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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

Just now, VegasCanuck said:

#1. I will be shocked if Podkolzin needs more time, he's playing well and being effective in the 2nd best league in the world as an 18 and 19 year old, he'll be fine

#2. IF he did need more time, that's what we have Utica for, and his contract wouldn't count against our cap until he's on the team.

If he does need more time. Canuck faithful will be calling him a bust ;) 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Devron44 said:

If he does need more time. Canuck faithful will be calling him a bust ;) 

They call kids who are 18 and not getting a point a game a bust, so everything is tracking as usual :)

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

3 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

Don’t do this to me. Quit giving me LE trade hope Lol

 

Seriously though I’ll keep the second and LE can suit up for Utica next year :) 

 

You might say LE is my worst enemy ahah

 

I'm afraid unloading LE at only the cost of a 2nd round pick would be like Mr Roarke welcoming us to....

 

 

 

 

I still think the Kraken would likely just pick a player off the Canucks roster on a cheap contract and/or Myers (right side D aren't going to be that cheap in the open market)

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Squamfan said:

I am 26 and the Canucks will not win the cup in my life time, I could live until 90 and they will have zero ups

I see you're at it again.....why the f are you a fan and why are you on this forum.....constant negativity, ignorance and complaining!!! You need to leave and find something else to follow in life. 

  • Like 2
  • Vintage 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

And what happens if Podkolzin needs more time, do we just rush him in the lineup? Pearson is also well-liked by Horvat. Re-signing him is a no-brainer. 3.25 is really not that bad. If they need to move salary, they have a number of ways to do it - and players like Sutter are coming off the books possibly.

That’s the same reasoning that got us a few other bad contracts on the team. We filled it with guys like Rous and Beags to insulate guys who may not be ready yet. But our young players, for the most part, seem to fill in admirably for them when needed. And that’s what I see will happen with Pearson. You’re telling me if Pearson isn’t there, none of Podz, Mac, Gauds, or any cheaper free agent or prospect in our system would be miles worse than Pearson? I see Pearson as a marginally better option than most of our young players right now, but not $3.25/3 times better.
 

You say the team could move salary if they need to but we have seen no evidence the team is capable of doing so. So that’s where a lot of trepidation from the fans comes from.

 

This deal isn’t terrible but I can’t agree that it has to be done right now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

Logically one can fairly easily sign a 30+ year old backup goalie to put up meh numbers at a fraction of the cash in today’s environment.  Jake at least has upside.

Here are ten + goalie contracts ''I would not prefer'' to Holtby's.  It took me about 30 seconds. 5 times longer to type out and link. I bet I could come up with more?

 

Jake Allen 

Jonathan Quick

Mikko Koskinen

Jonathan Bernier

Thomas Greiss

Cam Talbot    Cam's playing pretty good, still dont prefer his contract.

Pavel Francouz   Good contract, does not cover ED, so dyu pay him Holtby #'s to sign?

Jaraslav Halak

Devan Dubnyk

Martin Jones

Pekka Rinne

Sergei Bobrovsky

 

It makes your suggestion that its easy look pretty easy to sign a 30ish year old goalie for fraction very invalid IMO. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

For sure.

 

There's no value here. There's no reason why Tanner Pearson at 3 x 3.25 with some sort of NTC in each year of the deal would be something we need to rush into.

 

Why this management team is so laser-focused on "getting their guy", especially if he's an intangibles-first depth player, is simply beyond me.

Why do people keep saying he has NTC in each year? His contract is laid out like this:

 

Year 1: Full NTC, not NMC so he is still exposable to Seattle

Year 2: 7 Team NTC

Year 3: No trade protection of any kind

Edited by 204CanucksFan
  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Sedinery 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 204CanucksFan said:

Why do people keep saying he has NTC in each year? His contract is layer out like this:

 

Year 1: Full NTC, not NMC so he is still exposable to Seattle

Year 2: 7 Team NTC

Year 3: No trade protection of any kind

Sorry, no NTC in year 3.

 

Doesn't really change anything though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

It makes your suggestion that its easy look pretty easy to sign a 30ish year old goalie for fraction very invalid IMO. 

You seriously don't think it's that hard to get a backup goalie under contract for a fraction of the cost of $5.7 million?  And he's not even good in that role (been declining for several seasons now).  We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

 

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be off but the logic in signing Pearson now could put us in a stronger position with EP and QH deals.

 

Not going into detail but signing the complete roster for next year first and then go to Ep and QH Agent (they are at the same agency)

and tell him "look we got 12 million in cap space, work out 2 deals your clients can live with"

 

Give them a certain amount of cap available and let them work out how they wanna do it. Both 2x6 ok, EP 2x7 QH 2x5 ok, EP 3x7 QH 1x5

whatever. Give them enough cap space to not hold out but not enough to work out fancy contracts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Silky mitts said:

If bennings window of competitiveness is two years as he says ...why would you ink this contract ?

Because he still wants to surround our younger players with experience and players who have gone all the way to the cup.

 

That's why he brought in Holtby, that's why he brought in Beagle and that's why he's keeping Pearson (who is still in his prime).

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

 

 

 

I'm afraid unloading LE at only the cost of a 2nd round pick would be like Mr Roarke welcoming us to....

 

 

 

Maybe ... maybe not.

 

I've read that teams learned their lesson from the Vegas expansion.  So maybe there will be less teams offering picks for SEA to take a certain player.  So if there there are less teams offering picks, then perhaps SEA will take on a bad contract in order to get more draft picks.  

 

I know.  Wishful thinking. 

 

Lol.

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Virtanen#18 said:

Thank you Sir... I wanted to give you a heart but none available....  but here it is:

 

image.png.fb12d3be2ffd8ec4f9092809e6e28a8c.png

 

 

Looks like they are trying to roll something that is just not there?

 

Maybe the pick captures more than u thought...  :lol:

  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...