[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[Rush17]

after sleeping on it. i can live with the deal. money needs to go out and i dont know how jim can say with a straight face they won't have money issues this off-season. unless he's worked a deal with seattle to clear cap.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Gollumpus said:

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.

Seattle can still sign/select pending UFA's. They have a week (IIRC) ahead of the ED to negotiate with pending UFA's. If they come to terms, it counts as their selection from that team.

[Squamfan]

 

[DownUndaCanuck]

I guess Pearson is in our plans as the 2nd line winger for at least next season but he's going to get bumped to our 3rd line quickly. 3+M isn't horrible considering he kills penalties and Sutter/Beagle will be gone by then but we really need to save that sort of money for a center.

 

Tanner Pearson is not part of the problem at all and he's slightly part of the solution but we need two way forwards, especially with such a youth movement going forward and some likely defensive forward departures. Pearson is good now and will be good at the end of his contract, even if he's not scoring goals.

[wallstreetamigo]

I am not sure why Pearson was a priority. Teams are going to be very selective in terms of UFA signings with the flat cap and limited revenue. I dont think if he went to UFA Pearson would have been given 3 years, no trade protection, and 2nd line money from any team in the current environment. If he did, then see ya later bud. 

 

For all of those suggesting Sutter can be re-signed for 1.5 to 2.5 mil on a short term, be prepared to defend the 3 or 4 year, 3.50 to 4 mil per contract with ntc and expansion protection that should be coming from Benning in 3....2....1....

Edited April 9, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Squamfan]

 

[Gollumpus]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Seattle can still sign/select pending UFA's. They have a week (IIRC) ahead of the ED to negotiate with pending UFA's. If they come to terms, it counts as their selection from that team.

True dat. 

 

This being said, if you were the Seattle GM, would you risk taking Pearson, and have him being on your roster for perhaps only that week, and if he says no to your offer you're down a player? I don't see this as being comparable to GMs trading lower middle picks for upcoming UFAs who have made it clear that they will not sign with their current team, just to get a jump on negotiations with said player.

 

Or, would you take a younger player with more years ahead of them, lesser cap hit, lots of potential, but who is also a bit of an unknown quantity? And you could still try to negotiate with Pearson (assuming he and the Canucks didn't sign a contract.

 

I'm more of a bird in the hand kind of guy.

 

                                  regards,  G.

[VforVasili]

1 hour 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.

Should have been more clear. I mean that IF they were intent on resigning Pearson, this is an ownership friendly way to do it. If nothing else it pushes the $ cost into the future when Aqua probably expects to have recovered financially.

[Provost]

14 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

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.

I am not sure of what you are trying to say here.  He would be on the list of available players even if not signed, but that wasn't the point of the post.  I was responding to someone saying extending Pearson was a money saving tactic because he could then be exposed to save money.  Obviously not extending him doesn't cost money, so that didn't make sense.

Seattle can sign players on expiring contracts.  They just have a minimum number of players they have to pick who are under contract for the next year, and a minimum amount of cap hit they need to reach.

That may be a tactic they use to avoid committing too many dollars and leaving themselves up to be cap saviours from other teams and harvest extra assets.  

[D.B Cooper]

I’ve had a day to think about it.   
My thought now are,

Boooooooooooo

Same as yesterday I guess.  
Players like that can be found dime a dozen.  
He is a declining tweener, leaning on the lower side.  
This contract sucks. 

[Gollumpus]

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

I am not sure of what you are trying to say here.  He would be on the list of available players even if not signed, but that wasn't the point of the post.  I was responding to someone saying extending Pearson was a money saving tactic because he could then be exposed to save money.  Obviously not extending him doesn't cost money, so that didn't make sense.

Seattle can sign players on expiring contracts.  They just have a minimum number of players they have to pick who are under contract for the next year, and a minimum amount of cap hit they need to reach.

That may be a tactic they use to avoid committing too many dollars and leaving themselves up to be cap saviours from other teams and harvest extra assets.  

 

QUOTE FROM PREVIOUS RESPONSE:

 

True dat.  

 

This being said, if you were the Seattle GM, would you risk taking Pearson, and have him being on your roster for perhaps only that week, and if he says no to your offer you're down a player? I don't see this as being comparable to GMs trading lower middle picks for upcoming UFAs who have made it clear that they will not sign with their current team, just to get a jump on negotiations with said player.

 

Or, would you take a younger player with more years ahead of them, lesser cap hit, lots of potential, but who is also a bit of an unknown quantity? And you could still try to negotiate with Pearson (assuming he and the Canucks didn't sign a contract.

 

I'm more of a bird in the hand kind of guy.

 

                                  regards,  G.

 

PS = play as the Seattle GM, and select only guys who are pending UFAs. You could do this, but why would you risk it? 

 

https://rateyourmusic.com/list/sandiron/a-list-of-japanese-all-girl-bands/

[smithers joe]

i like the signing but i'm not a gm, just an opinionated fan who has never built an nhl team.

i look for pearson to be a solid defensive strength on bo's line as  they help a new player reach his potential, maybe podkolzin or lind.

[aGENT]

18 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

True dat. 

