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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

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.

Gilman would have been a perfect shotgun partner for JB if we could have kept him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes 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. 

I actually don't understand what your thought process is on this?

How is it cheaper than not signing the contract?  Seattle would also be taking him before his extension kicked in if he was exposed and claimed..

Wouldn't it be better/cheaper to leave Myer's big contract out there as the bait for expansion?  If they want an established player from us rather than a rookie or an expiring contract... then that actually saves us money compared with Pearson who (until the extension was signed) was going to cost us nothing going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

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?

The players were livid..,.. You know this how? 

Do you just pull ideas out of your a$$ and then build your narrative around those ideas?

 

Or is there some actual substance here?

Which players were livid?

Are they still livid? 
Is it affecting their play?

Do they plan to leave the team because of it?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PistolPete13 said:

The players were livid..,.. You know this how? 

Do you just pull ideas out of your a$$ and then build your narrative around those ideas?

 

Or is there some actual substance here?

Which players were livid?

Are they still livid? 
Is it affecting their play?

Do they plan to leave the team because of it?

Were you hibernating in January and February?

 

It was a consistently prevalent story earlier in the season, Horvat had to come out and "squash" it:

 

https://www.nhl.com/news/vancouver-canucks-struggling-with-slow-start/c-321286144

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 24K PureCool said:

Trade to whom? Was there deal that JB did not do? 

Last offseason was the worst time to move anyone.

A good Gm could have wheeled and dealed. Even by not signing Jake they would have had the money. Chose to have 6 third liners make 3 million each over a legit top six making 4.5 million

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

A good Gm could have wheeled and dealed. Even by not signing Jake they would have had the money. Chose to have 6 third liners make 3 million each over a legit top six making 4.5 million

You can't wheel and deal something that is not there. This ain't a video game. You can't make valid and logical argument with they can just wheel and deal a trade. 

 

Now if your main argument is that we should have let Jake walk then yep, totally agree. I am consistent that JB biggest mistake this past offseason was retaining Virtanen instead of Toffoli. That was under JB's control.

Edited by 24K PureCool
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, highwayman3 said:

You have zero problem bringing Sutter back? That's nuts.  If he wasn't going to sign for that much...you let him walk.  We don't need more overpaid vets and bloated NTC contracts.

We need bottom 6 C's. Beagle is reportedly unlikely to start next season. For an appropriate cap hit ($1.5-$2.5m), I'd happily bring him back short term.

 

Quote

Hmm we currently have Sutter, Beagle, Eriksson, Baertschi, Roussel, Virtanen and Ferland as overpaid - with Pearson being added to that list next season.  How many more do we need before we have a ton?

Neither Baer or Roussel were overpaid when they signed. It's a tough sport, injuries happen.

 

Virtanen got paid for a 18 and 18 season. That's the going rate. But by all means, I was hoping we would have moved on personally.

 

Ferland was risky given his injury history but isn't remotely overpaid. If anything that's under market value.

 

Pearson isn't overpaid either. It's pretty much market value. Now, again, I'm also mildly disappointed that we didn't get him for a home town/early re-sign discount at about $2.8'ish given circumstances but I'm hardly losing sleep over him making fair market value instead. It's not a good contract but it's not a bad one either.

 

Quote

We didn't need to lose either Tanev or Toffoli, if we hadn't signed a 4.3M backup and traded Virtanent we could've kept Toffoli.  The mental gymnastics employed here to justify each and every one of Benning's blunders is astounding.  

I'm perfectly fine upgrading Tanev to Schmidt and adding Hamonic. We missed the stability he had with Hughes for the first month but that's a VERY short term problem. I look longer term.

 

No Covid and we still have Toffoli as well. No Eriksson and we could have had Toffoli. There's all sorts of shoulda, coulda, woulda's you can do. And you'll get no argument from me on Virtanen, I was hoping we'd move him last TDL. IMO that was a mistake (for all of you who think I just blindly agree with everything the Canucks do). (Though I have no idea what, if any, market there was.)

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Provost said:

I actually don't understand what your thought process is on this?

How is it cheaper than not signing the contract?  Seattle would also be taking him before his extension kicked in if he was exposed and claimed..

Wouldn't it be better/cheaper to leave Myer's big contract out there as the bait for expansion?  If they want an established player from us rather than a rookie or an expiring contract... then that actually saves us money compared with Pearson who (until the extension was signed) was going to cost us nothing going forward.

Just doing a drive by on my way to White Noise...

 

Pearson was going to be a UFA at the end of the season, no? Because of this, if Vancouver didn't re-sign him, he wouldn't be on the list of available players from which Seattle could select.

 

                                              regards,  G.

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...