Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Dazzle

Members
  • Posts

    11,843
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Dazzle

  1. Pearson is kind of an all-rounder. Maybe slightly less defensive than Motte. Motte is decidedly more defensive, with some offensive upside. The only reason I brought up Motte is that these players AREN'T all that common to find.
  2. You misunderstood my posts, whether it was deliberate or not. I'm contemplating whether it is even worth disentangling it.
  3. According to Elliott Friedman, who I do respect a lot. But if you actually think about it, what he's saying isn't something that should be taken at full value. In an analysis like his, you can easily take the first signing that happened and retroactively apply it to all the other signings. You know what's funny? If the Canucks waited too long, they'll lose another player. If they settled for a deal 'too soon', fans are here to question whether the deal was a good one or not. Seems like people have no idea how negotiations work at all. If it was so easy to do them, we wouldn't have a turnover of GMs throughout the league.
  4. If you were to ask people around here, 3c players can be had for cheap.
  5. Exactly, but that's the thing; your suggestion that Benning would 'wait' for a pending UFA from another team assumes that people will always want to go to Vancouver. And that clearly wasn't the case for Lowry (in hindsight). A lot of times players have settled in that place and don't want to leave.
  6. Would a player really admit that he settled for a lower price? Negotiations are very fluid. A completed transaction happens typically when there is a compromise. Pearson's statement is nothing more than him saying he is happy to stay in Vancouver. No one will ever say they took less money because that would affect his future. The Pearson deal is a no brainer really.
  7. That's ridiculous. If Lowry didn't want to stay in Winnipeg, he would've left, no? You can't wait for a player that shows no intention of leaving. Lowry intended to stay.
  8. If you're going to go back to the beginning of Benning's tenure, you'll also have to go back to the fact that Gillis left this team in shambles. I'm not saying Benning did the right thing or not, but i think Benning was going to make mistakes one way or another. Gillis really screwed this team so badly because he left us with NO prospects, just a bunch of players who either had low value, or they had NTCs. This led to players not wanting to sign here, especially the good ones. We could've easily been another Buffalo. We've also seen that rebuilds rarely happen smoothly.
  9. Uhh no, that's not really how negotiations work. If someone overpays a house on the real estate market by a gross amount, the other houses on the market don't actually get affected, especially if there's a supply of comparable houses available. People just assume that money gets tossed around without doing the comparables analysis. While agents do look at completed signings as precedents, other teams also have to agree to this 'overpaynent' because each player means something different to each team. Let's take the fans' assumption that Benning has a reputation for being a moron at managing cap space, so why then do the signings 'follow' Pearson's signing? The agents and GMs will roughly gauge each player's worth on the market. That's their job.
  10. Haha good luck finding those. You are vastly underestimating how hard it is to find reliable players who can PK. Look at Tyler Motte. We all know he's valuable. Not a lot of players like you say are found in UFA. Like I said, you're so incredibly biased.
  11. You missed the point. Is Pearson a third line winger or a second line winger who apparently gets 'gifted' goals? Seems like you'll move him up or down the lineup when making criticisms about him, which is disingenuous. If he is a 2nd line winger, he is paid 3.25. Not unreasonable. Lowry as I said does different things than Pearson, so if they were to be on the same line hypothetically, Pearson's 3.25 isn't unreasonable, given that Pearson undeniably has had significantly better offence when comparing the two players' careers. There's this reoccuring myth that you guys like to use when bashing Pearson's contract, that he's somehow 'declining'. It's just funny to see you display your confirmation bias. You want Pearson to be so demonized that you'll omit evidence that doesn't support your points. Very dishonest analysis by you.
  12. Do they penalty kill? Can they be relied upon in the defensive zone? Neither Gaudette nor Virtanen fit this description, according to the coach. I'm still amused that you think Pearson's contract is a "significant overpayment", while acknowledging that Iafallo's contract was fair. You are biased in your argument, which has affected your reasoning.
  13. They do. And we can see that Pearson and Iafallo are basically the same players, stats wise. Maybe Iafallo could prove to be even better than what Pearson has produced. And yes, Pearson has more point totals than Iaffalo. It's rather convenient you left that out. Pearson has a decidedly larger body of work. So let's just say Iafallo is the better player than Pearson when taking into account recent performance (not performance from 6 years ago), the market value is apparently 4 M for him. Would it not be fair that Pearson is pegged at 3ish? The average is 34 vs 27. There isn't any spin here. Pearson's signing is perfectly reasonable, especially when using YOUR standard that Iafallo's contract was "fair". The Canucks don't have any player like Pearson that can produce these numbers.
  14. You can't say this, but still say the Pearson deal is a rip off. LOL. That is so hypocritical. I'm not spinning ANYTHING here. You brought up the three hockey seasons as some kind of 'trend' that Pearson was declining. I invalidated your use of the word trend, PLUS i demonstrated that the average between the two players wasn't as much as you're implying. There wasn't any spin whatsoever. You're the one that was spinning information that you can't even back up. The only reason why you say you don't want to argue further is because you have nothing.
