[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[spur1]

4 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.

 

 

Really... can’t help but think the Flames would jump all over that contract. 

[wallstreetamigo]

14 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Really... can’t help but think the Flames would jump all over that contract. 

Ok you may have a point there.

 

Not sure that makes Benning look good though bud lol.

[4petesake]

15 minutes ago, spur1 said:

Really... can’t help but think the Flames would jump all over that contract. 

Flames Derek Ryan, 34, salary $3.125 million, 6 points and considered quite tradeable.  #39 on TSN trade bait list followed by #40 Brandon Sutter #41 Jake Virtanen

 

Pearson & Beagle injured leading up to trade deadline, team wracked by Covid and we’re supposed to be shocked that no Canucks were traded yet? 4 NHL players traded today.

[wallstreetamigo]

12 minutes ago, 4petesake said:

Flames Derek Ryan, 34, salary $3.125 million, 6 points and considered quite tradeable.  #39 on TSN trade bait list followed by #40 Brandon Sutter #41 Jake Virtanen

 

Pearson & Beagle injured leading up to trade deadline, team wracked by Covid and we’re supposed to be shocked that no Canucks were traded yet? 4 NHL players traded today.

I doubt Benning moves anyone. Even without the covid outbreak. Its just never really been his mo.

 

Really any player is tradeable bud. It just depends on what you get back and in the case of bad contracts what you have to pay to get rid of them. And trying to work around any trade protection they have in their contract of course.

Edited April 11, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[Provost]

I am really starting to enjoy listening to Jannik Hansen's radio hits, one of the best guys 650 has.  He talks like a guy ready to take on a coaching/management role in the game.  Really balanced and not too player centric... good grasp on the economics of the game.  He would be an interesting player development guy, especially focussed on our European prospects.  He played in the KHL, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark as well as in the WHL, AHL, and NHL so he would really have a good grasp on what it takes to transition.

His take on the Pearson signing is pretty spot on.  They are paying hoping he gets back to the 20 goal, 40 point level... if he doesn't it will be a contract they regret in a year or two.  He was also spot on about Benning using the "good in the room" reasoning as just trying to sell the deal to the fans.  He basically said, players come and go and other guys step up, so you need to pay guys for what they bring on the ice instead of how good they are in the room.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/peoples-show/jannik-hansen-canucks-banking-pearson-bouncing-back/

[coryberg]

13 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

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

A simple Google search could give you answers so you don't have to make them up...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/nhl-could-net-over-600-million-a-year-once-second-rights-package-sold.html

 

-The last tv deal was with NBC for 2 billion over 10 years (200 million per season)

-the new deal with ESPN is for 2.8 billion over 7 years (400 million per season)

-this deal is not exclusive so there will be other bids from other networks as well (experts are ballparking the other revenue at 200 million extra per season)

 

So you are looking at 3 times the amount (600 million>200 million) of money per season. "Largely replacing" is the understatement of the century! Between that, fans starting to come back to some arena's and the vaccine rolling out across North America the league is in a much better position financially today than they were in October. It's not even up for debate.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by coryberg

[AB72]

54 minutes ago, Provost said:

His take on the Pearson signing is pretty spot on.  They are paying hoping he gets back to the 20 goal, 40 point level... if he doesn't it will be a contract they regret in a year or two. 

They definitely signed him to be a 40 point player.  That's what he has been his whole career. In the 24 months since joining the Canucks he has played 121 games and put up 68 points. thats .56 ppg and good for 46 points over the course of an 82 game season.

This is not a small sample size and this is not outdated numbers. His first 5 full seasons in the league he averaged 38 points per season. If you simply look at his career as a whole (rookie season and this season on a train wreck) he averages 38 points for every 82 games. This isn't a long shot, you know what you get with him. Good character, solid defensively, 40 point winger with a stanley cup ring and that's what we are paying for.

Edited April 11, 2021 by mcchorvirt

[Attila Umbrus]

On 4/8/2021 at 7:53 PM, mll said:

 

Never heard of that rule and doubt it exists.  Feels like it would have been brought up for other signings across the league.

