[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[canuck2288]

10 minutes ago, Convincing John said:

Pearson is the most Generic forward possible, ever. (If that’s even possible to quantify). Even his physical appearance. If I told my 8 year old daughter to draw a hockey player, that drawing would look just like Pearson. He isn’t good or bad at anything. He just fills a sweater and plays hockey. 

Agree

 

he is far from special and a decent 4th line utility guy 

 

marginal nhler at this point and yet we play him and the top 6 and re-sign him at a ridiculously high price

 

now he clogs up a roster spot while our young guys waste away in the AHL 

 

JB and Green have ruined this team 

[Steven Stamkos]

18 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

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.

Big difference between Gillis trading for Higgins than Benning re-signing Pearson. Higgins was brought in to be a defensive third line forward on the brink of a cup run. While we re-sign Pearson when our own gm says we’re two years from competing. 

 

How is career production misleading? Of course that includes his rookie years and everything . If you take out last year and his first two years he has a career average of .44ppg. If you just take out I’m willing to bet that he never matches the numbers he put up last year again.

Something misleading about Pearson last year? 6 of his 21 goals were empty netters. Pearson probably got paid what he’s worth but with all the contracts we have to sign this offseason with limited cap space I don’t know why you sign this contract. 

 

28 might not be old but it’s around the time athletes start to regress and again he’ll be 29 by the start of next season. 

[BabychStache]

It’s getting really tiring being a Canucks fan under Benning. 

[MikeyD]

Holy &^@# this is a bad signing. 

 

Anything above 2 was a gross overpayment. Wow. 

 

He's fantastic with picking prospects and absolutely horrendous at contract negotiations. 

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, canuck2288 said:

Agree

 

he is far from special and a decent 4th line utility guy 

 

marginal nhler at this point and yet we play him and the top 6 and re-sign him at a ridiculously high price

 

now he clogs up a roster spot while our young guys waste away in the AHL 

 

JB and Green have ruined this team 

Which teams would he be a 4th liner on?  He's a marginal 2nd liner/very good 3rd liner.  Suggesting he's not an NHLer is hyperbole to the extreme.

[MikeyD]

3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Which teams would he be a 4th liner on?  He's a marginal 2nd liner/very good 3rd liner.  Suggesting he's not an NHLer is hyperbole to the extreme.

I don't think it's unfair to say he's played like a fringe NHL player this year. The guy is getting consistently good minutes and pouring out consistently awful performances. 

 

A 2nd liner should not go more than ten games without having a really nice play. 

 

Does he have good hands? No. Is he a good forechecker? No. Does he have good finish? No. Does he make consistently good passes and generate offense? No. Is he physical? No. Is he a play driver? No. 

 

What exactly is he warning 3 million for? You could argue he was a decent finisher last year but this year he isn't even sniffing at putting up points. He's floating around killing a 2nd line. 

 

If he was more similar to Hoglander where he does the right things and just doesn't have the finish, then sure, give him the money. But the guy isn't setting anything up. His only shining quality is he isn't a detriment defensively. 

 

I think it's been twice this season I've thought, "Hey that's a nice play" from him. I'd argue he's had maybe 3 good games this season. 

 

If you're not producing you better have some other good qualities. 

[reyezone]

Pearson had a 17 game point streak last season and was also leading the team in scoring for a moment well into that campaign. He has gas left in the tank and is durable. I feel it is a fair deal for a quality middle six winger. 

[spur1]

1 hour ago, BabychStache said:

It’s getting really tiring being a Canucks fan under Benning. 

It is even more tiring being a Canucks fan and have to read about all the clowns dissing Benning for signing a 28 year old reasonable player to a reasonable contract that is half a million dollars less than he is making now. 

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, spur1 said:

It is even more tiring being a Canucks fan and have to read about all the clowns dissing Benning for signing a 28 year old reasonable player to a reasonable contract that is half a million dollars less than he is making now. 

This

 

ALL of this

[wallstreetamigo]

The problem is covid reality and a flat cap have adjusted player values lower, especially players like Pearson.

 

I dont know who in the Canucks organization is driving the decision to incrementally waste cap and term on every re-signing but being a cap maxed team with this roster and without your two top young players even under contract next season is embarrassing.

 

We need a GM and executive team who understands the dynamics ofcap management especially in a flat cap situation. 

 

The Canucks have far too many marginal players to be excited about being a cap maxed team. 

 

Pearson should have been traded. Same as Sutter should be. But probably wont.

Edited April 10, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[canuck2288]

2 hours ago, canuck2288 said:

Agree

 

he is far from special and a decent 4th line utility guy 

 

marginal nhler at this point and yet we play him in the top 6 and re-sign him at a ridiculously high price

 

now he clogs up a roster spot while our young guys waste away in the AHL 

 

JB and Green have ruined this team 

 

[canuck2288]

48 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Which teams would he be a 4th liner on?  He's a marginal 2nd liner/very good 3rd liner.  Suggesting he's not an NHLer is hyperbole to the extreme.

He is definitely not a top 6 guy 

 

would not make top 9 on most teams (if he would JB would have received offers)

 

that leaves 4th line on most average and above teams 

 

sad but true 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, canuck2288 said:

He is definitely not a top 6 guy 

 

would not make top 9 on most teams (if he would JB would have received offers)

 

that leaves 4th line on most average and above teams 

 

sad but true 

I'd like to see a source indicating Benning didn't get offers.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, canuck2288 said:

He is definitely not a top 6 guy 

 

would not make top 9 on most teams (if he would JB would have received offers)

 

that leaves 4th line on most average and above teams 

 

sad but true 

He is a marginal top 6 guy on a crappy team. A decent 3rd liner on a good team. And a marginal 3rd liner on a true cup contender.

