable and sign him long term because if you sign him to a bridge deal he'll be the highest paid player in the league when that deal is up and Vancouver won't be able to afford him.

As for Hughes, McAvoy is the direct comparison and getting much more than what Boston gave him is unlikely.

Hughes: 0.763 PPG - 84 points in 110 games played
McAvoy: 0.512 - 60 points in 117 games played

An almost direct same amount of games played, but Hughes has more points. However the key similarity between the players is their style of play and their RFA status. Both were offensive defencemen with defensive lapses in their game at the same age, and both were 10.2 status RFA. This means that they both were not eligible for an offer sheet or have arbitration rights. In other words, there's no leverage because they can't negotiate or sign anywhere else other than they're own team. And due to the flat cap and shortened money because of the pandemic, a contract slightly higher than McAvoy's seems the most logically. $6M is just too high for Vancouver when they can get him lower to help their cap situation.

the same reasons you stated here regarding flat cap, no revenue and covid is the reason Brazel signed for $7M and not $9M, Hence the $8M and not $10M for Pettersson.
Also, rest assured, Pettersson will be a bridge, without a doubt,

Then have fun losing him in a few years when he wants more than McDavid

you have lost your mind, franchises just dont lose players, they sign them, regardless of cost.. 3 year bridge keeps him RFA status and 25 years old. sign him to a 8 year $96m then. Cap is up, Revenue is back.

Sign him now to 8 years and at 29 he leaves via UFA.

Its all about controlling your star athlete for as long as possible.

cap isn't likely to go up THAT much in 3 years, the pandemic effect is gonna affect the owners pockets for awhile. In 3 years, you give Pettersson ALL the leverage. He's either 1 year away from free agency and he'd have arbitration rights. He'd for sure be asking for more than 8 years and $96M because he'll have more of a case for it easily. Back to my original point of the pandemic affecting the owners pockets for awhile - they're not gonna wanna pay a guy $24M over the next 3 years, then over $100M after that for 8 years (call it total $125M total over 11 years), when they can pay the same guy $84M over the next 8 years by locking him up now. With the type of player Pettersson is, it just makes a ton more sense to lock him up long term now.

You say you worry about him leaving at 30 via free agency after signing a long term deal, but you don't realize that if he really wants to walk, signing him to a bridge deal of 3 years makes him walk to free agency when he's 27 if he wants to because he could just accept his 1 year qualifying offer after that bridge deal, and then become a UFA at 27. So it's smarter to lock him up now long term and for sure keep him during his prime, then to let him potentially walk to free agency right in his prime.

Not for that cheap

Have you seen Berniers numbers? There fantastic on the Wings, besides, Demko has never been a full-fledged starter.

Why not? Going to be good crop of prospects coming up already, going to be really good quickly

Because Ownership and Management has said they wont.