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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, apollo said:

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. 

 

Screenshot_20210408-221307.thumb.png.89567a4bbabdb7f463345b8ff5417bb0.png

 

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! :gocan:

 

Canucks to the moon. Please no trolls allowed. 

So do you think the number one priority of a GM is to make people “happy”? This team was awful this year but they need to be “happy”.

 

It’s obvious you are not thinking about the totality of what this signing means.

 

Most of us are upset because of the following reasons:

 

1) the Canucks have minimal cap space next season and have yet to sign their 2 BEST players. How do you prioritize Tanner freakin Pearson over them? Logic dictates you take care of the big expenses first. Not this.

 

2) JB was hoping Pods would fill in the top 6 and thus the Canucks could save this 3.5M by using an ELC. This was a smarter plan. The Canucks have a lot more players to sign in addition to our 2 best. There isn’t much space left. Don’t forget we have about 9M in dead cap space with LE and the Luongo recapture next year as well. 
 

3) Pearson is a streaky player. A good player at certain times but given too much. He got paid far more than what players are being signed during these Covid flat cap era. We have a GM that does this consistently does this. Makes the players “happy”.

 

4) It’s not just fans upset. It is also the sports media that follows this team. JB is a great drafting manager but when it comes to UFA and contract extensions on the most part, he has been horrible during his tenure here.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not totally negative on this deal. Pearson will be 31 when it expires. He has played some PK and can shift down to 3LW and replace Rous. I suspect Benning sees Podz as his 2RW and Pearson can shift up and down as needed to ease Podz in as a vet presence opposite. Maybe they put Jake on the 2LW for a try. Pearson-Horvat-Podz sounds interesting.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes 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.

I didn't say I rather, I said it's an option to consider, along with many other options that are available which is my main gripe against this contract - it's simply not conducive to flexibility. 

 

And again, Eriksson was a bad signing from second 1 and there are a lot of people out there that called it right away, so again, using an obviously terrible example as an argument as to why something doesn't work is disingenuous.

 

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

McCann never seemingly wanted to be here and there were other outlets demonstrating his attitude issues.

 This is conjecture at best. 

 

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

Plus you're comparing a player on a RFA contract vs UFA contract.

Yes, that is the point, re-read my post. :P

 

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

McCann doesn't PK either.

McCann isn't PKing this year but has in the past. Pearson isn't exactly a top option on our PK, either, and unless you have some evidence to suggest otherwise, he doesn't stand out as a PKer over the next average guy that gets thrown out there.

 

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

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. 

Yes, there are risks involved. You're risking losing Tanner Pearson in the name of flexibility in an unprecedented off-season where there is likely to be a lot of movement given the expansion draft and the cap & real money constraints so many teams are under.

 

40 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I'll take the team now compared to what Benning had to take over any day of the week.

Well you're comparing apples and oranges but okay. And if you're one of those people that think everything Benning inherited was completely fried, that's not much of a bar to set.

Edited by kanucks25
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apollo said:

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. 

 

Screenshot_20210408-221307.thumb.png.89567a4bbabdb7f463345b8ff5417bb0.png

 

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! :gocan:

 

Canucks to the moon. Please no trolls allowed. 

And the players were livid with all the moves this past off-season.

 

So is it important to keep the players happy or not? Only in certain circumstances determined by CDC or what?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

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?

I think he probably is. 

 

1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

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.

We might see 4c as a pretty competative spot next camp 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

We couldn't take care of the 3C issue now and would have to compete for an "upgrade" in the market anyway.

Thats why i was hoping for the cap space to do that. But i think that idea is off the table anyway, we will have to figure that out from within at 3c.

 

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

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.

I get that. Like i said its not a hair on fire moment for me, im just concerned about our C depth.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, b3. said:

It’s like they don’t remember they need to sign Hughes and Pettersson. Spend the money on them, then worry about depth players like Tanner.

 

Now they will whine about the cap struggles for their contracts, because we give every declining bottom six player overpaid career high contracts with trade protection...

yet people complained about Gillis no trade clauses. they don't realize that he haned out ntc,mmc to legit top 6 players for actually preformed and not bottom 6 players

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

I agree with most but once again, that Toffoli take is utter garbage. This doesn't prove we could have kept Toffoli as we can't fit him under the cap this year! If we can't get him in the cap this year than there is no way for us to keep him with or without this Pearson extension.

 

Anyways join me is cheering for Seattle. 

(To he clear. I live closer to Seattle than Van right now so was gonna follow them no matter what). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One might argue Pearson in this current pandemic environment will probably get $2.5M+ on open market.... but let's not forget he's been a great fit with Bo!! Once Hoglander gets more experienced, that line is gonna do just fine for us!

 

Secondly, some of us seem to neglect the fact that (similar to the Blue Jays), we need to pay a premium to attract decent/great FA's.... when you see teams like Boston or Toronto picking up productive FA's for just $1-2M.... it doesn't mean we can do the same damn thing!!!!! 

 

So in fairness to JB (whom I don't normally defend).... keeping Pearson at $3M+ is a safer bet than picking up a guy at $4M who appears better on his resume.... coz in Pearson, we have a known commodity where as any FA's that come in.... may not work out!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Squamfan said:

yet people complained about Gillis no trade clauses. they don't realize that he haned out ntc,mmc to legit top 6 players for actually preformed and not bottom 6 players

We complain about Gillis ntc cause they are full ntcs. JB only mostly handed out heavily modified ntc that give a 10 or so no trade list. Not that much of a big deal unlike Kesler's full ntc where he can dictate only one team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

We complain about Gillis ntc cause they are full ntcs. JB only mostly handed out heavily modified ntc that give a 10 or so no trade list. Not that much of a big deal unlike Kesler's full ntc where he can dictate only one team. 

Most of Gillis's NTCs went to core players of a true contender in an attempt to keep said contender together.

 

Most of Benning's NTCs are given to depth players on a bad team, and most of these contracts end up looking like buyout candidates not soon after.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect this is a contract to please ownership and address some of the money they are losing. 
 

Bait for Seattle and if they take him they get to pay his bonuses out in the final year. 
 

cheaper now with the hope they won’t pay later. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Most of Gillis's NTCs went to core players of a true contender in an attempt to keep said contender together.

 

Most of Benning's NTCs are given to depth players on a bad team, and most of these contracts end up looking like buyout candidates not soon after.

Doesn't matter if it goes to top or bottom players. End of day a 10 or so team no trade list  in a 32 team league is of minimal consequence compared to a full ntc. 

Edited by 24K PureCool
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VforVirtanen said:

I suspect this is a contract to please ownership and address some of the money they are losing. 
 

Bait for Seattle and if they take him they get to pay his bonuses out in the final year. 
 

cheaper now with the hope they won’t pay later. 

They have an agreement in place that he will be protected in expansion per Drance.  Seattle can pick UFAs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, CanucksJay said:

Thank God. 

 

If JB protects him, I might have to cross over to the other side 

Apparently not only did he get the extra term and pretty premium dollars in a flat cap era, he got a full ntc in year one, a partial ntc in year two, and a promise of being protected in the expansion draft.

 

Ridiculous again by Benning. Pearson is not a good enough player to be given all of that. And if wink and nudge personal agreements were in play, why not just agree to sign an extension after the expansion draft rather than use up a protection spot now? No other team was going to give Pearson that contract imo.

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Bo fan said:

I'm guessing Alf but you're not quite coming across the same

LOL!   Alf usually had less to say and would get to his point quicker. 

  • Haha 2
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...
×
×
  • Create New...