[Signing] Canucks re-sign Tanner Pearson

[oldnews]

4 hours ago, mll said:

 

It’s the NMC rule for expansion.  

 

Free agency is not 1 July - it has been pushed back to 28 July as part of the transition rules:
“All SPCs which are scheduled to expire on June 30, 2021 are hereby extended and shall remain valid and effective until July 27, 2021, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.”

 

 

Thanks for that - but it has literally no relevency to Pearson.

[coryberg]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Thanks for that - but it has literally no relevency to Pearson.

I think he was getting at the fact that even iff Benning gave Pearson a NMC he would still be eligible to be left unprotected in the ED. Hence the Benning handshake agreement to protect him.

[hammertime]

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

I think he was getting at the fact that even iff Benning gave Pearson a NMC he would still be eligible to be left unprotected in the ED. Hence the Benning handshake agreement to protect him.

He has a NTC not sure I follow? Are you saying even if JB gave him a NMC he could still leave him unprotected.

[coryberg]

10 minutes ago, hammertime said:

He has a NTC not sure I follow? Are you saying even if JB gave him a NMC he could still leave him unprotected.

Short answer... yes.

 

 

Long answer...His new contract (full NTC next year,limited NTC 2nd and no trade protection in the 3rd) means absolutely nothing towards the expansion draft. Benning could have given him a no move clause and still exposed him in expansion because his new contract doesn't kick in until July 28th (the expansion draft is on July 21st). That's why Pearson and his agent pushed for a handshake agreement that he wouldn't be exposed.

Edited April 16, 2021 by coryberg

[erkayloomeh]

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

Your obviously one of those guys who put tape on your dogs tail as a kid. 

No worries though so did I 

 

[oldnews]

16 hours ago, coryberg said:

I think he was getting at the fact that even iff Benning gave Pearson a NMC he would still be eligible to be left unprotected in the ED. Hence the Benning handshake agreement to protect him.

the what?  that's an assumption made on the usual basis of....imaginary 'sources'.

 

Pearson did not earn nor command a NMC in his previous deal - and this deal is worth less - he hasn't earned any 'guarantees' to be protected, period - and he did not take a deal that was team-friendly enough to warrant any special, under the table 'extras' included.

That's pure, typical Van-media and CDC flakeout where people parrot any convenient freakout speculation endlessly.

 

I'm not particularly in favour of this deal - but I go nowhere near as far as the typical drama-queen thing that floods literally every single trade/signing thread on this forum.

Edited April 16, 2021 by oldnews

[oldnews]

14 hours ago, erkayloomeh said:

Your obviously one of those guys who put tape on your dogs tail as a kid. 

No worries though so did I 

 

no tape, but I did used to ride down the basement staircase with her in a cardboard box.  might be the origin of my head injuries.

[coryberg]

10 hours ago, oldnews said:

the what?  that's an assumption made on the usual basis of....imaginary 'sources'.

 

Pearson did not earn nor command a NMC in his previous deal - and this deal is worth less - he hasn't earned any 'guarantees' to be protected, period - and he did not take a deal that was team-friendly enough to warrant any special, under the table 'extras' included.

That's pure, typical Van-media and CDC flakeout where people parrot any convenient freakout speculation endlessly.

 

I'm not particularly in favour of this deal - but I go nowhere near as far as the typical drama-queen thing that floods literally every single trade/signing thread on this forum.

We only have 3 months and we will know the answer for sure. I'm 98% sure that Pearson would have been pushing for that... he didn't want to sign a 3 year deal with Seattle. Makes total sense from Pearson's point of view, time will tell.

[aGENT]

Love that 'overpaid Pearson' and 'should have traded Sutter' each had 2 goals tonight 

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Love that 'overpaid Pearson' and 'should have traded Sutter' each had 2 goals tonight 

I love that both are still true in spite of it.

[apollo]

Well hopefully the trolls are ashamed and they go edit their posts and just say sorry to king benning 

 

Support the king. TRUST THE PROCESS. 

 

Benning is leading us to the promise land. 

 

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

45 minutes ago, apollo said:

Well hopefully the trolls are ashamed and they go edit their posts and just say sorry to king benning 

 

Support the king. TRUST THE PROCESS. 

 

Benning is leading us to the promise land. 

 

 

 

Your randomness never ceases to amaze me apollo well done lol

[iinatcc]

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

Love that 'overpaid Pearson' and 'should have traded Sutter' each had 2 goals tonight 

Because he had 2 goals in one game? So he had a monster one game. