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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, spur1 said:

Lol... lots of overpaid there. 

All of those contracts are significantly better than Pearson's and every player on that list is outperforming Pearson this season. If they are overpaid what does that make Pearson:blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, canuck2288 said:

This Beagle narrative is simply ridiculous. Let’s assume Beagle is done, so that means we can turn tight around and blow that cap space on a guy that is clearly in decline and frankly wasting top 6 minutes? 

 

makes zero sense

 

like winning the lottery and taking all the money to buy more lottery tickets

 

and then the Green/JB cult wonder why this team can’t make the playoffs while constantly paying to the cap 

 

inexcusable incompetence 

We are a team where our top players are on dirt cheap contracts, we had a 7 year "rebuild window", spend up to the cap and yet haven't really made any steps forward. The Covid cup run was a nice glimpse but lets be honest the team would have missed the playoffs if not for the stoppage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, canuck73_3 said:

He had a career year literally last season. 

I guess take it with a grain of salt but FWIW even last year he didn't pass my eye test as a second line player, points or not. He was a streaky goal scoring winger who profited off Bo being a stallion in the offensive zone.

 

He's not the worst option, but any contender can do better in their top six. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mathew Barzal said:

I guess take it with a grain of salt but FWIW even last year he didn't pass my eye test as a second line player, points or not. He was a streaky goal scoring winger who profited off Bo being a stallion in the offensive zone.

 

He's not the worst option, but any contender can do better in their top six. 

Pearson had some of the worst underlying stats on the team as well last year despite his offensive output. Also consider before coming to Vancouver he was likely headed to the waiver wire. I don't mind Pearson but not the type of player to tie up 10 million dollars in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't like the deal at all but I thought I would sleep on it instead of reading the 35 pages of typical goof comments by guys like Squamfan, canucks2288, and the other preschoolers. 

 

As others and I said earlier there is nothing wrong with the deal in isolation. He is definitely worth that at this point in his career years. It's pretty reasonable money. One thing I don't like is Roussel being on the team in this case but JB must have some plan moving forward.

 

The main reason posters, myself included, get riled up is because of the cap. It looks ugly and very hard to manage moving forward but if he moves the appropriate pieces and retains Pearson in the middle 6 as a utility piece at that price it's a smart deal. The problem is we've got Boeser, Miller, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Motte, Virtanen, Gaudette, MacEwen, Roussel, Lind, already, and we have Vesey, and Hawryluk, who have played decent but are UFA.

 

The biggest thing that makes this not so hard to take is PK duties. With Sutter UFA and Beagle possibly done we are basically left with Motte as our only real PKer. They even started using Miller in that spot but he shouldn't be used there. So in that vein he's actually quite an important piece, especially if Roussel is not playing.

 

When listing the wingers on the team as above he's unfortunately still 3 or 4 on the depth chart. He's still our #2 LW unless Podkolzin just completely busts out (unlikely). I'm thinking a team basically goes with no more than 8 wingers, and usually has a 13th forward who is a center. That means he has to cut 3 guys from above.

 

I would say Virtanen gets traded, Lind stays down and I hope we buy out Roussel or something but we probably let MacEwen go I would think, or we move Gaudette as well which I would do. He's been useless wherever he plays. I like Vesey but we have to let him go now, I would re-sign Hawryluk as the 13th forward.

 

Miller Petey Boeser

Pearson Bo Hoglander

Roussel Sutter Gaudette

Motte Lind/Sutter/UFA Podkolzin

 

Basically this implies we'll have pretty much the exact same forward group besides Podkolzin in for Ericksson, and the bottom 6 centers. This is actually not to bad as our offence is pretty good. Defence is where we need the majority of the work.

 

All in all I'm not that perturbed by the signing anymore. As far as a fan I had hoped to maybe sign a legitimate top 6 winger but we do have firepower already so without that move it's not a bad re-sign if can shed the rest of the chafe.  

Edited by Gawdzukes
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, b3. said:

No joke.

 

If he can stay around the 20+20 mark it won’t be as bad.

That's a big if - especially if he ends up on the third line after the arrival of a couple prospects. 