 

 

I guess rule isn't the right word. I'm remembering back when MacKinnon signed his "deal" of a contract with the Avs, he could have got way more. I remember talk about how he was screwing up other players comparable to him when it come time for their contracts to be dealt with. I've heard of this with other players in the past. This is all due to the NHLPA which is a union trying to protect player salaries. If you take discounts you piss off others that are comparable to you. So guys are kind of held to a certain standard when it comes to signing contracts.

 

Benning even come out and said they figured this is what Tanner would get if he went the UFA route.

 

It's not a rule, but it's been talked about in the past. I know i'm not crazy lol. 

 

My point is that Tanner is a middle of the pack forward, worth that kind of money. Agents and NHLPA work together to determine fair market value of players. It's not like he's in the twilight of his career looking to just stay on a roster after all.

 

This is not that bad of a deal for the type of player he is and what he can bring to any team in the NHL. I know I wish he would have signed for less and the argument holds water. But players still have to play the Union game as well on the contract side of things.

 

To say that Vesey and Boyd, and other cheaper forwards are better replacements for Tanner, I would agree to that as well. But they aren't no where near as established of an NHL player as Tanner is. Established NHLers get paid, and always do, it's always been that way. No surprise.

[Attila Umbrus]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

I am really starting to enjoy listening to Jannik Hansen's radio hits, one of the best guys 650 has.  He talks like a guy ready to take on a coaching/management role in the game.  Really balanced and not too player centric... good grasp on the economics of the game.  He would be an interesting player development guy, especially focussed on our European prospects.  He played in the KHL, Finland, Sweden, and Denmark as well as in the WHL, AHL, and NHL so he would really have a good grasp on what it takes to transition.

His take on the Pearson signing is pretty spot on.  They are paying hoping he gets back to the 20 goal, 40 point level... if he doesn't it will be a contract they regret in a year or two.  He was also spot on about Benning using the "good in the room" reasoning as just trying to sell the deal to the fans.  He basically said, players come and go and other guys step up, so you need to pay guys for what they bring on the ice instead of how good they are in the room.

https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/peoples-show/jannik-hansen-canucks-banking-pearson-bouncing-back/

I miss honey badger, he has been impressive so far with his interviews. I did not expect that from him since he was so quite in his player days.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

A simple Google search could give you answers so you don't have to make them up...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/nhl-could-net-over-600-million-a-year-once-second-rights-package-sold.html

 

-The last tv deal was with NBC for 2 billion over 10 years (200 million per season)

-the new deal with ESPN is for 2.8 billion over 7 years (400 million per season)

-this deal is not exclusive so there will be other bids from other networks as well (experts are ballparks the other revenue at 200 million extra per season)

 

So you are looking at 3 times the amount (600 million>200 million) of money per season. "Largely replacing" is the understatement of the century! Between that, fans starting to come back to some arena's and the vaccine rolling out across North America the league is in a much better position financially today than they were in October. It's not even up for debate.

 

 

Do you really think that significantly offsets potentially 2 or 3 seasons of lost rgular season and playoff revenue or at a minimum significantly reduced revenue for teams in the grand scheme of things? It doesnt bud.

 

The league as a whole is in much $&!#tier financial position than they were a year ago and the only silver lining at all is the tv package. I wonder what happens though if the league is forced to shut down from covid outbreaks?

 

If a team playing in an arena with no fans can have an outbreak like this one, what chance do you think a full arena is going to even be plausible for at least a year? They may push for it but once the first huge outbreak happens guess what will happen? The entire league could have to shut down or play a significant amount of time with no fans. There is huge risk especially now that the Canucks have given a glimpse of what can happen.

 

What happens if players dies from it, as an example? The lawsuits alone would cause the NHL a lot of grief. The NHL is by no means out of the woods yet.

 

The TV rights deal does not solve the leagues financial issues. It doesnt replace what they have lost and will likely continue to lose. It explains why the cap could be flat for awhile. 

[PistolPete13]

14 hours ago, 24K PureCool said:

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

Anything is possible when you have friends in high places. 

[AB72]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Do you really think that significantly offsets potentially 2 or 3 seasons of lost rgular season and playoff revenue or at a minimum significantly reduced revenue for teams in the grand scheme of things? It doesnt bud.

 

The league as a whole is in much $&!#tier financial position than they were a year ago and the only silver lining at all is the tv package. I wonder what happens though if the league is forced to shut down from covid outbreaks?

