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

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

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

I would agree that if Benning signs Pearson to a 3x3 contract in the middle of a pandemic when there will be a fire sale in the summer of similar players, I think that would be the tipping point for me. Benning would need to be demoted to head of the scouting department and in charge of the draft.  We would need someone new to negotiate contracts.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

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

well we'll see. From your own Taj tweet above it sounds like 1 year is being discussed, it would just be at 3+. I'd rather see him get say 3.5 for 1 year than 3 mil x 2 e.g. 

 

I'd prefer he wait and see how the market develops though. 

 

BTW - my theory is that you are Taj. Tell me I'm close. 

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmy Vesey is making 900k, Travis Boyd is making 700k, again signed by the leafs during fa last year. so u have no excuse saying u cant find similar players like Pearson for cheap, what an idiot JB is, that fact he been here 7 years and only flukey play appearance because of  point percentage, and he still not getting job done

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well we'll see. From your own Taj tweet above it sounds like 1 year is being discussed, it would just be at 3+. I'd rather see him get say 3.5 for 1 year than 3 mil x 2 e.g. 

 

I'd prefer he wait and see how the market develops though. 

 

BTW - my theory is that you are Taj. Tell me I'm close. 

he blocked me

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

You shouldn’t be “afraid” to lose him and talking to an agent about an extension is very far away from being shortsighted. The opposite actually. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well we'll see. From your own Taj tweet above it sounds like 1 year is being discussed, it would just be at 3+. I'd rather see him get say 3.5 for 1 year than 3 mil x 2 e.g. 

 

I'd prefer he wait and see how the market develops though. 

 

BTW - my theory is that you are Taj. Tell me I'm close. 

 

D0EEABE4-EB24-4E7B-BB94-C521E9A4587E.png

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

 

That would be genuinely stupid on Benning’s part if true.

 

Not only will there be value pick ups in the offseason with a tight cap again... but there are opportunities to make trades where eating those same dollars for a similar player would actually get us extra assets.

 

Like could we trade Jake for Palat and a 2nd to give Tampa almost $3 million in cap relief?

 

Jake at $2.55 plus Pearson at $3.0 = $5.55

 

Palat = $5.3

 

We use one of our already existing spare wingers who is in the press box, or Lind for the other roster spot.

 

There are probably dozens of similar deals where we can take money back in a trade and get a player equivalent or better than Pearson.

Edited by Provost
  • Thanks 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

well we'll see. From your own Taj tweet above it sounds like 1 year is being discussed, it would just be at 3+. I'd rather see him get say 3.5 for 1 year than 3 mil x 2 e.g. 

 

I'd prefer he wait and see how the market develops though. 

 

BTW - my theory is that you are Taj. Tell me I'm close. 

From that tweet (not that 'Taj' is a legit source), it sounds like $3+ for one year, under $3 if it's 2 or more years (ideally no more than 3 years and preferably 2).

 

That's the ballpark certainly.

 

As for the 'you can sign a guy for less' crowd, yes you can likely sign 'a guy' for less. But then you get 'a guy'. You have no idea how he'll fit on your team or perform. Pearson has proven to fit well on our team and with Horvat, while being solid defensively/can PK and putting up complimentary offense.

 

Ideally he's playing 3rd line and Podkolzin comes out of the gate flying, but it's nice to know you've got a guy you can rely on to play there if Podz needs a demotion or if there's injuries.

 

But no, we shouldn't be 'afraid' to lose him.

Edited by aGENT
  • Huggy Bear 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Provost said:

That would be genuinely stupid on Benning’s part if true.

 

Not only will there be value pick ups in the offseason with a tight cap again... but there are opportunities to make trades where eating those same dollars for a similar player would actually get us extra assets.

 

Like could we trade Jake for Palat and a 2nd to give Tampa almost $3 million in cap relief?

 

Jake at $2.55 plus Pearson at $3.0 = $5.55

 

Palat = $5.3

 

We use one of our already existing spare wingers who is in the press box, or Lind for the other roster spot.

 

There are probably dozens of similar deals where we can take money back in a trade and get a player equivalent or better than Pearson.

Provost for GM!

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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. 

Term is huge yeah. Two years of Pearson would take him to almost 31 as he'll be 29 in August. We can absolutely get two very serviceable years out of him, even three imo. But the longer the term given, the less flex we have to move on from him and integrate someone more on their upswing. 

 

I like Pearson, but if he's retained he'll likely need to take a pay cut and take shorter term. Maybe he's willing to do so, that'd be great. If not, we'll see. I don't think we necessarily need Pearson, but I don't think he'd hurt us much either. 

 

Same goes for Edler, I really want him back. I'm unabashed in my wanting to see him be the first D to play 1k games in a Canucks uniform. But the money and term needs to be right. 

Edited by Coconuts
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Provost said:

That would be genuinely stupid on Benning’s part if true.

 

Not only will there be value pick ups in the offseason with a tight cap again... but there are opportunities to make trades where eating those same dollars for a similar player would actually get us extra assets.

 

Like could we trade Jake for Palat and a 2nd to give Tampa almost $3 million in cap relief?

 

Jake at $2.55 plus Pearson at $3.0 = $5.55

 

Palat = $5.3

 

We use one of our already existing spare wingers who is in the press box, or Lind for the other roster spot.

 

There are probably dozens of similar deals where we can take money back in a trade and get a player equivalent or better than Pearson.

u can get cheaper players, the leafs signed boyd and vesey to a combined 1.6 million

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

u can get cheaper players, the leafs signed boyd and vesey to a combined 1.6 million

Absolutely you can, I mentioned that.

 

The other point was that if we think we really have those cap dollars available (no idea where they would come from)... then you can spend them a lot more wisely than giving term and good money to yet another veteran middle 6 winger.

Edited by Provost
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Provost said:

Absolutely you can, I mentioned that.

 

The other point was that if we think we really have those cap dollars available (no idea where they would come from)... then you can spend them a lot more wisely.

the Redwings have like 40 million in Cap space , imagine they offer sheet both Hughes and Petterson for 7 years at 10 million. Do you really want to hand cuff your self , so if that happens you cant match them because you cap is filled with third and forth liners

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they could somehow trade Roussel, I wouldn't mind giving him the contract Antoine got.

 

I know he was struggling offensively this season, but he was still solid defensively, a key pker and a veteran voice in our locker room. Best case scenario is he gets bumped down to the 3rd line by Podkolzin or by a top 6 trade.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused as to how Pearson thinks he has leverage for higher salary (as much as management may want to sign him).  We're still in the midst of Covid and other UFA's e.g. Hamonic have had to take discounts, so just because he was here doesn't mean that they shouldn't play hardball and try to keep his number low if they want to retain him.  What's more, technically he had an off year offensively, and though I value his defense, this team should be beyond giving big money to bottom-6 players; that's not a mistake this team can afford to repeat.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the AAV starts with a 3 you’ve made a huge mistake

 

THIS TEAM DOESN'T NEED MORE BOTTOM 6 OVER PAID PLUGS

 

now if it’s 3yrs/2m or 2yrs/2.5m per I’d do that or some where around that

 

he had 11 points in 33 games, that doesn’t warrant a huge contract

 

canucks 100% know something we don’t with their cap structure if they are adding money to next year 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If he is looking at 3mill, that’s gonna be a hard pass for me.  
He isnt a top 6 (shouldn’t be).  
That’s a lot to pay for a third liner.  
Hopefully Jim has learned his lesson with over paying aging bottom 6 players...... 

 

Id give him $2.5 max for 2 years at most. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...