 

don't get me wrong, I like Pearson and the funny this is for 2.5 I would have been ecstatic but we see higher producing players getting paid much less. I also think a lot more people would have been on board with this if it wasnt for our current cap distribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have how many contracts to sign? Why do we continue to spend money in 3rd line production? Can we not trade our expiring contracts for pieces to help at the draft or prospects? Don’t we have a couple forwards who are in the system that could replace Pearson? We’ve been in the playoffs two times in seven years and have been in cap hell for most of them.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, people really wants to rip Benning's head for a deal they say is 1 year too long and not even a 1M$ overpaid?

 

Honestly, if I'm going to call for Benning's head it would be for that COVID outbreak fiasco.  Clearly, the team's protocol were deficient and not enforced.  No way that the whole team should've been affected if strict protocols were followed.  Somebody missed the boat on that one and IMO it's the head of hockey operations that should see to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steven Stamkos said:

We have how many contracts to sign? Why do we continue to spend money in 3rd line production? Can we not trade our expiring contracts for pieces to help at the draft or prospects? Don’t we have a couple forwards who are in the system that could replace Pearson? We’ve been in the playoffs two times in seven years and have been in cap hell for most of them.

3rd line production?

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stawns said:

3rd line production?

.46 career production last year was an exception to his career average. He’ll be 29 by the start of next season, how many 29 year olds do you see improve their production? Also has bad possession numbers. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mll said:

Horvat Pearson take on the toughest matchups with the Pettersson line.  The Canucks bottom 6 are really sheltered from matchups and are caught between not scoring all that much despite facing weaker competition and not being trusted all that much defensively.

 

11 hours ago, stawns said:

They wouldn't play tough matchups much,  Bo's line is going to be the shutdown line, we know that for sure.  Gaud's line would get primatily ozone starts

 

So why would we want to double down on this strategy? if its not working now whats going to be different next year? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, timberz21 said:

Lol, people really wants to rip Benning's head for a deal they say is 1 year too long and not even a 1M$ overpaid?

 

Honestly, if I'm going to call for Benning's head it would be for that COVID outbreak fiasco.  Clearly, the team's protocol were deficient and not enforced.  No way that the whole team should've been affected if strict protocols were followed.  Somebody missed the boat on that one and IMO it's the head of hockey operations that should see to that.

Apparently they were following the NHL protocols. Green kept looking for direction and they told him that the upcoming game, and therefore the practice was a go. I guess in hindsight they could have pulled the team and forfeited the game until they received a couple days of negative tests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly my knee jerk reaction to this was wow we paid him how much but now that I had time to think about it it’s not even that bad maybe 250-500k overpayment but it’s the Big league some people get contract that are better then them. He’s been productive for us so why not try

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I’m feeling is in this tweet. It’s just astonishing to find people who support this stuff. There isn’t a single player on that list that changed point a to point b. Meaning, the outcome of our seasons would not have changed with or without those players. We would still be essentially the same team points wise but instead we would have a disturbing amount of free cap space to exploit contending teams flat cap issues.  
 

Oh, then there is always the, insulate youth crowd. If you really believe that’s essential, why not take a cap burden veteran from a contender in exchange for prospects and picks? If you’re going to have dead weight on your cap you might as well get something for it. 

Edited by Convincing John
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah this one might be the one that breaks the camel's back for me. The contract in a vacuum is not terrible. If Colorado signed this, it wouldn't have been a bad move.

It's bad because:

1. It's in the context of our GM JUST TELLING US WE WILL COMPETE IN 2 YEARS.
2. We are replacing his old bad contracts for middling forwards with potentially new bad contracts for middling forwards. He hasn't learned.
3. We just lost key players due to poor cap management (Tanev, Toffoli). This signing basically admits we could've had Toffoli. He was only a million more and expires at the same time.
4. The signing means we can't weaponize our trade protection slots
5. If he's permitted to make deals like this, he is likely our GM beyond this year.

The one thing I find interesting is our owner is quiet on Twitter about this signing compared to with Demko.

Unless he's fired, I may be switching to watching Seattle next year.

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Petey_BOI said:

if jim does something which he doesn't do often, which is sign 1 year rental for a center, we could be ok.

thats probably the plan, see whats available on day 2 or 3 of free agency. 

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

 

 

So why would we want to double down on this strategy? if its not working now whats going to be different next year? 

You can't use this year as any kind of standard

  • Hydration 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...