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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

I must point out that if Virtanen gets moved, this contract doesn't even register as a big deal. Tanner Pearson fits in with the team well. That plus let's maybe remind people how disheartened Bo was when we lost the players we lost last off season. Losing Tanner Pearson, when the contract is reasonable is not an option. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just listened to the 650 Patterson clip, brought up a lot of good points.

 

Flat cap, he likely wouldn't have got this deal on the open market, another protection spot used up on a fringe top 6. Not a good skater and having a bad season while almost 30

 

Its a stupid deal with even stupider timing. I can't beleive JB hasn't learned his lesson on signing aging, slow, middle 6 vets that aren't drivers of play. Hes losing it, and I'm starting to question if he's the guy to take this team into its cup window. We're going to ice this exact team plus maybe Podkolzin next season. How does that make sense? Minus whoever we lose! 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, knucklehead91 said:

Okay so let me get this straight....

Pearson’s contract does not take up a spot on the expansion draft protection list?

He had a career year last year

He is 28 turning 29

His current cap hit is 3.75m

His cap hit next year is 3.25m

The contract is 3 years....

Just going to do a little math here, but correct me if I’m wrong...

3.25-3.75= -.500? Am I just crazy or did we pay less for a guy whos still in his prime years and came off a career year?With a small and reasonable term, a contract that can still be exposed to Seattle (from what I understand)
 

Y’all are just point counting and flippin out, when:

1) This is not a normal year, COVID has affected what a normal training camp would be. 
2) no pre-season to get into game shape

3) Vancouver had played the most amount of hockey in a highly condensed schedule with hardly any rest, especially compared to teams like Montreal and Toronto in our division who have had 3 1 week breaks.

4) Injuries up and down the lineup

5) Pettersson has been out for a period of time, lines are not what they typically are

6) The team is having a down year and a poor start with long stretches of bad hockey

7) WE DIDNT GET ANY PRACTICE TIME UNTIL LIKE 15 GAMES IN OR SOMETHING STUPID LIKE THAT

 

 

Toffoli is the same age and has half his goals against Vancouver this season and he’s playing on a deep team who has had quite a good chunk of rest throughout the season..

Lets be real, had we kept Toffoli he would not have 19g 11a on this team the way our season has gone.

So we keep Toffoli instead and sign him for 4 years at 4.25m

1 year longer and 1mil more and who knows how his season would have gone here... He’s on a strong Montreal team that is rollin.

 

The Canucks as a whole are having a rough year, Im not going to believe that Pearson went from a career year to an absolute dud over night. Pearson still has some good years of hockey left in him.

We are going to have Lou’s cap penalty off the books

Eriksson off the books

Spooner off the books

Baertschi off the books

Beagle off the books

Sutter off the books.......

all within 2 years....

 

Im okay with 3.25 for a 28y/o whos won a cup and is better than the year he’s having...


Now if it was Sutter or someone in the 30+ range for 3-4 years, I’d be frustrated. But we are talkin a guy whos in his late 20s and still in prime years and put up 21g and 24a last season.


This year is hard to gauge for a lot of players. But what we know for sure is his salary did not increase.

super troopers yes GIF by Fox Searchlight

  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Davathor said:

he likely wouldn't have got this deal on the open market,

 

another protection spot used up on a fringe top 6.

 

Not a good skater and having a bad season while almost 30

-Pure conjecture.

 

-What forward would you rather protect over Pearson?

 

-Isn't a bad skater. Is only 28. No need to bend the truth unless you are reaching.

 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

This thread has the potential to out perform the Shinkaruk - Granlund thread from 2016.

 

It ... could ... go ... all the ... way ... 

I remember the Shinkaruk-Granlund trade thread had reached 100 pages in 8 hours. That will potentially be untouched in terms of the number of replies within that time frame for a trade or signing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to not sign this deal + get rid of Virtanen and use that combined cap, for example, for a legit 2W for Bo? Perhaps one that's actually good at passing which he's pretty much never had. Or use that money or a legit top-4 D which this team still lacks and has no means of replacing internally as of now. Or keep all the money to keep your options open.

 

Lind or even Jasek at 3C? You do realize C depth and overall defensive ability at center is a weak point of ours right?

 

The more you dig into our roster and all the different options and possibilities in the off-season, the less sense it makes to commit to this contract at this point. It's less about the contract itself but more its opportunity cost.

Good post. While I don’t agree that this hurts us as much as others here, you point out legitimate and reasonable  concerns. 
3D and 4C do need to be addressed and this signing makes that more difficult. Still not impossible though when combined with other moves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Pearson can play several roles. He has chemistry with Bo offensively and defensively. Podkolzin could be that 2W that you're talking about at a fraction of the cost (also an excellent passer), but instead of pencilling him in and having Bo take on two young wingers, this allows Podkolzin earn his spot if he can take it and Pearson is just fine on a 3rd line role as well.

None of what you said is inaccurate but that still doesn't make this the right decision or at least the right time.

 

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Lind and Jasek have shown quite well in Utica at center. We constantly hear about how we need to give young players a chance and then the idea gets crapped on. If they aren't ready, a stop gap in Soderberg for example should suffice.

Playing the kids is fine but you also need to place them in roles where they can succeed and it helps the team. 3C is major hole for this us, an important role to fill; remember what happened when they were forced to throw McCann into the fire because they didn't sign enough quality center depth? Management and their worshippers turned on McCann for his alleged "immaturity" and he was shown the door not much longer in return for another "culture carrier" like Pearson who, oops, couldn't play hockey (at least Pearson can, well before this season, anyway).

