[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[JM_]

10 hours ago, theo5789 said:

There's still an entire off season to figure it out. Worst case scenario, we go with Pettersson, Horvat, Miller, Beagle as our centers. Maybe Lind gets a look at a sheltered 3C role or even Jasek. Maybe Sutter signs a cheap deal. Or add someone like Carl Soderberg on a cheap contract as a stop gap if a young player isn't ready.

 

Pearson is like Chris Higgins in that he can be used in all situations. At 3.25, his cap hit is fine for what he provides. It also provides Bo some stability on wing in which he hasn't had until the past couple of seasons.

 

I understand why we'd want Pearson back. To me the priority would have been a very much needed 3C upgrade and then sort out the wingers. 

 

[Chris12345]

1 minute ago, stawns said:

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

I dunno I think our d needs work which was obvious based on this year.

[apollo]

Our captain is happy... 44 points in 69 games... 3.25 mill... 3 years. I'm gonna support Jim's decision here. 

 

But yea lets forget our captain is happy and let's forget Jim has 10x the brain any of you negative trolls have... Lol. 

 

 

Makes me nauseas reading all these terrible comments from people that are just unhappy in life and want to bash Benning to fulfill their miserable needs... 

 

BRUTAL! 

 

I'm gonna hold and trust Jim's process. Thanks Jimmy. Glad Bo is happy! 

 

Canucks to the moon. Please no trolls allowed. 

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

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

even if thats true, I don't see a scenario where we go into next year with Boyd an AG as our bottom 6 C's. I think we'll get destroyed with that. 

[Convincing John]

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

3rd line production?

Stop living in the past man, he is having his statistically worst season ever this year. Now he is injured. There is absolutely nothing indicating he will maintain a 45 point pace in the next 3 seasons. This is the problem with a lot of Jim Benning signings. He tends to pay the premium for what a player accomplished in the past. He never considers that most UFA’s are at their peak the day they are signed. From 28- whatever most UFA’s will begin their decline. He never accounts for this. He always assumes they’ll remain consistent. So we almost always pay a player like Pearson for what he did in the past and not what he is going to be producing in the future. You make those hedges with RFA’s fixing to break out. Like Demko. Not with a 28 year old who already bounced off his ceiling. 

[Gawdzukes]

10 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

we might see a line of horvat, pearson and polkozin next season. i think bo need a good defensive familiar linemste while trying to break in a new player. i think it could end up a good move. it took a long time to find bo a linemate that compliments him.

i could see jim going with 3 scoring lines next season, with petey, bo and jt as our top 3 centers.

i'ld like to see something like petey, hoggy and boeser; bo, pearson and podkolzin; miller, lind and motte. each line with offense as well as defensively sound line mates. it could work

That's another option that could be out there. and I like it. Solves the Center problem right there and opens up a LW spot that definitely makes Pearson more valuable to us.

 

If Podkolzin can come in and be a solid addition if really makes us very flexible. Even if he plays down the line-up we all of the sudden have a lot of quality, interchangeable, and mostly young players throughout, especially if Hoglander continues to progress.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Gawdzukes

[JM_]

5 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

That's another option that could be out there. and I like it. Solves the Center problem right there and opens up a LW spot that definitely makes Pearson more valuable to us.

 

IF the plan has been made to have 3 lines with Petey, Bo, Miller as the primary C on their own lines, then yes that C problem is solved, which is my main concern. 

 

Looked at from that pov, the Pearson deal does make more sense. 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[JM_]

.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[mll]

17 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? 

Because you also need the players to change strategy.  To alleviate the pressure on the top-6, they would need to adjust the roles of others but it’s also about readiness, ability, roster composition etc. 

[iinatcc]

To be fair in isolation the signing is actually not that bad, the problem is that this signing isn't just the signing of Pearson but how bad the optics looks for Benning and his management decisions. 

 

So yeah $3.25 Million 3 years for a middle 6 forward is not that bad. But when you look at the following factors:

• Only 1 million less than Toffoli who would have benefited the team a lot more than Pearson and carries a bigger offensive upside
• Pearson having a down year with offensive numbers and hence the contract resembling more of Benning's overpayment of bottom 6 players like Beagle and Roussel than a Top 9. 
• With Covid and teams strapped for cash, the Teams and GM's actually have more leverage than the players nowadays as we have seen from the previous/recent off-season. As what Sportsnet said, it's an ok deal but it does look like Benning paid a premium to re-sign Pearson.  
• Of course with the team having Cap issues and having to resign Hughes, Pettersson, and Boeser in the next couple of seasons, this really hurt's the teams cap flexibility in the next few seasons.  

[Gawdzukes]

5 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

IF the plan has been made to have 3 lines with Petey, Bo, Miller as the primary C on their own lines, then yes that C problem is solved, which is my main concern. 

 

Looked at from that pov, the Pearson deal does make more sense. 

Yeah, the big IF is Petey as well. Miller has looked great center and should probably stay there. I wonder if Petey is up to the task without Miller riding shotgun though?

 

Speaking of centers I wonder if they might give Lind a shot on the 4th line, or try to bring back Sutter for one year as well. We'd have to be moving out bodies but it will be more possible now with expansion. I'd say Virtanen, Gauds, and even Roussel should be movable.

[spur1]

39 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

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.

Please do 

[Dazzle]

43 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

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.

Overreaction much?! Lmfaooo.

