[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[Gollumpus]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

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

Cool. I still don't see a GM potentially wasting a pick on a guy who may bolt in 72 hours. Perhaps it has happened in the past (there's a little project for someone who has nothing better to do on a rainy Friday ). 

 

Otherwise, this has drifted from the original point where I entered the discussion, so I'm outta' here.

 

                                        regards,  G.

 

 

[mll]

12 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

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...

The cap is not going to increase for some time - was confirmed by Bettman when announcing the new TV deal.

 

The escrow balance first has to be reimbursed and they are talking of the length of the CBA. 

 

They tried to renegotiate escrow but players refused. That’s in part why the season started only mid January.  Bettman then warned that amounts will need to be reimbursed and it will simply take longer.  They already knew that the TV deal was up and must have included that in their projections.

 

These were his comments then on why they wanted to renegotiate escrow.  

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by mll

[250Integra]

1 hour ago, Squamfan said:

 

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

I never said it won't work, I'm saying there's higher risk should the player not pan out as hoped. Buffalo thought they would get a boost with Hall, luckily it was a one year deal unlike their Skinner signing.

 

I'd like to know who your target would be at about the 5-6 million dollar range that we could net that would be a surefire better option than Pearson. Then out of those options, see who may actually consider signing here given they have the freedom to choose to sign anywhere and would we make it enticing enough for them to come here. Then factor in the risk of if they don't pan out, what other value they can provide to team at that higher cost.

 

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 This is conjecture at best. 

Well we know what's out there and we can choose to believe what we want to believe. What we do know is the team has traded McCann and we have been patient with our prospects otherwise.

 

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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

 

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.

McCann probably doesn't PK anymore because maybe he's not suited for it?

 

Never said Pearson is a PK stud, but it's added value. Like I've said, he's like a Higgins who can PK, play PP minutes, plays physical and has generally been a 0.5ppg player.

 

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

We will see how the off-season plays out. But signing a player who's worth his contract doesn't seem to be worth all this gripe. We can buyout Eriksson and move out JV still which would open up decent cap space anyway if needed. We won't likely be going after the big fish anyway and if we look at the secondary market, then they're going to be cheaper options anyway.

 

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

My point is that to those that think Benning is destroying this team needs to step back and look at the vast improvement of the team overall that he took over. If you don't think the team he took over wasn't a mess, then that's just being ignorant.

[kanucks25]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

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

Coming from you, that's pretty much "FIRE BENNING".

 

Glad we've come to terms.

 

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

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.

 

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

Can still buyout Eriksson/Roussel and/or trade JV if needed. There were decent cheap options in the secondary market last year. We will address it when we can. Pearson we could address now, so we did.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

alright.  which one of you is Brenden Batchelor?

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Squamfan said:

 

Lol I 100% believe this. 

 

I actually said 2 years, 2.5 mil max was what Pearson should get. 

[Canucklehead73]

14 hours ago, VegasCanuck said:

Everyone on the team’s production faded as exhaustion set in. The Canucks were handed the worst schedule in the league, no practice time on top of no exhibition schedule. It took 6 weeks to integrate new guy’s into the lineup as they were playing multiple 3 games in 4 nights and every 2nd night at best while having a heavier than normal travel schedule to start the season.

 

Pearson has been a 40 to 50 point guy his whole career.

 

The fans on this board have zero understanding of what real exhaustion is, or whatit took to complete the first 6 weeks of this year’s schedule.

 

There’s nothing wrong with the contract or term, there’s just a problem with fans over thinking this and over dramatizing a pretty minor contract.

 

He’s 28 years old, in his prime with lots of experience. Glad he’s still with the team.

 

As far as cap space, Hands up, which fans have spreadsheets mapping out the next 5 years of space needed, because that is what Benning does!

Well i hope you are correct...

 

As for your speculation on exhaustion, was Pearson exhausted in Pittsburgh as well? Because his production was about the same.

 

And not really dramatizing anything, those are just the facts on paper as I see it, I don't pretend to know more than that.

 

Cheers

[wallstreetamigo]

59 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.

Zero chance Seattle would have selected Pearson in that scenario imo. 

