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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

Why does Jim have this deep rooted hate for cap flexibility? Did something traumatic happen in his childhood? Being up to his eyeballs in salary cap is being metaphorically swaddled? Does he need a hug? Cause I’ll hug the crap out of him if he stops paying 30 year olds like 22 year olds. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Again, it's MILDLY disappointing we didn't get a few hundred k less and/or a year shorter of home town/early re-sign discount, but it's hardly 'OMGDZZZZ! :frantic:'

 

All the righteous indignation is pretty hilarious for a pretty 'meh' deal.

 

People should save their pantie twisting for something actually bad... Like re-signing Eriksson :ph34r:

 

:bigblush:

 

Edler is next.

 

It’s a similar issue.  Ideally they are not brought back but they need to have the players for the roles they play, and the others already under contract are either not trusted/declining or not ready to take over just yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Generals for the Allies in WWI kept sending troops out of the trenches to get mowed down. Consistency is good in some cases, not all. :P

I hear you - and I was quoted on this board hoping / figuring we’d be selling rather than retaining.

 

That said, this is a guy we know gels with the captain being retained for a 500k haircut, not a UFA splash. I still see it as fairly low risk.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here is my 2 cents worth...........

 

If you look at the lines amongst the teams. I noticed this in "general"

 

2nd line players are either on ELC's but are high end prospects or being paid more than Pearson

 

3rd line players are either on ELC's or paid less

 

So, since he has been both in the last 2 years (aka production), which one is he going to be for the next 3 years?

 

Benning is betting on the former..........I am not sure which one, so Benning is either a genius or should get a kick in the arse!

 

Update at 11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Squamfan said:

Because we can get cheaper players in FA. Pearson is on the decline u don’t pay 3 plus million to a player who has 6 goals in 33 games

This year isn’t a good barometer for anyones play. Pearson is a 200ft player and certainly not “on the decline”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silky mitts said:

CDC has really gone downhill too. People used to be critical on here , informed takes . Now it’s benning slurping and rampant homerism . 
 

But it’s always good for some great laughs provided by some of the takes.

ive yet to see a post where some ones right out praising benning for this, what are you going on about.

EDIT: most post ive seen are people complaining about it.

Edited by TNucks1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside, locking in Pearson makes me think we might be looking to go:

 

Pettersson

Miller

Horvat

 

down the middle next season.  Not necessarily in that order. Boeser, Hoglander, Pearson, Motte and Podkolzin as wings... with the rest of the riff raff battling it out for that last spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

Offseason hasn't begun yet, are you going to be pumped when we re-sign Sutter?

We do need a depth C. I have zero problem bringing Sutter back at an appropriate pay rate.

 

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

It would be a meh deal if it was about a million less and one year less...in a vacuum. 

That's completely unrealistic. Pearson was never signing for less than $2.5-$3m.

 

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

Unfortunately when we look at in context, and given the fact that we already have a ton of overpaid vets on our team,

Besides Sutter and Beagle being overpaid because we needed to keep/attract key C's to a bottom feeder and the toilet deal that Eriksson is, we don't have a 'ton'.

 

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

then it's perfectly understandable why posters are indignant.

Nope. The freak out over paying a solid, two way, +/- 40 point, middle 6 forward that fits well on our team, market value, is silly.

 

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

  We already lost Tanev and Toffoli due to overpaid bottom 6 junk, when we lose more players we shouldn't be concerned?

We lost Tanev to gain Schmidt. Win. We lost Toffoli because of Covid (or I'll grant you Eriksson).

 

10 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

We should just be happy while the team wallows in mediocrity forever? I wish I could approach the Canucks with your Big Lebowski-esque whatever dude approach, but when you invest in a team emotionally and financially it's frustrating to see them making the exact same unforced errors again and again and again.

 Ok.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

As an aside, locking in Pearson makes me think we might be looking to go:

 

Pettersson

Miller

Horvat

 

down the middle next season.  Not necessarily in that order. Boeser, Hoglander, Pearson, Motte and Podkolzin as wings... with the rest of the riff raff battling it out for that last spot.

Interesting take................

 

The expansion draft might have something to say about that............still interesting thought

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, mll said:

 

Can’t imagine Green going with an all rookie line.  

 

The bottom-6 doesn’t produce much because they don’t generate much.  That was already an issue the season before despite better counting stats but there was the risk of regression.  Counting stats alone are not necessarily a reliable way to assess performance or sustainability. 

 

Gaudette was shooting at 16% last season while getting caved in facing some of the softest competition.  Nothing much different this season other than his shooting percentage dropped.

 

It's a one rookie line

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Screw said:

I like what Person brings.  Since joining Vancouver he had been a productive scorer, physical presence, and a has played 2nd line minutes.  Lol @ all the hate here.   At 28, he will be in his prime throughout these three years.   He is a quality player.  The contract is not as outrageous as the drama queens will have you believe.

I appreciate you for being rational. Thank you. He’s a very quality middle six forward. Even with his down year, his goal rate in his Canuck career is 1 goal for every 3.3 games. If he gets back to scoring at that pace, he’d score around 25 goals in a full season. That potential production is pretty darn good. Add in the fact that he plays good defense and can penalty kill and play on the power play. I’ll happily watch Tanner Pearson another 3 years in a Canucks jersey. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Screw said:

I like what Person brings.  Since joining Vancouver he had been a productive scorer, physical presence, and a has played 2nd line minutes.  Lol @ all the hate here.   At 28, he will be in his prime throughout these three years.   He is a quality player.  The contract is not as outrageous as the drama queens will have you believe.

Lmao Lol GIF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

As an aside, locking in Pearson makes me think we might be looking to go:

 

Pettersson

Miller

Horvat

 

down the middle next season.  Not necessarily in that order. Boeser, Hoglander, Pearson, Motte and Podkolzin as wings... with the rest of the riff raff battling it out for that last spot.

All 3 top lines play 17 min a game and 4th line gets 9min...I’m down with this

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Arrow 1983 said:

Rathbone might not be on the team if he is #7 bring in a vet at .700-.800

 

Call Rathbone if injures occur

 

Juolevi just don't see him cracking a 1.0mill maybe .925-.975

 

Eriksson not getting bought out makes no sense 

Yeah we are going to have to agree to disagree. After signing Pearson to this deal, buying out Eriksson is the most sensible move otherwise our defense becomes TOR 2019. But looks like JB is planning on a tire fire next season anyway, so may as well put Eriksson on a line with with Pearson and Horvat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, stawns said:

and between Petey and Hughes, I'll bet they each take about $1.5-2m less than anticipated

That would be my guess as well.   I’m curious as to how Benning is projecting the lines for next year?

 

Miller-Pettersson-Boeser

Pearson-Horvat-Hoglander OR Hoglander-Horvat-Podkolzin

Podkolzin-Gaudette-Virtanen OR Pearson-Gaudette-Virtanen 

 

In terms of potential for offense, One of Pearson or Podkolzin will likely be an upgrade over Roussel on that 3rd line spot and so that should give Gaudette and Virtanen a little more help.   Will the Canucks re-sign Vesey?

 

Another possibility is that the Canucks liked what they saw from Miller as a center during Petey’s absence, and so keeping Pearson would allow them to create three decent scoring lines?

 

Hoglander-Miller-Boeser

Roussel-Pettersson-Virtanen

Pearson-Horvat-Podkolzin

Motte-Gaudette-MacEwen (Beagle to Robidas Island)

 

Boyd


Hughes-Myers

Tryamkin-Schmidt

Juolevi-Benn

 

Demko

Holtby

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...