  15. You are really stretching the definition of trend. 27 + 45 + 11 = Average of 28 over the three years. (rounded up from 27.6666) 33 + 43 + 26 = Average of 34 over the three years. Clearly, the major difference is the COVID year. There is no 'trend' (at least for Pearson). By your admission, it is up and down. That doesn't fit any definition of trend - and you know this. You haven't proven that it is a significant overpayment at all. We are simply relying on some statements (opinions) you made of Pearson and you are spinning it off as fact. Your continued use of the word 'trend' is extremely misleading. The numbers don't lie. The difference between Iafallo and Pearson isn't as much as you think it is - and this is taking into account Pearson's poor season. Also, it's interesting that you're using the 'LA has the cap space to do this' explanation. Are you inferring then that the Iafallo deal is an overpayment, but one that the team can stomach, whereas Vancouver can't? Wouldn't that actually justify Pearson's signing because THOSE are the market value prices? Arguably, 3.25 reflects a discount for Vancouver. Is the average point total of 34 versus 27 really worth a difference of 750,000? Plus one extra year? I know you don't want to admit this, but your opinion just doesn't hold any water when you actually compare it with the evidence.
  16. A very fair take. That being said, this good performance and continued hard work should bode confidence for young players like him and Lind as well, both of whom are/were doing well in the AHL. So I think the weaker AHL play could be beneficial too.
  17. I agree with you. The third line is definitely lacking the zip factor that you talk about. Motte is good, but we need more of these energy guys. Roussel was supposed to bring lots of hustle, but unfortunately, he's underperformed. I don't know if there are any players available for the 3C position that would actually be an upgrade to Sutter, at approximately 3M.
  18. If you were to ask the rabid Canucks fans about this performance, they'll be quick to say, "he's declining. Better trade him before he loses value"
  19. I think if Sutter took a pretty big pay cut at 2.5 or 3 million, i think he's still a reasonably decent player.
  20. You can't really make those statements without looking at the stats. If Pearson's a third line winger (personal thought: I disagree heavily on that), as you say, 3.25 is the exact amount that Lowry is being paid, who is obviously a 3rd line center. That refutes your point that Pearson is 'overpaid'. Rather, that validates what I have been saying: Pearson's contract is NOT an overpayment. In other words, Pearson's contract doesn't stand out in a good or bad way. On the other hand, Pearson clearly has more offense to his game. Your comment that "it's not about the stats" is a downright lazy excuse of ignoring evidence that doesn't support what you're trying to push. Furthermore, you keep saying he (Pearson) is 'trending' the wrong direction. Have you even looked at the stats of Lowry? You make the above lazy claim, but the stats from last year DO NOT reflect Lowry significantly improving nor declining from previous years. 3.25 is pretty average of a signing. Neither a good nor bad deal. Only CDC will fawn over another team's signing and think it is a 'good deal', as opposed to their own team. Such a victim complex is so damaging to our sense of reasoning.
  21. Risk vs reward analysis, huh? Let's actually go with that. Pearson has evidently produced more than Iafallo. If we're actually going to go with that idea, the reward is on the proven Pearson player who has CLEARLY demonstrated that. Using YOUR logic, what if last year was Iafallo's ceiling? (No one knows the answer to that, but this is how illogical of a point you're trying to make). You seem to overemphasize Pearson's bad year as some kind of 'proof' that this is a bad signing. If everyone knew what the future would play out, people should have signed cheaper contracts (or not at all) to players that would perform poorly, and big amounts of money to players that would eventually score high. Does this make ANY sense to you? NO, it shouldn't. That's not how reality works. The 3.25 signing of Pearson is a pretty standard contract for a player of his calibre. Your argument that he is 'declining' is illogical, considering you DON'T KNOW that this is the case. Pearson after all ASSUMES he will bounce back. He has no reason to think he will decline. It's really funny that you think Iafallo's contract is great, even though it is slightly longer and slightly more expensive. Your bias is really telling. It seems you can't rationally discuss this topic because you are hellbent on 'proving' Pearson's contract is crap at all costs, regardless of the weak evidence you have. Pearson's contract is fine. The people who crap on this deal have something else on their mind.
  22. Never mind. I understand what you're saying now. Yes. All people will do is nitpick the crap out of our players, while ignoring the reality outside of their own team. There is this pervasive confirmation bias that seems to push this fanbase into thinking they are victims. NO, the 3.25 signing is not a rip off for Vancouver.
  23. Man this thread is HILARIOUS. People are always looking to crap on the Pearson deal when such a position doesn't make any sense. First off, guy is a center, not a winger, so Pearson and Lowry aren't equivalent there. But if we're looking at points, Pearson outscores Lowry quite a bit, in spite of being roughly the same age. https://www.nhl.com/player/adam-lowry-8476392 Lowry has 65 goals, 78 assists = 143 points in 452 games. This season, he had 8 goals 12 assists = 20 points in 44 games. It wasn't really a standout year compared to his other years. Pearson has 114 goals, 112 assists = 226 points in 490 games. Pearson had a pretty bad season. 6 goals, 5 assists = 11 points in 33 games. So no, @250Integra Lowry is not better than Pearson. The thing that Lowry has going for him is that he's a center who happens to win a decent amount of faceoffs. Aside from that, they have different roles, with Pearson being a significantly higher scorer. 3.25 is arguably an overpayment, or at the very least an average signing for Lowry, but of course no one else is going to mention that. We'll just have to keep going on the bash Pearson bandwagon for no reason, right? People need to take things into perspective, instead of just looking to confirm a bias that is present on these boards.
×
×
  • Create New...