[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[kanucks25]

26 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

What can you even say to something like this lol only options are to laugh or cry.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

Lol i read:  "you win with guys who are within probably 90% of all nhl players so it doesnt matter if the ones you sign are garbage"

 

No Jim, you win with skill, talent, and by consistently improving the surrounding cast around your star players, filling holes with quality players, and managing cap space to be able to get good players at 50 cents on the dollar in trades with cap strapped teams.

[Provost]

23 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

What can you even say to something like this lol only options are to laugh or cry.

 

 

Haha, I wasn’t the only one that caught it then.

[bad alice french]

On 4/9/2021 at 5:12 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

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. 

 

 

I wish I could write like you.

Bang on. In year 3 his contract looks like Rooster's.

[PistolPete13]

Dim Jim has one Stanley Cup to his name. I have to laugh when CDC gives him advice on what it takes to win a Stanley Cup . 

 

 

 

 

[canuck2288]

2 hours ago, King Heffy said:

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

I am sure Buffalo or ottawa could use him as a top 6 guy? 
 

 

[canuck2288]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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.

 

 

Fully agree 

 

[canuck2288]

14 minutes ago, PistolPete13 said:

Dim Jim has one Stanley Cup to his name. I have to laugh when CDC gives him advice on what it takes to win a Stanley Cup . 

 

 

 

 

Umm so did Peter Chirelili and he sure proved he was a genius in Edmonton didn’t he? 
 

clearly the Bruins “brain trust” lacked brains 

 

i would look into that org and steal their scouts 

[canuck2288]

3 hours 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. 

Oh is see 

 

so if he signs Loui to an extension for 3 million less per year you would be happy?

[canuck2288]

Dim Jim is so delusional he extends a guy he self admitted is so slow and aging he can’t keep up to the rigours of playing a compressed schedule 

 

Unbelievable 

[canuck2288]

What kind of a role model JB think Pearson is? He is slow, can’t pass to save his life, does not play physically, can’t win board battles, and not a good 200 foot player at all

 

he can score on empty nets though 

[Roger Rabby]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

What can you even say to something like this lol only options are to laugh or cry.

 

 

Omg that's absolutely hilarious. 

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

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

 

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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.

As a wise man once said "You can day dream all you want at what you think Pearson would have got... that doesn't make it true."

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 -Smith is a better overall player than Pearson. 

 

-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.

-better player you say? How so?

 

-you haven't looked but you are absolutely certain that Pearson's contract is too much?

 

-the climate hasn't worsened at all since the start of the season. They actually signed a 7 year TV deal with ESPN, they have fans back in some buildings already and as I pointed out earlier in the thread they have a new team in Seattle that will be taking 60+ million in cap space league wide. This offseason will be much closer to normal than last.

[24K PureCool]

1 hour ago, PistolPete13 said:

Dim Jim has one Stanley Cup to his name. I have to laugh when CDC gives him advice on what it takes to win a Stanley Cup . 

 

 

 

 

Still unfathomable how the dimbos in Chia pet and Jimbo are able to put together a team that beat our juggernaut in 2011.

Edited April 11, 2021 by 24K PureCool

[wallstreetamigo]

30 minutes ago, coryberg said:

 

As a wise man once said "You can day dream all you want at what you think Pearson would have got... that doesn't make it true."

Its a pretty reasonable assumption. He has what 11 points in 33 games getting steady top 6 minutes and PP time. He is a decent player that really is not excellent at anything. He doesnt consistently drive offensive play on his line. 

 

In the current environment, comparable players are passing through waivers unclaimed mostly due to their cap hits and term. Teams are wary of contracts with term for replaceable players. Its not hard to see that other GM's arent extending their depth UFA players for this kind of contract.

[wallstreetamigo]

33 minutes ago, coryberg said:

-better player you say? How so?

 

-you haven't looked but you are absolutely certain that Pearson's contract is too much?

 

-the climate hasn't worsened at all since the start of the season. They actually signed a 7 year TV deal with ESPN, they have fans back in some buildings already and as I pointed out earlier in the thread they have a new team in Seattle that will be taking 60+ million in cap space league wide. This offseason will be much closer to normal than last.

