[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[J-Dizzle]

Some Pearson comparables:

 

Dzingel: two years at 3.25 signed in 2019. 29 years old (.49 ppg career.. earlier seasons definitely exceeded recent ones)

 

maroon: two year 900,000 signed 2020. 32 years old (.44 ppg career)

 

Zucker: five year 5.5 signed 2018.  29 years old (.53 ppg career)

Nick Foligno: six year 5.5 signed in 2015. 33 years old (.51 ppg career)

Conor sheary: 1 year 735,000 signed 2020. 28 years old (.45 ppg career)

 

Brock Mcginn:  two year 2.1 signed 2019. 27 years old (.31 ppg career) 

 

Paul Byron: Four year 3.4 signed 2018.  31 years old. (.41 ppg career). 

 

 

 

 

 

[coryberg]

10 minutes ago, canuck2288 said:

We could have picked up a better player in Gusev yet we paid 3 times more for a plug 

 

 

[JM_]

36 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Pretty sure we've ( @Jimmy McGill ) already covered the 'not a great communicator' thing.

 

Jim's like them southern fellas, the ones that talk slow and think fast. 

 

I would have preferred a different tack, but man some of the horse $&!# on this thread. Pearsons suddenly the worst skater in the league, can't pass, etc 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[aGENT]

20 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

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?

You described him as easily replaced.

 

Quote

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

He has. We've been rebuilding.

Quote

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

Nope, because they're developing in varied minor/lower league's.

 

Quote

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

That's nonsense. We can still very much use Pearson for the next 1-3 seasons.

 

Judge the deal on its own merit. It's a 'meh' deal. It's neither bad, nor is it good. I was hoping for a hometown/early re-sign discounted deal of $2.8-$2.9. We didn't get that. We got a fair market deal. *Yawn*

 

Yet you torch and pitchfork crowd have all set your hair on fire and want blood like we just signed him to $4m x 5 year deal. It's ridiculous.

Edited April 11, 2021 by aGENT

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

Some Pearson comparables:

 

Dzingel: two years at 3.25 signed in 2019. 29 years old (.49 ppg career.. earlier seasons definitely exceeded recent ones)

 

maroon: two year 900,000 signed 2020. 32 years old (.44 ppg career)

 

Zucker: five year 5.5 signed 2018.  29 years old (.53 ppg career)

Nick Foligno: six year 5.5 signed in 2015. 33 years old (.51 ppg career)

Conor sheary: 1 year 735,000 signed 2020. 28 years old (.45 ppg career)

 

Brock Mcginn:  two year 2.1 signed 2019. 27 years old (.31 ppg career) 

 

Paul Byron: Four year 3.4 signed 2018.  31 years old. (.41 ppg career). 

 

 

 

 

 

Go look what career average 20-25 point, 29 year old Marcus Foligno just signed for in January (Covid cap in full effect) 

 

And these Jabronis are telling me Benning is a moron for 'overpaying' 40 point Pearson 

 

 

[JM_]

20 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

 

 

Zucker: five year 5.5 signed 2018.  29 years old (.53 ppg career)

 

 

this one surprised me. I would have thought he had a higher ppg avg. 

Edited April 11, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[4petesake]

54 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

And for those foolish and naive to take Benning at face value when he says that this player would've gotten this contract in free agency from another team, all I can do is shake my head and laugh.

 

 

Also Dhaliwal.

 

[theo5789]

41 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

Plus an NTC.  Just awful.  

Is this still a thing? It's for one year, the next is a 7 team no trade list and the final year has no trade restrictions. This NTC really means nothing considering we likely do not have the intention to trade him in the first year of his contract anyway. The NTC is practically meaningless beyond posters looking for anything to cling onto to have a negative spin. Really easy to spot who doesn't even bother to look up the details and just wants to trash this deal regardless.

[highwayman3]

27 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I'm the one doing mental gymnastics?  

 

A reporter, who's livelihood relies on drama to stir up listeners and retweets/followers, with a history of 'reporting' hyperbole, hearsay and conjecture tells you something that goes against easily researched comparable player values (which some of us already accurately had pegged, hi Foligno) and you guys blindly follow it and then back pedal with 'well he can't get 100%...'

 

No $&!# he can't and he most certainly doesn't... kind of my point. Including this time, and numerous other ones.

 

And I bloody wish I got paid. Feel free to send Jim a reference. What a bloody weak-ass retort.

You've already stated that Benning bears no responsibility for any of his decisions that turn out poorly, that everything that doesn't work out is due to luck or circumstance, that Pearson would've gotten this contract on the open market, that we should bring Sutter back for 2.5M and that there are really no other options apart from Sutter...mental gymnastics was the politest term on I could think of.  

 

Dude for once look at the &^@#ing context.  It's a flat cap where middle of the pack players are getting huge pay decreases.  We have repeatedly been recently burned by these late 20's contracts given out for being "good in the room." We need to re-sign Petterson and Hughes and are already in a cap crunch.  FFS.

 

I call it like I see it - you are clearly smarter than most of your arguments and I don't think you actually believe any of the aforementioned nonsense.  If that suspicion bothers you (it's by the far the most likely explanation at this point) I suggest you take your own advice and take a big rip off your bong...duuuude...it's just a website....whateva brahhhhh.

 

 

[highwayman3]

Just now, theo5789 said:

Is this still a thing? It's for one year, the next is a 7 team no trade list and the final year has no trade restrictions. This NTC really means nothing considering we likely do not have the intention to trade him in the first year of his contract anyway. The NTC is practically meaningless beyond posters looking for anything to cling onto to have a negative spin. Really easy to spot who doesn't even bother to look up the details and just wants to trash this deal regardless.