 

With the contract he just signed, Benning should not have to protect him. I bet he could pass Pearson through waivers right now.

[Gollumpus]

Just now, wallstreetamigo said:

Zero chance Seattle would have selected Pearson in that scenario imo. 

 

With the contract he just signed, Benning should not have to protect him. I bet he could pass Pearson through waivers right now.

Pretty much my point.

 

*Maybe* Seattle selects him now, with a new contract, but even then, why not go for someone younger etc. This being said, if Seattle did Pearson now, what does that say about the remainder of the Canucks forwards who will be left exposed? 

 

                               regards,  G.

[aGENT]

34 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Cool. I still don't see a GM potentially wasting a pick on a guy who may bolt in 72 hours. Perhaps it has happened in the past (there's a little project for someone who has nothing better to do on a rainy Friday ). 

 

Otherwise, this has drifted from the original point where I entered the discussion, so I'm outta' here.

 

                                        regards,  G.

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

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.

You're still not getting it. If they extend him (aka he's under contract), he's their selection. If they don't sign/extend him, they select someone else.

[Provost]

People are going to pull muscles with the amount they are stretching to justify how this isn't really a bad signing.

It doesn't matter if we maybe can buy out players to make extra cap space, it doesn't matter of Beagle ends up in LTIR next season, it doesn't matter of magically Seattle takes Myers off our hands in expansion.  None of those relate to this deal at all and could happen regardless of whether you sign Pearson.

The only question is whether Pearson's contract was good value or not; whether the lost opportunity costs mean we can't make a deal for a more important piece, and whether it would have been better to get an asset for him at the deadline.

Opinion outside the market is that there will be a ton of value pick ups for good players this offseason due to the flat cap.  Pearson would be hard pressed to get the deal on the open market in free agency that he got with us, that in itself means there isn't any reason to have signed him now.  There wasn't any deadline we were working to that necessitated it.

We don't know the opportunities that would have come up in the expansion draft or before free agency with so many teams trying to shed cap space.  It is pretty obvious that an extra $3.25 million in cap space to take advantage of another Schmidt type deal would be handy to have.

There are reports, again from outside the market, that Pearson was piece sought after at the trade deadline.  That probably translates into at least a 2nd round pick if not also a prospect.  That pick could also be flipped to get rid of bad cap or to accrue a player in the ED that couldn't be protected.

The Pearson signing isn't terrible in a complete vacuum.  It was just unnecessary for a non-key piece that doesn't move the needle at all, and comes with a pretty significant opportunity cost.

[VegasCanuck]

20 minutes ago, Canucklehead73 said:

Well i hope you are correct...

 

As for your speculation on exhaustion, was Pearson exhausted in Pittsburgh as well? Because his production was about the same.

 

And not really dramatizing anything, those are just the facts on paper as I see it, I don't pretend to know more than that.

 

Cheers

Every contract you sign in hockey is a crap shoot. We know how Pearson fits with the rest of our group.

 

If we let him go and try and bring in someone else, we're going to pay a premium due to a bidding war, plus having to add full trade protection, and no guarantee on how they fit in.

 

I don't know everything in this sport, far from it, but I do know that all of this is irrelevant, at 40 points, its fair value and the fact that he plays at both ends of the ice is an added bonus. He knows how to compete. He's not flashy, and that might be why some on here are so negative against the signing. He's dependable and you know what type of game you're going to get out of him.

[Gollumpus]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

 

You're still not getting it. If they extend him (aka he's under contract), he's their selection. If they don't sign/extend him, they select someone else.

And you aren't getting it, I do get it, and what is being picked at here has little to so with my initial comments. 

 

In principle, sure Seattle could do whatever Seattle wanted to do. I am working on the assumption that Seattle wouldn't select Pearson because of his (at the time) impending UFA status, age, etc. I believe that they would select a different guy, still under contract with the Canucks, and if Seattle did want Pearson then they could wait until he reached UFA status (assuming he reached UFA status), and if they signed him then they would have two players, for less effort.

 

                                                                regards,  G.

[highwayman3]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

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.

 

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.

 

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.)