 

If a team playing in an arena with no fans can have an outbreak like this one, what chance do you think a full arena is going to even be plausible for at least a year? They may push for it but once the first huge outbreak happens guess what will happen? The entire league could have to shut down or play a significant amount of time with no fans. There is huge risk especially now that the Canucks have given a glimpse of what can happen.

 

What happens if players dies from it, as an example? The lawsuits alone would cause the NHL a lot of grief. The NHL is by no means out of the woods yet.

 

The TV rights deal does not solve the leagues financial issues. It doesnt replace what they have lost and will likely continue to lose. It explains why the cap could be flat for awhile. 

Why is it that everytime you are shown up by other posters you try to move the goal posts and change the narrative? You said the league is in a worse position financially right now than they were in October. You were proven wrong. Then you tried to spin it by saying the broadcast deal was largely the same as the previous deal. You were proven wrong. Now you are factoring in law suits from player deaths? You are chasing your tail and it's not a good look for you. Maybe you should thank these other posters for doing the research for you and find another hill to die on. Just saying.

 

[AB72]

All this fuss and arguing in this thread over a player who is making 250,000 above league average.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+nhl+contract&oq=average+nhl+contract&aqs=chrome..69i57.8708j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by mcchorvirt

[4petesake]

3 minutes ago, mcchorvirt said:

All this fuss and arguing in this thread over a player who is making 250,000 above league average.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=average+nhl+contract&oq=average+nhl+contract&aqs=chrome..69i57.8708j0j7&client=ms-android-samsung-ss&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

 

Yup.

[Boudrias]

2 hours ago, mcchorvirt said:

They definitely signed him to be a 40 point player.  That's what he has been his whole career. In the 24 months since joining the Canucks he has played 121 games and put up 68 points. thats .56 ppg and good for 46 points over the course of an 82 game season.

This is not a small sample size and this is not outdated numbers. His first 5 full seasons in the league he averaged 38 points per season. If you simply look at his career as a whole (rookie season and this season on a train wreck) he averages 38 points for every 82 games. This isn't a long shot, you know what you get with him. Good character, solid defensively, 40 point winger with a stanley cup ring and that's what we are paying for.

All of what you mentioned but I would also point out his PK development. I suspect JB sees him finishing this contract at 3LW with more PK minutes. He has decent size and speed and will be able to shelter Podz to a degree. I think it is Rous who will be gone not Pearson. 

[kanucks25]

17 hours 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 . 

 

 

 

 

Chiarelli was actually the GM of that team, not the AGM. He did great in Edmonton, right? 

[kanucks25]

18 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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

 

 

Hm, nobody has taken a stab at this one yet.

 

Anyone? Perhaps @aGENT?

 

[J-Dizzle]

Tanner Pearson is tied for 81st in ppg by left wings this year at .33. That puts him in the middling end of third line production for the year. His career .44 would put him at the top 60 mark for this year (lower end of 2nd line production). His last seasons .64 would land him at 35 which is pushing first line production. 

 

[mll]

3 hours ago, coryberg said:

A simple Google search could give you answers so you don't have to make them up...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/nhl-could-net-over-600-million-a-year-once-second-rights-package-sold.html

 

-The last tv deal was with NBC for 2 billion over 10 years (200 million per season)

-the new deal with ESPN is for 2.8 billion over 7 years (400 million per season)

-this deal is not exclusive so there will be other bids from other networks as well (experts are ballparking the other revenue at 200 million extra per season)

 

So you are looking at 3 times the amount (600 million>200 million) of money per season. "Largely replacing" is the understatement of the century! Between that, fans starting to come back to some arena's and the vaccine rolling out across North America the league is in a much better position financially today than they were in October. It's not even up for debate.

 

 

Their deficit has increased though.  Quite a few owners did not want to play this season as they would have been better off financially.  They are operating this season at a loss which adds to the losses from last season.  They are not generating any profit and can’t even cover their operational costs.  There are also penalties for not playing the full 82 games (TV deals, sponsors etc) on top of the lack of gate revenue.

 

Bettman in announcing the new TV deal was asked about the salary cap.

 

“As part of that, the salary cap is basically going to be flat until we recover the overpayments through the escrow that we’ve built up both in the return to play from last season, which obviously had to be concluded under different circumstances, and this season we’re obviously… there’s a major escrow building up because of the fact that there’s no attendance… So I think everybody is focusing on a flat cap or a near-flat cap for the immediate future.”

