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

[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Foligno, Kassian, Craig Smith, Conolly...

 

That's just silly, we already have better players than Pearson in our top 6 so why would he be the 'best'. We'll also have Hoglander and Podkolzin to push for time there and more money again next year coming off the books to fill spots if required. 

Which of those guys signed in the last few weeks now that the future cap situation is evident and teams are passing veterans through waivers?

 

Giving Pearson that contract is a statement that his top 6 spot is secure for 3 years.  Personally within that time I want someone much better than him playing LW with Horvat. I find it hilarious that Benning supporters think so little of Bo that they think he will belost without Tanner Pearson.

 

If someone does push him to the bottom 6 next year or the year after it only makes the contract look more short sighted and ridiculous.

 

All the Benning supporters were arguing a few weeks ago that these are the kind of contracts signed by a rebuilding team but now that the core was in place Benning would not be signing these anymore (to defend his previous $&!#ty signings). Funny how now that he signed yet another one the story becomes how necessary Pearson is to our top 6 for 3 years. But Toffoli wasnt? Oh i forgot, too many $&!#ty contracts to be able to move any of those "its market value" players he signed to them to have enough cap for a genuine top 6 winger who also fit very well. But magically the average guy who basically benefits from playing with Horvat and doesnt really drive the play of his line gets a deal with term, premium dollars, ntc, and expansion protection.

 

Arent you the one suggesting a guy like Sutter will re-sign for 1.5 million? Good luck with that. Benning will probably sign Sutter to at least 3 years, 3.25 million with a NTC of some sort and expansion protection. 

 

Pearson is a decent, but streaky player. He is not worth that contract to a cap strapped team with a bunch of already terrible contracts they cant get rid of. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PistolPete13 said:

That’s hilarious. Talking heads speculate that Canucks poor start was because the players are upset because of player departures. Players respond to questioning by saying that yes we miss those players, but we will figure it out.
 

This all adds up to Canucks are livid?:frantic:


I was right here on planet earth during January and February. I obviously don’t connect the dots the same way as you do. 
 

My buy in rate on media created hysteria is somewhere in the 1 or 2 out of ten range. :)

 

The media is starving to be relevant, so they force feed you fables, that you should take with a grain of salt.  
 

Attributing the Canucks poor start to a hangover from playoff success, or because they are playing in a division against teams that we had a losing record against (last year), is boring and it doesn’t sell papers. So let’s stir up some sh$t, and make some money.

 

 

 

 

026CC0CB-E76C-4659-A920-88DF84FCDD6A.jpeg

It took two full weeks of the Canucks not playing a game for Montreal to catch up in games played. No one needs to look much past this to find one explanation for the poor start. If anyone wants something to be livid about, maybe start with this. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Zero guarantee that happens.

Yes, I know, which I addressed in the very next sentence you quoted.

 

So basically you just took the opportunity to be disagreeable even though it was redundant. :P

 

45 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This silly downplaying of his value does not validate your argument.

Is he not to be a depth player when we're a true contender? Depth players can be replaced easily, or at least much easier than a core player. Or do you question Lord Benning's ability to pick up a random 3rd liner when required?

 

47 minutes ago, aGENT said:

'To play with'...for the GM you guys hate signing UFA's. You're arguing out both sides of your posterior. 

Yes, it's a hypothetical based on a scenario in which we have a smart, shrewd GM.

 

I was simply presenting a viable alternate option to the event I disagree with in an effort to explain my position. Pretty standard on a discussion board.

 

Or do you wish I operate under my current read on Benning - as in, only suggest things that he may do? In which case, this is still a bad deal, because it limits Benning's ability to sign a worse player to an even worse contract down the road. This one is not that bad if we're going by Benning UFA standards.

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

magic is really cool, look at this cat, have you ever seen a cat this interested in its owners health?

 

vanish where did you go GIF

 

 

Sorry, wat?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 

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

Send Aqua your deets. He may bring you aboard one day :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

It's hilarious. If someone doesn't like the deal that's fine, they don't have to, but using Leafs Kool-Aid of all things to try dump on management? Come on. 

 

The Leafs media machine rolls on, and has been dumping on the Canucks while gagging on the Leafs for years. The same fans who bitched about Dubas handing out monster contracts and mismanaging cap are the same fans waving pom poms on the bandwagon. Dumping on Benning is one thing, but painting Toronto's management out as something we should aspire to is something else entirely. 

I've seen good arguments for and against the deal, but yeah the Dubas 5D chess thing cracks me up. Dubie hasn't won anything yet. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Steven Stamkos said:

.46 career production last year was an exception to his career average. He’ll be 29 by the start of next season, how many 29 year olds do you see improve their production? Also has bad possession numbers. 

I think you're misleading here.  Career production is 0.46 ppg in 490 games.  That's his rookie year and this year, everything.

 

Last year, 45 points in 65 games is 0.65 ppg.  This year, 11 points in 33 games 0.33 ppg (small sample size).  

 

He's 28.  That's not old.  Why wouldn't you expect his production to come back to normal?  Last year is on the high side, this year is low.  No he's not going to become a better player like you say but the numbers tend to average out.

 

FWIW Last year, for forwards playing 25 or more games, the 186th player put up points at a rate of 0.48 ppg.  This puts Pearson very close to the boundary of top 6 which is what I thought.  On a poor team, he'd be top 6.  On a good team, he's probably a 3rd line player, which is what I see him as when the team is a contender.  He's the sort of player who could play up the line up in case of injury.  I don't see the problem with this sort of a player.  Gillis traded for Higgins in 2011 for the cup run.  Wouldn't he be a good comparable?  0.47 ppg in 711 games.

  • Hydration 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If Benning's plan is to re-sign Pearson and let go of Roussel, Sutter, Beagle, I think I'm on board. If he re-signs any one of the remaining three I'm not going to be happy. 

 

We really don't need anymore middle-6 forwards. Please put in some bargain bin 4th liners or prospects. 

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

Yes, I know, which I addressed in the very next sentence you quoted.

But you didn't really, you equated it to losing someone like Graovac or Hawryluck. It very much is not.

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Is he not to be a depth player when we're a true contender? Depth players can be replaced easily, or at least much easier than a core player. Or do you question Lord Benning's ability to pick up a random 3rd liner when required?

 

I believe Mike Vanderhoek already summed up my thoughts on that nicely, above. He's not some easily replaceable scrub. And no, guys like him aren't easy to pick up.

 

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Yes, it's a hypothetical based on a scenario in which we have a smart, shrewd GM.

 

I was simply presenting a viable alternate option to the event I disagree with in an effort to explain my position. Pretty standard on a discussion board.

 

Or do you wish I operate under my current read on Benning - as in, only suggest things that he may do? In which case, this is still a bad deal, because it limits Benning's ability to sign a worse player to an even worse contract down the road. This one is not that bad if we're going by Benning UFA standards.

Shrewd doesn't equal selling off every last expiring UFA for scraps at the detriment to your near term roster. Actual GM'ing isn't like playing a video game and just constantly swapping assets to maximize return. You actually have to construct a team real, live, actual people that have chemistry, leadership etc. People like you whinge about our lack of depth in the same breath you criticize re-signing Pearson without a hint of irony. It's kind of sad how confused you poor lot are.

  • Hydration 3
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...