Tanner Pearson | #70 | LW

[Junkyard Dog]

4 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Anything above $3Mx 3 years would be absolutely preposterous

Even that $3M is way to high.imo

With COVID 2.5-3M is fair. 
 

If 2.5M I’d be okay with 3-4 years(he’d  be 33 when it ends on a 4 year deal). If closer to 3M then 2-3 years. 
 

Pearson still the type of guy who can play up and down the lineup. 

[aGENT]

50 minutes ago, Honky Cat said:

Anything above $3Mx 3 years would be absolutely preposterous

Even that $3M is way to high.imo

 

43 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

With COVID 2.5-3M is fair. 
 

If 2.5M I’d be okay with 3-4 years(he’d  be 33 when it ends on a 4 year deal). If closer to 3M then 2-3 years. 
 

Pearson still the type of guy who can play up and down the lineup. 

I'm in the 3 years at $2.5 or 2 years at $3 range myself.

 

Don't know how anyone could complain about either.

[Junkyard Dog]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I'm in the 3 years at $2.5 or 2 years at $3 range myself.

 

Don't know how anyone could complain about either.

Given how good Pearson is and the fact he can play up and down the lineup(2nd/3rd line) he holds a level of significance on this team. He may not be a true big name top 6 scorer but he is a jack of all trades sort of guy. 
 

A 2-3 year deal would be the perfect stop gap cap wise and roster wise with Pod/Hog likely improving and will need new contracts around this sort of time. 

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Given how good Pearson is and the fact he can play up and down the lineup(2nd/3rd line) he holds a level of significance on this team. He may not be a true big name top 6 scorer but he is a jack of all trades sort of guy. 
 

A 2-3 year deal would be the perfect stop gap cap wise and roster wise with Pod/Hog likely improving and will need new contracts around this sort of time. 

Yup. Chris Higgins type. Prefer to have him on your third but can play up on your second in a pinch.

Edited April 1, 2021 by aGENT

[lmm]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I'm in the 3 years at $2.5 or 2 years at $3 range myself.

 

Don't know how anyone could complain about either.

Roussell peaked at 29 and has fallen off a cliff since

Vesey seems to have peaked at 25

Pearson peaked at 24, fell off a cliff at 25, rebounded at 27 and has fallen off a(nother) cliff at 28

I'm not sure I see anything worth signing more than 1 year

I'd rather the pick

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, lmm said:

Roussell peaked at 29 and has fallen off a cliff since

Vesey seems to have peaked at 25

Pearson peaked at 24, fell off a cliff at 25, rebounded at 27 and has fallen off a(nother) cliff at 28

I'm not sure I see anything worth signing more than 1 year

I'd rather the pick

Roussel had a major knee injury and hasn't been the same since. $&!# happens.

 

Before that he was an elite pest, solid 2 way third liner, with borderline 2nd line production.

 

Pearson is a solid, stable, 2 way depth F that can play in your middle 6. It isn't 'sexy' but it's entirely useful at the right $/term.

[-AJ-]

3 minutes ago, lmm said:

Roussell peaked at 29 and has fallen off a cliff since

Vesey seems to have peaked at 25

Pearson peaked at 24, fell off a cliff at 25, rebounded at 27 and has fallen off a(nother) cliff at 28

I'm not sure I see anything worth signing more than 1 year

I'd rather the pick

I'd be okay with 2 or 3 years, but at a pretty cheap price. I do have a fear that Pearson won't be back to top 6 levels anymore. His current production is firmly bottom six level and he should be paid like an average 3rd liner. $3M is too much for any more than 1 year IMO. I'd prefer $2-$2.5M for 2 or 3 years, but I'm not sure he'll go that low.

[fanfor42]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I'm in the 3 years at $2.5 or 2 years at $3 range myself.

 

Don't know how anyone could complain about either.

I agree with you.  Pearson is very much like Higgins was.  Stats line is identical.  These type of guys are steady Eddies until they reach a certain age and lose a step then the drop off is fierce.  Remember Higgins in his last year went down to the AHL.

 

So that said, 2 years is great 3 years is fine and no go on a 4 year deal.

 

 

[lmm]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Roussel had a major knee injury and hasn't been the same since. $&!# happens.

 

Before that he was an elite pest, solid 2 way third liner, with borderline 2nd line production.

 

Pearson is a solid, stable, 2 way depth F that can play in your middle 6. It isn't 'sexy' but it's entirely useful at the right $/term.

that is true

however Pearson also injured his  leg by falling over/collapsing.

I do not recall an actual incident/ hit 

some guys wear out

 

I didn't take you far a guy that wants every last usefull shift out of our players before buy out/ walk away with nothing

 

We got nothing for Higgins,, Mathias, Santorelli, Richardson, Dorsett, Hamhius

[lmm]

1 hour ago, -AJ- said:

I'd be okay with 2 or 3 years, but at a pretty cheap price. I do have a fear that Pearson won't be back to top 6 levels anymore. His current production is firmly bottom six level and he should be paid like an average 3rd liner. $3M is too much for any more than 1 year IMO. I'd prefer $2-$2.5M for 2 or 3 years, but I'm not sure he'll go that low.