 

Threatening to leave the fanbase and cheering a rival? My god. If there's any proof that we have a garbage fanbase, this is the example.

 

A bunch of spoiled, self entitled fans.

[theo5789]

51 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

 

I understand why we'd want Pearson back. To me the priority would have been a very much needed 3C upgrade and then sort out the wingers. 

 

We couldn't take care of the 3C issue now and would have to compete for an "upgrade" in the market anyway. Might as well take care of what we have now especially if there's good reason to bring him back into the fold rather than make him "wait" and possibly lose him and also not acquire the upgrade. If we throw a bunch of money at a 3C UFA to convince them to join us, then we will certainly be "overpaying" in the market (see Markstrom, Tanev, etc). Unless we are talking about a secondary market with the leftovers that will take whatever to stay in the league, in which case we can still target even with the Pearson signing since he actually took a slight pay cut for a player that can be utilized in many roles.

[theo5789]

9 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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

 

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?

 

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.

The point about Eriksson is that you rather pool a bunch of money to sign a "legit" 2W. I am demonstrating that it may not work out as LE was still putting up good numbers prior to joining us. It would be much more crippling to go in at that value for it to not work out. We have Podkolzin coming in and if he shows he can handle the minutes, then Pearson looks just fine on the 3rd line. That "legit 2W" may be a one dimensional offensive player where if he doesn't produce, he could be garbage at a higher cap hit (unless you want to provide reasonable examples of who we could have targeted, keeping in mind it would be a UFA that could sign anywhere else if they choose instead). With that said, it wouldn't have mattered if we signed LE then or now because if we get what Eriksson is, then there's no right time for that signing regardless.

 

McCann never seemingly wanted to be here and there were other outlets demonstrating his attitude issues. Plus you're comparing a player on a RFA contract vs UFA contract. McCann doesn't PK either.

 

We don't have to throw a kid into the fire, but they can be given a look and have been tried in Utica in that role and haven't looked out of place at all. In Jasek's case, he's elevated his game at center. If they're not deemed ready, then a stop gap bargain player like Soderberg could be acquired.

 

If there are many positive reasons to retain Pearson, at a pay cut no less, then you make the move. If you want to wait and prioritize the 3C spot first and put everything else on the back burner, that's fine, but there are risks involved as well. Benning did this and was also criticized for it because we supposedly lost Stecher prioritizing filling a top 4 dman spot instead. It just seems very much like no matter what Benning does is seen as being the wrong move yet I'll take the team now compared to what Benning had to take over any day of the week.

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

The point about Eriksson is that you rather pool a bunch of money to sign a "legit" 2W. I am demonstrating that it may not work out as LE was still putting up good numbers prior to joining us. It would be much more crippling to go in at that value for it to not work out. We have Podkolzin coming in and if he shows he can handle the minutes, then Pearson looks just fine on the 3rd line. That "legit 2W" may be a one dimensional offensive player where if he doesn't produce, he could be garbage at a higher cap hit (unless you want to provide reasonable examples of who we could have targeted, keeping in mind it would be a UFA that could sign anywhere else if they choose instead). With that said, it wouldn't have mattered if we signed LE then or now because if we get what Eriksson is, then there's no right time for that signing regardless.

 

McCann never seemingly wanted to be here and there were other outlets demonstrating his attitude issues. Plus you're comparing a player on a RFA contract vs UFA contract. McCann doesn't PK either.

 

We don't have to throw a kid into the fire, but they can be given a look and have been tried in Utica in that role and haven't looked out of place at all. In Jasek's case, he's elevated his game at center. If they're not deemed ready, then a stop gap bargain player like Soderberg could be acquired.

 

If there are many positive reasons to retain Pearson, at a pay cut no less, then you make the move. If you want to wait and prioritize the 3C spot first and put everything else on the back burner, that's fine, but there are risks involved as well. Benning did this and was also criticized for it because we supposedly lost Stecher prioritizing filling a top 4 dman spot instead. It just seems very much like no matter what Benning does is seen as being the wrong move yet I'll take the team now compared to what Benning had to take over any day of the week.

Exactly. Paying for someone in UFA is a risk, even with a proven past like Eriksson had. People crap on the price, but that was the market. 

 

Yes, Benning is getting crapped on for a good signing. 3.25 is not overpaying, and yet people whine about Roussel and Sutter being overpaid.

 

Our fanbase is so dumb sometimes. Reddit is a cesspool of whiners.

[Chesster]

There's no point signing middling players like Pearson. What a waste. Top 6 and heavy grinders are what is needed and he is neither. Sad day.

[Devron]

Something can be said for keeping a group together. That post by Bo proves that.

 

We all saw what happened at the start of the year when we lost some players.

 

Honestly guys Pearson re-signing is pretty minor in the grand scheme of things but our depth is not great. As it sits we will probably have a couple rookie forwards in the lineup next and we are also going have injuries. 
 

There’s nothing to complain about until we see how the rest of the plan goes. The Expansion Draft, Entry level draft, re-signing Hughes, Petey, first days of free agency, buyout period. 
 

If you want to live in doom and gloom that’s on you but we are already living that with covid.

[spur1]

4 minutes ago, Chesster said:

There's no point signing middling players like Pearson. What a waste. Top 6 and heavy grinders are what is needed and he is neither. Sad day.

Actually he is a bit of both. 

[Dr. Crossbar]

9 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

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.

Yeah, that was quite the thread. The way this one started yesterday, the reaction, I thought it might've gone the distance.