I didnt look to see if Smith has similar no trade protection and guarantee of expansion protection. I know that Pearson's contract is terrible. Dollars, term, ntc, and expansion protection for an 11 point forward who is pretty slow, scores a lot of his goals on empty nets, and is gifted top 6 and pp time that by itself should increase expectations to actually produce relatively consistently.

 

There is a reason this deal has pretty universally been panned by most in the media.

 

The TV deal is already baked in money there bud. It is not new money to prop league finances up. Its essentially replacing their previous tv money.

 

Seattle isnt going to take a bunch of $&!#ty contracts. The players they take also need to be replaced on the roster. In most cases the cap savings will likely be pretty negligible.

[coryberg]

11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I didnt look to see if Smith has similar no trade protection and guarantee of expansion protection. I know that Pearson's contract is terrible. Dollars, term, ntc, and expansion protection for an 11 point forward who is pretty slow, scores a lot of his goals on empty nets, and is gifted top 6 and pp time that by itself should increase expectations to actually produce relatively consistently.

 

There is a reason this deal has pretty universally been panned by most in the media.

 

The TV deal is already baked in money there bud. It is not new money to prop league finances up. Its essentially replacing their previous tv money.

 

Seattle isnt going to take a bunch of $&!#ty contracts. The players they take also need to be replaced on the roster. In most cases the cap savings will likely be pretty negligible.

Do you even believe the stuff you make up or is this just a shtick? I feel like Ashton Kutcher is about to pop out any second.

[AB72]

27 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I didnt look to see if Smith has similar no trade protection and guarantee of expansion protection. I know that Pearson's contract is terrible. Dollars, term, ntc, and expansion protection for an 11 point forward who is pretty slow, scores a lot of his goals on empty nets, and is gifted top 6 and pp time that by itself should increase expectations to actually produce relatively consistently.

 

There is a reason this deal has pretty universally been panned by most in the media.

 

The TV deal is already baked in money there bud. It is not new money to prop league finances up. Its essentially replacing their previous tv money.

 

Seattle isnt going to take a bunch of $&!#ty contracts. The players they take also need to be replaced on the roster. In most cases the cap savings will likely be pretty negligible.

FYI Tanners trade protection is only in the 1st year, 2nd is a 7 team list and 3rd has no protection. Not sure why you keep making a big deal about that. When was the last time you saw a team sign a 3 year contact and trade him in the first year.

 

Also that tv deal was just signed last month.

 

The cap floor is what 60 million so Seattle has to spend that at a minimum.

 

I think you should just agree to disagree with these other posters cause it's not going well for you so far. Let the contract play out, look at the new signings and then say I told you so of you are right. 

 

Just my 2 cents

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, mcchorvirt said:

FYI Tanners trade protection is only in the 1st year, 2nd is a 7 team list and 3rd has no protection. Not sure why you keep making a big deal about that. When was the last time you saw a team sign a 3 year contact and trade him in the first year.

 

Also that tv deal was just signed last month.

 

The cap floor is what 60 million so Seattle has to spend that at a minimum.

 

I think you should just agree to disagree with these other posters cause it's not going well for you so far. Let the contract play out, look at the new signings and then say I told you so of you are right. 

 

Just my 2 cents

Any trade protection is a hindrance on marginal players. We have seen that with all the other players who we conveniently get told there was no ability to trade them when Benning $&!#s the bed. Lots of players moved today. Any Canucks on the list? Thats what I thought.

 

They had a tv deal before that, didnt they? So its not found money bud, its largely replacing what was already there.

 

Seattle will spend 60+ million. But they arent likely taking an overpriced contract from Vancouver. The Pearson signing and the reported promise to protect him pretty much guarantees they will take one of Gaudette, Lind, or possibly Virtanen. 

 

Its working just fine for me actually because its simply my opinion on things. Agree, disagree, its up to you. I dont care either way who agrees with me or doesnt. 

 

We have too many badcontracts that we keep getting told to "let them play out". My issue is Benning just keeps signing them.