2.5M for Sutter next year? Jesus &^@#ing Christ that is insane dude.  You realize there are other options for bottom 6 centers right? Things like other teams' UFA's, trades, etc.  It's this sort of weird tunnel vision (ie we can only re-sign our own players, there are no other options) that's got is in this mess in the first place.  Right now is a buyer's market, Florida for example (one of the top teams in the league) recently picked up Wennberg and Verhaege for very reasonable deals.  There will be tons more like that this offseason, especially as there's an expansion draft coming up.  Picking up an underrated UFA for cheap is just too outside of the box thinking for this organization it appears.  

 

So every single signing that hasn't worked out is all...due to bad luck and external circumstance? Benning deserves no criticism or blame despite it's happened again, and again, and again? I feel like I have to ask, are you paid by the organization to post here? 

 

Pearson's contract is not market value - neither in term nor AAV.  That's part of the point.  Also see above regarding buyer's market.  Everyone thinks he is overpaid and this is a bad deal, even management schills like Dan Murphy.  Pearson's contract is going to age poorly, this is a player already in decline that wasn't going to get more than 2.5M on the open market.  We basically turned a tradable asset into a player who wouldn't get picked up on waivers at this point.  

 

And yeah, it was all due to COVID that we lost Toffoli.  None of Benning's previous signings where he added an extra year of term played any role whatsoever  

Come on man, at some point the man in charge of all of this bears some responsibility.  

Edited April 9, 2021 by highwayman3

[highwayman3]

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

People are going to pull muscles with the amount they are stretching to justify how this isn't really a bad signing.

It doesn't matter if we maybe can buy out players to make extra cap space, it doesn't matter of Beagle ends up in LTIR next season, it doesn't matter of magically Seattle takes Myers off our hands in expansion.  None of those relate to this deal at all and could happen regardless of whether you sign Pearson.

The only question is whether Pearson's contract was good value or not; whether the lost opportunity costs mean we can't make a deal for a more important piece, and whether it would have been better to get an asset for him at the deadline.

Opinion outside the market is that there will be a ton of value pick ups for good players this offseason due to the flat cap.  Pearson would be hard pressed to get the deal on the open market in free agency that he got with us, that in itself means there isn't any reason to have signed him now.  There wasn't any deadline we were working to that necessitated it.

We don't know the opportunities that would have come up in the expansion draft or before free agency with so many teams trying to shed cap space.  It is pretty obvious that an extra $3.25 million in cap space to take advantage of another Schmidt type deal would be handy to have.

There are reports, again from outside the market, that Pearson was piece sought after at the trade deadline.  That probably translates into at least a 2nd round pick if not also a prospect.  That pick could also be flipped to get rid of bad cap or to accrue a player in the ED that couldn't be protected.

The Pearson signing isn't terrible in a complete vacuum.  It was just unnecessary for a non-key piece that doesn't move the needle at all, and comes with a pretty significant opportunity cost.

I know, it's insane the amount of mental gymnastics going in regards to this.  It seems like some don't fully grasp the salary cap implications and blame previous cap issues such as losing Tanev and Toffoli on "covid" lol, while others are just sort of like "whatever dude...it's alriiight...pass the bong." 

Edited April 9, 2021 by highwayman3

[mll]

29 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

And you aren't getting it, I do get it, and what is being picked at here has little to so with my initial comments. 

 

In principle, sure Seattle could do whatever Seattle wanted to do. I am working on the assumption that Seattle wouldn't select Pearson because of his (at the time) impending UFA status, age, etc. I believe that they would select a different guy, still under contract with the Canucks, and if Seattle did want Pearson then they could wait until he reached UFA status (assuming he reached UFA status), and if they signed him then they would have two players, for less effort.

 

                                                                regards,  G.

Seattle owner Leiweke says analytics is more than a department it’s a way of life.  They talk of wanting to be an organization that knows how to evaluate players and their value.  Contract efficiency was part of their evaluation of the GM candidates.  

 

They already have one of the largest departments.  It’s run by Alexandra Mandrycky who was co-founder of the analytics site war-on-ice.  The site closed as they were hired by the Wild. 

 

That site went into WAR/GAR to evaluate players.  Pearson doesn’t show particularly well under the evolving-hockey model.  Not sure guys under contract like Myers, Roussel, Virtanen, Holtby would interest them given the numbers.