 

Funny thing is, now McCann could play Pearson's role essentially and do it for cheaper, while being 4 years younger and still be an RFA when his current contract expires. Which kind of brings this thing full circle: why constantly... CONSTANTLY target higher priced UFAs when you should be drafting players to fill those roles on the cheap, especially when so many claim that drafting is a strength of this management group?

 

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

I mean we could target someone in UFA, but that could also end up with the second coming of Eriksson. It doesn't always work. 

Using Eriksson as an example is kind of disingenuous, especially when you consider the Eriksson contract was terrible from the very second it was signed.

 

Not to mention a major part of why the Eriksson signing was bad was the timing, much like this one.

Edited by kanucks25
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mathew Barzal said:

Not a fan. Pearson is already regressing into a third line checking player, we get better bang for buck in free agency and in the farm. We should have let him walk. 

He had a career year literally last season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CanucksJay said:

Hold on, we have to protect him at the expansion draft? 

At what? The expense of Jake, Gaudette, Motte or Macewan? 

His salary and term is long enough that he didn't need protection... Wtf? 

Technically he doesn’t need to be protected but according to Drance both sides have agreed that he would be.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well it will depend of what JB does with Edler, Sutter, Gaudette, Hamonic and Tryamkin.

 

If we want to take the next step, Pearson should not be a top 6 guy, and i dont like our third line the way it is now.
Pearson on a third line would be a good upgrade, and at 3.25 its not that of a bad deal.

problem is, i don't think it was our priority, and I'm just scared what he's gonna do with Edler.  
Edler, now, has to walk. if we give him something like 3M to stay a canucks, and you add the 3.25 given to Pearson, then indeed we're in bad shape. 
if you let Edler walk, then Pearson-signing could be a ok move.


Priorities are :

bridge deal for Hughes and Pettersson 

sign Tryamkin (secure him) ASAP at 2.5Mx2 

re sign Hamonic at 2M
Gaudette 1M, could be a candidate for the 3C spot.
decide if you keep Sutter at 2M to secure the 3C if you still are not confortable with Gaud.

maybe try to keep Vesey another year, this guy as talent. 

 

Let Benn, Hawryluk, EDLER go. 
 

Hope Roussel/Holtby will be picked up at ED. 

Edited by deus.ex.makina
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, knucklehead91 said:

Okay so let me get this straight....

Pearson’s contract does not take up a spot on the expansion draft protection list?

He had a career year last year

He is 28 turning 29

His current cap hit is 3.75m

His cap hit next year is 3.25m

The contract is 3 years....

Just going to do a little math here, but correct me if I’m wrong...

3.25-3.75= -.500? Am I just crazy or did we pay less for a guy whos still in his prime years and came off a career year?With a small and reasonable term, a contract that can still be exposed to Seattle (from what I understand)
 

Y’all are just point counting and flippin out, when:

1) This is not a normal year, COVID has affected what a normal training camp would be. 
2) no pre-season to get into game shape

3) Vancouver had played the most amount of hockey in a highly condensed schedule with hardly any rest, especially compared to teams like Montreal and Toronto in our division who have had 3 1 week breaks.

4) Injuries up and down the lineup

5) Pettersson has been out for a period of time, lines are not what they typically are

6) The team is having a down year and a poor start with long stretches of bad hockey

7) WE DIDNT GET ANY PRACTICE TIME UNTIL LIKE 15 GAMES IN OR SOMETHING STUPID LIKE THAT

 

 

Toffoli is the same age and has half his goals against Vancouver this season and he’s playing on a deep team who has had quite a good chunk of rest throughout the season..

Lets be real, had we kept Toffoli he would not have 19g 11a on this team the way our season has gone.

So we keep Toffoli instead and sign him for 4 years at 4.25m

1 year longer and 1mil more and who knows how his season would have gone here... He’s on a strong Montreal team that is rollin.

 

The Canucks as a whole are having a rough year, Im not going to believe that Pearson went from a career year to an absolute dud over night. Pearson still has some good years of hockey left in him.

We are going to have Lou’s cap penalty off the books

Eriksson off the books

Spooner off the books

Baertschi off the books

Beagle off the books

Sutter off the books.......

all within 2 years....

 

Im okay with 3.25 for a 28y/o whos won a cup and is better than the year he’s having...


Now if it was Sutter or someone in the 30+ range for 3-4 years, I’d be frustrated. But we are talkin a guy whos in his late 20s and still in prime years and put up 21g and 24a last season.


This year is hard to gauge for a lot of players. But what we know for sure is his salary did not increase.

Who in their right mind was going to give Tanner Pearson more money? Of course he was going to take a discount, he had no choice.

 

- will be 29 when next season starts

- footspeed is not a strength

- less than half a point per game over his career

- coming off a bad season

 

You think there are teams out there salivating to give Pearson a better contract than we gave him? Another team is going to beat our offer with something like 4M x 3Y with trade protection? In the flat cap climate?

 

Give me a break lol

 

Him taking less money than his previous contract was a forgone conclusion, not a feather in Benning's cap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

I’ll take a stab. The Minister?

 

Nah, TM had a different vernacular. I think he’s still around here under that same name but doesn’t venture into Canucks Talk, TRS, etc. 
 

There was a guy around here a couple years ago who popped up under a couple different names. One of his accounts had an eraser for a profile picture I think. I can’t remember the names he used at the moment but he was pretty funny. @Convincing John isn’t as sharp tongued though, IMO. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Drance is a tool, I’ll believe it when I see it. 

They signed him ahead of the TDL and did not wait till after expansion or wait to know who could be available in free agency or in a trade.  Benning has been saying they want to sign him and that he is a glue guy.  Seems more than likely that he would be protected.

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...