Perry , thornton, Spezza are all on one year league minimum deals

and outscoring Pearson

[Wolfgang Durst]

11 hours ago, lmm said:

Perry , thornton, Spezza are all on one year league minimum deals

and outscoring Pearson

Perry , Thornton and Spezza are well beyond their prime but still good enough to put higher numbers on the scoreboard than Pearson. Problem is that Canucks won't get a high scoring Top 6 winger in free agency or via a trade. Top 6 remains a work in process. Pearson is not the solution going forward. Just look at the top teams in the north dvision like the Maple Leafs, Jets and Oilers. All of them have way more firepower up front than Canucks have. Maybe Canucks hope that Podkolzin can become a Top 6 scoring winger in the NHL. Given his production in the KHL and international tournaments I am more than skeptical.

 

 

[Boudrias]

1 hour ago, Wolfgang Durst said:

Perry , Thornton and Spezza are well beyond their prime but still good enough to put higher numbers on the scoreboard than Pearson. Problem is that Canucks won't get a high scoring Top 6 winger in free agency or via a trade. Top 6 remains a work in process. Pearson is not the solution going forward. Just look at the top teams in the north dvision like the Maple Leafs, Jets and Oilers. All of them have way more firepower up front than Canucks have. Maybe Canucks hope that Podkolzin can become a Top 6 scoring winger in the NHL. Given his production in the KHL and international tournaments I am more than skeptical.

 

 

The examples you gave all had much higher scoring stats at the peak of their careers. Pearson is a 3rd line scorer on a contender. He has a history of being a streaky scorer. I am fine with moving him at the TDL. Hoping the Canucks finish the season by playing the prospects. Develop by giving them TOI and evaluate.

[aGENT]

15 hours ago, lmm said:

I didn't take you far a guy that wants every last usefull shift out of our players before buy out/ walk away with nothing

I don't think he's there yet for starters. I also have zero problem with moving him this TDL if that's what happens. I also have zero problem extending him to a short 2-3 year deal at appropriate, 3rd line dollars either.

 

There's seldom only one answer when managing a hockey team.

 

Quote

We got nothing for Higgins,, Mathias, Santorelli, Richardson, Dorsett, Hamhius

And? Countless players walk from their teams every year. 'Asset management' is important but it never happens 100% of the time on ANY team. It's also far too easy for people to ignore the context of why that may have happened. You wouldn't want to be one of those people, would you?

 

[lmm]

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

I don't think he's there yet for starters. I also have zero problem with moving him this TDL if that's what happens. I also have zero problem extending him to a short 2-3 year deal at appropriate, 3rd line dollars either.

 

There's seldom only one answer when managing a hockey team.

 

And? Countless players walk from their teams every year. 'Asset management' is important but it never happens 100% of the time on ANY team. It's also far too easy for people to ignore the context of why that may have happened. You wouldn't want to be one of those people, would you?

 

I gave you a beer for the first part

 

Re part 2

I know reasons, I just ommitted them for brevity

Like Richardson was injured, etc.

But Matthias was a classic case of not selling high on his career year.

Hamhius was a JB Bungle

And lets be honest

the only player Jim has brought in from deadline sell off is Motte

that is pretty terrible for a "rebuilding GM"

[Junkyard Dog]

7 minutes ago, lmm said:

I gave you a beer for the first part

 

Re part 2

I know reasons, I just ommitted them for brevity

Like Richardson was injured, etc.

But Matthias was a classic case of not selling high on his career year.

Hamhius was a JB Bungle

And lets be honest

the only player Jim has brought in from deadline sell off is Motte

that is pretty terrible for a "rebuilding GM"

Shawn Matthias. Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time, a long time...  

 

I wonder what’s he’s up too. 

[lmm]

10 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Shawn Matthias. Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time, a long time...  

 

I wonder what’s he’s up too. 

6'4"

245#

 

scored his last goal at 30 (maybe early 31) in 2017-18

[Junkyard Dog]

12 minutes ago, lmm said:

6'4"

245#

 

scored his last goal at 30 (maybe early 31) in 2017-18

I remember he never really played as big as he was but he was a decent bottom 6 player that could play W or C. 
 

He retired early. Was he forced to because of injury? 

 

I found this video that was 10 months ago. Still rocking the Canuck logo. Respect. 
 

 

[KariyaSakicAnderson]

https://www.tsn.ca/video/trade-bait-savard-leaps-ekholm-for-top-spot~2171688

 

Take this with a grain of salt, starts at 1.50 mark. 

 

Frank Seravalli from TSN, reports that the Canucks are confident that something will get done on a Tanner Pearson contract extension and that both sides are optimistic. It could involve Pearson taking a little bit of a pay cut as that seems to be the way things are going this season and with the market trends. The Canucks are doing everything they can to try and keep Pearson. Seravalli says the team has identified him as a “glue guy” in their room and he’s extremely close with captain Bo Horvat. They want to get a deal taken care of before the deadline.

 

[Gurn]

12 minutes ago, KariyaSakicAnderson said:

It could involve Pearson taking a little bit of a pay cut as that seems to be the way things are going this season and with the market trends. 

It bettter be at less than this season, and not much term.

This guy could well be on the down hill slide at this point.

[KariyaSakicAnderson]

21 minutes ago, gurn said:

It bettter be at less than this season, and not much term.

This guy could well be on the down hill slide at this point.

My feeling is, is that it'll be what Sven got $10mill over 3 yrs. 3,333,333 p/y. I hope that it will be less but...