 

 

[aGENT]

24 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

2.5M for Sutter next year? Jesus &^@#ing Christ that is insane dude.  You realize there are other options for bottom 6 centers right? Things like other teams' UFA's, trades, etc.  It's this sort of weird tunnel vision (ie we can only re-sign our own players, there are no other options) that's got is in this mess in the first place.  Right now is a buyer's market, Florida for example (one of the top teams in the league) recently picked up Wennberg and Verhaege for very reasonable deals.  There will be tons more like that this offseason, especially as there's an expansion draft coming up.  Picking up an underrated UFA for cheap is just too outside of the box thinking for this organization it appears.

About the only depth C UFA better than Sutter is Lowry and he's likely going to be in high demand and a lot more than $2.5. And I'd only pay him $2.5m for one year. Longer term = less cap, closer to the $1.5m I noted.

 

Quote

So every single signing that hasn't worked out is all...due to bad luck and external circumstance? Benning deserves no criticism or blame despite it's happened again, and again, and again? I feel like I have to ask, are you paid by the organization to post here? 

Nope. Like I said, we should have traded Virtanen. Eriksson was also a poor move, clearly. There's a few other small things but yes, by and large a lot of the so called 'problems' people like to whinge about, are the normal, expected hit and miss percentages you see of any management, running any team. This market simply likes to hyper-focus on and overanalyze them. Just like this Pearson deal. This is a non-story in pretty much any other market.

 

Quote

Pearson's contract is not market value - neither in term nor AAV.  That's part of the point.  Also see above regarding buyer's market.  Everyone thinks he is overpaid and this is a bad deal, even management schills like Dan Murphy.  Pearson's contract is going to age poorly, this is a player already in decline that wasn't going to get more than 2.5M on the open market.  We basically turned a tradable asset into a player who wouldn't get picked up on waivers at this point.  

No it really isn't. It's simply not a discount. He was never making less than $2.5-$3m...even on a sweetheart deal to a closer to contending team. Such melodrama.

 

Quote

And yeah, it was all due to COVID that we lost Toffoli.  None of Benning's previous signings where he added an extra year of term played any role whatsoever  

Come on man, at some point the man in charge of all of this bears some responsibility.  

Nope, like I said, you can alternatively blame the Eriksson deal if you like. Or not moving off Virtanen. Both of which you can lay at Benning's feet/have him 'bear responsibility for'. Point is, prior to Covid though, even with those two bad moves, we could still have retained him. The rest of the whining is largely petty, myopic, hyperbolic melodrama.

 

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by aGENT

[grandmaster]

3 hours ago, coryberg said:

So much wrong. Why do people feel the need to fudge the numbers to try to make their points? If you have to lie to make a point than you obviously don't fully believe it yourself.

 

1) the Canucks have 17.4 million in cap space next year. With ferland and Beagle on the LTIR there is another 6.5 million. That's 23.9 million in cap space.

 

2) what is 'this 3.5M' ? Tanners contract is 3.25. Pods ELC with simple type A bonuses (if he is in the top 6 he is definitely hitting some) would come in at 1.867M. 

 

3) this off-season is different than last. There is a whole lot of dead space and bad contacts coming off of teams books and Seattle will be absorbing at least 60 million dollars of salary. Stop acting like you have a crystal ball to support your point of view.

 

4)the media complains about everything that's their job. Did you just move to Canada?

 

 

1) so your saying 23.9M (if the LTIR holds true on both Ferlund and Beagle next year) is enough to sign both Petey, Quinn and the rest of the team? You realize we will have a lot of expiring contracts to fill right?

 

2) my apologies about the .25M mistake, if that’s the best you can do for calling someone out for lies then you really have a lot of credibility 

 

3) What in e world does Seattle have to do with our cap space? Do you really think they will grab one of our overpaid players off our books? Lol

 

4) Sports media is a tad bit more educated than an ignorant fan like you. It’s their full time job and they seem unanimous in that this was a bad signing. Overpaid and bad timing before Petey and Quinn. There was no rush for this. Welcome to reality pal 

Edited April 9, 2021 by grandmaster