It's still a 1 year NTC with a reported handshake agreement to still protect him during the ED.  It's a $&!# deal for many of the reasons I've listed.  Shocking that any of you are trying to defend this.  It's like the past 6 years didn't happen.  

[JM_]

1 minute ago, highwayman3 said:

It's still a 1 year NTC with a reported handshake agreement to still protect him during the ED.  It's a $&!# deal for many of the reasons I've listed.  Shocking that any of you are trying to defend this.  It's like the past 6 years didn't happen.  

don't you think you're over reacting, just a little? sure its 500k too expensive and a year too long. Is that really worth all the 

[highwayman3]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Go look what career average 20-25 point, 29 year old Marcus Foligno just signed for in January (Covid cap in full effect) 

 

And these Jabronis are telling me Benning is a moron for 'overpaying' 40 point Pearson 

 

 

First of all he still got less than Pearson and that deal was also universally panned when it came out.  Just because another team are signed a crappy contract doesn't mean we have to follow suit.  

[highwayman3]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

don't you think you're over reacting, just a little? sure its 500k too expensive and a year too long. Is that really worth all the 

I think in a vacuum this would be mildly aggravating, but you have to look at the current market as well as the Canucks cap situation.  When this happens over and over and over and there were finally consequences for these crappy contracts this past offseason it's incredibly frustrating.  We are currently paying almost a full third of our cap on players either in the taxi squad or in the bottom 6.  That is not a recipe for success.

[theo5789]

Just now, highwayman3 said:

It's still a 1 year NTC with a reported handshake agreement to still protect him during the ED.  It's a $&!# deal for many of the reasons I've listed.  Shocking that any of you are trying to defend this.  It's like the past 6 years didn't happen.  

You mean flipping an aging core with no prospect pool into one of the most exciting young teams we have seen with several prospects yet to crack the roster? Who's the one ignoring what has happened the past 6 years?

 

Who else would we protect over Pearson anyway? Who mind you is currently a top 6 player that has chemistry offensively and defensively with our captain.

 

We have done very well with our RFA signings and almost every one has coming under what many "experts" have projected. I don't expect this to change. And if this does hold true, we will be fine even with this contract where Pearson took a pay cut from his previous contract.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, mll said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

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.

Well said guys. I was planning on a response but I think you both nailed all the main points 

[theo5789]

2 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

I think in a vacuum this would be mildly aggravating, but you have to look at the current market as well as the Canucks cap situation.  When this happens over and over and over and there were finally consequences for these crappy contracts this past offseason it's incredibly frustrating.  We are currently paying almost a full third of our cap on players either in the taxi squad or in the bottom 6.  That is not a recipe for success.

A couple of those are coming off the books next season. And a couple more have one year left that could be bought out if needed.

 

Pearson doesn't fit into that category at the moment, so that isn't even relevant to this discussion.

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, highwayman3 said:

I think in a vacuum this would be mildly aggravating, but you have to look at the current market as well as the Canucks cap situation.  When this happens over and over and over and there were finally consequences for these crappy contracts this past offseason it's incredibly frustrating.  We are currently paying almost a full third of our cap on players either in the taxi squad or in the bottom 6.  That is not a recipe for success.

no, its not. I would have preferred Jim wait this one out but I don't always get what I want. E.g., I hated the Baer contract, I liked getting Gudbranson. 

 

But this one isn't on the same level as Loui, or 4 years for Rooster. It's a bit agitating as it seems like Pearson got more than market value, but its also not excessive. If he gets back to 15-20 goal form this is fine. If he doesn't he can be buried or bought out at not much risk.

 

Its just not worth this much anger, it really isn't. 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, theo5789 said:

You mean flipping an aging core with no prospect pool into one of the most exciting young teams we have seen with several prospects yet to crack the roster? Who's the one ignoring what has happened the past 6 years?

 

Who else would we protect over Pearson anyway? Who mind you is currently a top 6 player that has chemistry offensively and defensively with our captain.

 

We have done very well with our RFA signings and almost every one has coming under what many "experts" have projected. I don't expect this to change. And if this does hold true, we will be fine even with this contract where Pearson took a pay cut from his previous contract.

I would keep Lind and Gaudette over Pearson all day every day. Now one or even both will likely be exposed depending on which bottom 6 guy Benning deems invaluable enough to protect over them. Both could be signed for a total of what Pearson is making, are much younger, have higher potential, are faster, and should (with a competent GM) hold some trade value if they don't pan out as expected.

 

Pearson is not worth protecting imo. I hope Benning doesnt and Seattle takes him or Holtby. 

[highwayman3]

5 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

A couple of those are coming off the books next season. And a couple more have one year left that could be bought out if needed.

 

Pearson doesn't fit into that category at the moment, so that isn't even relevant to this discussion.

But that's sort of the point - he will be soon.  And therefore we are just replacing the ones coming off the books with new ones.  That's why I'm frustrated.  How do you expected our good young players to take the next step if they continue to be surrounded by overpaid, declining vets with NTC's who were signed because they are "good in the room"?

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I would keep Lind and Gaudette over Pearson all day every day. Now one or even both will likely be exposed depending on which bottom 6 guy Benning deems invaluable enough to protect over them. Both could be signed for a total of what Pearson is making, are much younger, have higher potential, are faster, and should (with a competent GM) hold some trade value if they don't pan out as expected.

 

Pearson is not worth protecting imo. I hope Benning doesnt and Seattle takes him or Holtby. 

It's worth noting that Pearson is good friends with Horvat. People seem to think this is NHL 2021. There are real human connections. It's no surprise that the dissonant noise about Benning's performance doesn't take into account these factors, which really reflects how little experience they have dealing with people.

 

3.25 isn't even a bad number, but people are just finding things to nitpick about. If Yzerman signed this contract, you can bet people will think this is a smart signing.