 

During that interview he referred to the CBA extension signed in the summer.  Part of media reported flat cap for 4 years.  It could be longer than that.  The CBA extension was 4 years (+ automatic 1 year extension depending on the escrow balance) but the current one still had 2 years to it.

 

The league/NHLPA knew that the TV deal was up and were expecting a significant increase.  It was certainly accounted for in their projections during the CBA negotiations.  They agreed to set an escrow scale and had to try and project revenue for the seasons to come. 

 

Escrow this season is 20%.  The league/owners tried to re-negotiate that amount ahead of this season.  It suggests that their projections in the summer were too optimistic.  Players refused to re-negotiate and Bettman then warned that it will take longer for players to reimburse their share of the losses.

 

Rough simplification.  The NHL is about a 5 billion league.  Owners get half and players get half of HRR (hockey related revenue).  Out of their share players pay their salaries.  There is escrow because the salary cap is already artificially high, where player salaries are already worth more than 2.5 billion.  They pay escrow to bring their salaries down to that amount.  That was pre-pandemic.  

 

Escrow is now a scale.  This season it’s 20%.  For next season per the CBA MOU:

14% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or exceeds $3.3 Billion; 18% if Preliminary HRR for the 2020/21 League Year equals or is below $1.8 Billion; pro-rata rate in between $1.8 Billion and $3.3 Billion (e.g. Escrow Percentage of 16% if HRR is $2.55 Billion)

 

Say revenue falls at 3 billion.  The players share would be 1.5 billion.  They are being paid ~2.5 billion in salaries though.  There’s 20% escrow (500M) but there is still 500M that needs to be reimbursed on top of what they owe from last season.

 

With only 1.5 billion in revenue vs 2.5 billion pre-pandemic, owners have lost 1 billion but are also short another 500 million from money the players owe them as escrow for this season is too low.

[Provost]

4 hours ago, coryberg said:

A simple Google search could give you answers so you don't have to make them up...

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/15/nhl-could-net-over-600-million-a-year-once-second-rights-package-sold.html

 

-The last tv deal was with NBC for 2 billion over 10 years (200 million per season)

-the new deal with ESPN is for 2.8 billion over 7 years (400 million per season)

-this deal is not exclusive so there will be other bids from other networks as well (experts are ballparking the other revenue at 200 million extra per season)

 

So you are looking at 3 times the amount (600 million>200 million) of money per season. "Largely replacing" is the understatement of the century! Between that, fans starting to come back to some arena's and the vaccine rolling out across North America the league is in a much better position financially today than they were in October. It's not even up for debate.

 

 

So, no.

 

All of those number were already factored in beforehand.  They knew there would be a significant bump in U.S. TV revenue when they were negotiating all of this last year.

 

What wasn’t factored in was having empty buildings around the league until well into the 2021-22 season.  All the discussions while revising the CBA were assuming we would be getting fans back in a material way by now in a lot of markets.  Now we have the big Canadian ticket revenue markets talking about basically no one in the stands until the end of this calendar year.

 

Ticket and other in person revenues make up about 2/3rds of HRR.... and that has been decimated.

 

All that increased revenue you are talking about, if it all comes to fruition turn into about a $6.25 million increase to the cap.  $400 million divided by the 50% players share divided by 32 teams.

 

That sounds great until you factor in that the cap was already artificially high due to the players escalator clause.  Escrow to start the 2019-20 season before COVID was already at 14.5% reflecting that the real salary cap was already way too high.  The new TV money likely doesn’t really even get the cap back to $81.5 million even if you ignore the Covid issues.

 

Then add in what will be 2 full seasons with mostly empty buildings and at least a billion dollars that will be owed by the players that needs to be paid back.

 

Then add in the current artificial cap on escrow AND the new cap calculation using two averaged years of HRR instead of one....

 

Teams originally were thinking 2-3 years of flat cap.  Now it is almost certainly 5-6 years or more of effectively flat cap to catch up.  
 

The economic situation is manifestly worse than it was 6-12 months ago when grappling with all these questions.

 

Edit... I see Mll was typing pretty much the same thing at the same time I was.

Edited April 11, 2021 by Provost