 

He is not a bad player or a scrub. Most teams would want him but not at his current and now future cap hit.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 years, 2.25 mil, no trade protection, not expansion protected would have allowed him to play in the bottom 6 if someone surpassed him (which should be the goal for the team) without looking like yet another bloated contract. 

 

I really would like to see what a GM who can sign reasonable supporting player contracts would do with this team. 

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

2 years, 2.25 mil, no trade protection, not expansion protected would have allowed him to play in the bottom 6 if someone surpassed him (which should be the goal for the team) without looking like yet another bloated contract. 

 

I really would like to see what a GM who can sign reasonable supporting player contracts would do with this team. 

https://www.nhl.com/bruins/news/bruins-sign-craig-smith-to-three-year-contract/c-319418152

 

Craig smith who has similar career numbers as Pearson and is 3 years older signed this off-season with the bruins for 3.1 mil per on a 3 year deal. 

 

You can day dream all you want at what you think Pearson would have got... that doesn't make it true.

[Crabcakes]

2 hours ago, Steven Stamkos said:

Big difference between Gillis trading for Higgins than Benning re-signing Pearson. Higgins was brought in to be a defensive third line forward on the brink of a cup run. While we re-sign Pearson when our own gm says we’re two years from competing. 

 

How is career production misleading? Of course that includes his rookie years and everything . If you take out last year and his first two years he has a career average of .44ppg. If you just take out I’m willing to bet that he never matches the numbers he put up last year again.

Something misleading about Pearson last year? 6 of his 21 goals were empty netters. Pearson probably got paid what he’s worth but with all the contracts we have to sign this offseason with limited cap space I don’t know why you sign this contract. 

 

28 might not be old but it’s around the time athletes start to regress and again he’ll be 29 by the start of next season. 

Maybe I've mis-read your original post because your punctuation and writing is bad in it.  The way you've written it, it sounds like you're saying 0.46 was his last years production.   I get what you mean now.

 

I think that Pearson is the kind of player you need on a team (15-20 goals, defensively responsible, can be physical, good in the room etc) and there is no point cutting him loose when you're going to have to find another just like him later.  He's a 3rd liner who can play up.  Honestly, there are others who they can do without and look to replace like Roussel, Gaudette, Beagle, Virtanen.  These are bottom 6 plugs who you can't trust playing up the line up on a deep play off run.  And Benning has already begun to replace the above with guys with bargain salaries like Vessey and Boyd

 

As for Petterson and Hughes, I think that Benning plans to sign them to bridge deals anyhow.  It's to the benefit of the Canucks as well as the players long term and they know it.  They'll get similar deals to Boeser but for a little more 

[Provost]

It should also be noted that Benning himself couldn’t defend the signing.

 

On the 650 interview he said “veterans like that can help you win in the playoffs where you have to battle every 2nd night.”  About 2 minutes later in the interview when asked about Pearson’s lack of production this year he said that this year’s schedule of playing almost every 2nd day doesn’t do favours for an older veteran guy like him.

 

He also said that the public and media don’t always have all the information about a player and talked about intangibles.

Pay a couple of of players on the roster for their intangibles sure, but that can’t be the excuse for every signing.

 

Rightly or wrongly, he got spooked by the impact on the team chemistry/attitude of losing Tanev, -Markstrom, Stecher, and Toffoli to a lesser extent.... now he is gunshy of losing another veteran.

 

If he valued intangibles as much as he says, why not keep Tanev and cut loose Virtanen last season?  He didn’t even value the intangibles enough to give Tanev a call or an offer until all his other plans fell apart days after free agency started.  There wasn’t a player more full of intangibles and important to the team chemistry as Tanev... that was pretty obvious when listening to any of the young players.  If you are going to overpay for intangibles thst is the guy you do it on.    This kind of inconsistent reactionary decision making is why people don’t think there is really a plan.

 

Unfortunately we are one of the worst teams in the league, so keeping the group together isn’t a plan for success at this point.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Provost

[wallstreetamigo]

24 minutes ago, coryberg said:

https://www.nhl.com/bruins/news/bruins-sign-craig-smith-to-three-year-contract/c-319418152

 

Craig smith who has similar career numbers as Pearson and is 3 years older signed this off-season with the bruins for 3.1 mil per on a 3 year deal. 

 

You can day dream all you want at what you think Pearson would have got... that doesn't make it true.

Boston is also a legit cup contender and Smith is a better overall player than Pearson. Plus they don't have a half dozen already inflated contracts for bottom 6 quality players/ahl bus riders/taxi squad 6 million dollar men on the books. 

 

I havent looked but am curious. Are the other contract terms comparable as well? Like trade protection, guarantees of expansion protection, etc.?

 

Also, the climate with the future NHL flat cap situation has significantly worsened since last offseason. The Canucks covid situation currently has also significantly increased the risk of interruptions and future cap uncertainty.

 

There is no team in the NHL other than the Canucks who would have givenPearson that contract on the open market in the current environment. Not one.

Edited April 11, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[kanucks25]

22 hours ago, aGENT said:

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

I guess you really like making things up regardless of what thread we're in. Show me where I said losing Pearson is equal to losing either of those two players?

 

22 hours ago, aGENT said:

You actually have to construct a team real, live, actual people that have chemistry, leadership etc. 

So how come Benning has done so little of this over his 7+ year tenure here?

 

22 hours ago, aGENT said:

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.

There's no depth because of dumb contracts crippling the cap.

 

Ring a bell?

 

This one isn't dumb because of the amount/term but more the timing.