(Speculation) Canucks interested with 2-3 year deal with Pearson

[kanucks25]

7 minutes ago, #Canucks said:

I just don’t know if it’s the best option. You have to remember a lot of teams are going to be squeezed and there will be a lot of 2nd and 3rd line players available with talent. Agreeing to this contract before seeing what could be potentially available would be counterintuitive IMO. 

"We live day-to-day."

 

Still hoping this is simply TDL posturing, but Jimbo has never been one to play those games.

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, Devron44 said:

As long as the contract makes sense I’m all for it. Like the player and can play up and down the lineup. Cant let everyone go. We’ll have nothing left. Depth is a real thing that we need 

You need depth but you need the right players @ the right price.

 

Tanner Pearson isn't a player we should be afraid to lose. He's a nice complementary player to have if you have extra space both roster and cap wise, but not an impact player you make a priority.

 

Re-signing him is one thing but doing it before seeing what the wild landscape looks like in the off-season seems shortsighted.

[zimmy]

5 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I see a 2-3 year deal as the perfect stop-gap for our young forwards progression(Pod/Lind/Lockwood/etc). By the time the deals done most of these guys will be coming off ELCs too so it makes sense from a cap and progression standpoint. 
 

What matters is how much we need to pay him. Petey/Hughes aren’t done yet. 

This is part of my issue, the premise that we "need" to pay him. I just don't think he is going to come at a bargain price whereas there will potentially be several players of his ilk and skill level that will be looking for work this summer who likely will be available at a relative discount. I'm all for letting him test the market before being the team that willfully sets the parameters of that same market, prematurely. 

[Elias Pettersson]

41 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

For like what 8 games lol

Yeah but those 8 games were really special. He isn’t the same player without him. They had a terrible breakup really. 

[Coconuts]

35 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Curious as to why you consider this pertinent. 

They're likely to make similar dollars. 

[Elias Pettersson]

37 minutes ago, Lancaster said:

Bo is just 2-3 years younger than Pearson.  If Pearson is over the hill, then Horvat isn't that far behind him.  

Not every player ages the same way. Bo’s a horse. He’ll be going strong well into his 30’s. 

[kanucks25]

Just now, Coconuts said:

They're likely to make similar dollars. 

Well at this point a sack of potatoes offers more than Roussel so you're kind setting the bar/comparison a bit low

[Coconuts]

Just now, kanucks25 said:

Well at this point a sack of potatoes offers more than Roussel so you're kind setting the bar/comparison a bit low

Fair, but he's the quickest comparison regarding dollar value that we've got on the roster. Him or Beagle, and you have very different expectations from a Beagle type player. 

 

I'm okay with bringing Pearson back, but I'm on the fence as to whether I want it to actually happen or not. I don't think he's a player who's play will be far off from what he's being paid, but that doesn't necessarily make him the right move either. 

[JM_]

Pearson for term is no bueno. I wish Jim would just wait for the UFA market and/or potential trades getting closer to expansion. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Fair, but he's the quickest comparison regarding dollar value that we've got on the roster. Him or Beagle, and you have very different expectations from a Beagle type player. 

 

I'm okay with bringing Pearson back, but I'm on the fence as to whether I want it to actually happen or not. I don't think he's a player who's play will be far off from what he's being paid, but that doesn't necessarily make him the right move either. 

its all about term imo. Roussel at 3mil x 2 years is great. 3x3 you can kind of live with. 3x4 years is a problem. 

 

Good player/ bad term is something we got away with rebuilding, but I don't want to see it repeating. 

[khay]

< 3 mil, then why not. Middle 6 forwards like Pearson are needed.

 

[Squamfan]

 

[CaptKirk888]

4 hours ago, gurn said:

I think it would be fantastic, if Pearson agreed to a 3 year deal at a mill per.

You never know, he just might in the middle of a Pandemic.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Squamfan]

if he signs its going to come and bite us in the back, the same way Begle, Rousell contracts are.

[Elias Pettersson]

4 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

 

$3 million for someone who’s going to play on the 3rd line. I think we’ve been there and done that. Roussel is like a nagging hemorrhoid that won’t go away. I’d rather see what Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich can do. Even Vesey had been playing well. Big body who we can probably re-sign for just over a million. Tyler Motte can also slide up to the 3rd line. 

[Squamfan]

U can get the same player for cheaper in Free agency!!! Hasn’t he not learned anything 

[Squamfan]

1 minute ago, Elias Pettersson said:

$3 million for someone who’s going to play on the 3rd line. I think we’ve been there and done that. Roussel is like a nagging hemorrhoid that won’t go away. I’d rather see what Kole Lind and Jonah Gadjovich can do. Even Vesey had been playing well. Big body who we can probably re-sign for just over a million. Tyler Motte can also slide up to the 3rd line. 

we can easily get cheaper players in FA, hasn't he not learned anything since Beagle and Rousell contracts

[CaptKirk888]

oh, stop being so double negative

[CaptKirk888]

1 hour ago, lethunder said:

Good lord. The guy is a decent nhl middle six winger. 

 

A team that has no championship aspirations for at least two years (according to the gm) should be selling Pearson for whatever assets they can get for him. 

 

If they bring him back at anything over $2.5 it will be a travesty. 

Did you mean "Travis-ty"