 

This being said, if you were the Seattle GM, would you risk taking Pearson, and have him being on your roster for perhaps only that week, and if he says no to your offer you're down a player? I don't see this as being comparable to GMs trading lower middle picks for upcoming UFAs who have made it clear that they will not sign with their current team, just to get a jump on negotiations with said player.

 

Or, would you take a younger player with more years ahead of them, lesser cap hit, lots of potential, but who is also a bit of an unknown quantity? And you could still try to negotiate with Pearson (assuming he and the Canucks didn't sign a contract.

 

I'm more of a bird in the hand kind of guy.

 

                                  regards,  G.

 

33 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Seattle can still sign/select pending UFA's. They have a week (IIRC) ahead of the ED to negotiate with pending UFA's. If they come to terms, it counts as their selection from that team.

'If they come to terms', meaning he'd be extended and under contract...

[mll]

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Seattle can still sign/select pending UFA's. They have a week (IIRC) ahead of the ED to negotiate with pending UFA's. If they come to terms, it counts as their selection from that team.

72 hours.  They file their selections in the morning of the draft.

 

They only have to take 20 players under contract.  If they sign the UFA during those 3 days his new contract counts towards the 60% minimum cap, but they can also still pick him and try and sign him at a later date or let him walk.  

 

Last time Vegas had some trouble moving some of their excess contracts and even retained on Emelin.  Flat cap, spending limitations around the league and they might not want to take contracts they could end up having trouble moving

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, CanucksJay said:

Thank God. 

 

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

Who's on your protect list?

 

He may still protect him in the end, depending on what moves we make, but at least we have the flexibility. The grass isn't always greener on the other side.

[aGENT]

Just now, mll said:

72 hours.  They file their selections in the morning of the draft.

 

They only have to take 20 players under contract.  If they sign the UFA during those 3 days his new contract counts towards the 60% minimum cap, but they can also still pick him and try and sign him at a later date or let him walk.  

 

Last time Vegas had some trouble moving some of their excess contracts and even retained on Emelin.  Flat cap, spending limitations around the league and they might not want to take contracts they could end up having trouble moving

Thanks. They're you go, 72 hours @Gollumpus

[aGENT]

I'm mildly disappointed we didn't get a small discount doing it early. That's the extent of my 'outrage'.

[higgyfan]

We don't know what the Covid situation will be like by the team next season rolls around.  All of NA will have been vaccinated by then, so it may not be an issue.  I really don't think there will be those tremendous bargains in the UFA market.

 

Another factor is that there's a strong possibility that the cap will increase due to the TV contract in the US.  This will also prop up the UFA market.

 

We also don't know if there are any plans regarding buy outs/early retirements/trades with incentives before the new season.

 

I don't mind Pears contract, as I think he'll be holding the spot for Podz.  People are pencilling Podz into the top 6, which seems like a stretch to me.  He's not a top 6 on his KHL team, so why would anyone think he could be ready in the NHL.  He needs time to adapt to a new country, new team and learn to be an NHL player, which is going to take awhile and he doesn't need to be pressured.  I suspect it will take a couple of years and if/when that happens, Pears moves to the 3rd line in his remaining year.

 

I would like to see Podz settle into the 3rd line with Motte as a linemate/mentor.  As usual, I would like to see Podz/Laugton/Motte

but it will likely be a cheaper Podz/Sutter/Motte (although there are a huge number of excellent Cs that could easily challenge Sutts for the same $, but younger with more skill).

 

Who knows...the Nucks might get lucky a the draft and end up with a ready-made C or RD that could step into the lineup within a couple of years.   Please, Hockey Gods...let the Canucks pick up Bernier or Clarke.  PLEASE...

[Gollumpus]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

'If they come to terms', meaning he'd be extended and under contract...

Yup, and if they don't come to terms, then Pearson walks and Seattle is down a player. So why risk that? Take a guy who you know you have under contract, and if you really, really, really want Pearson, look for him after he has reached UFA status (assuming he makes it to UFA status).

 

                                            regards,  G.

[Provost]

1 minute ago, mll said:

72 hours.  They file their selections in the morning of the draft.

 

They only have to take 20 players under contract.  If they sign the UFA during those 3 days his new contract counts towards the 60% minimum cap, but they can also still pick him and try and sign him at a later date or let him walk.  

 

Last time Vegas had some trouble moving some of their excess contracts and even retained on Emelin.  Flat cap, spending limitations around the league and they might not want to take contracts they could end up having trouble moving

Exactly, they aren't going to take 30 signed NHL players because then they are stuck with having to trade or waive a bunch of them and hoping someone picks them.

It is just guessing, but with the flat cap and so many teams in trouble, I expect Seattle to try to stick closer to the minimum cap they are allowed with their selections... that gives them a ton of leeway to make trades for other players from teams who need to shed cap.  We have seen how expensive it is to move cap dollars right now, they could end up with a handful of picks in rounds 1-3 by taking on contracts for players who are still pretty good but are squeezed out of their team.

Like why pick any player with cap owing from Tampa?  Depending on how they do their protection list, take Cal Foote or Maroon in the ED... and then trade for hometown Seattle boy Johnson in return for a 1st round pick and a good young prospect for a farm team.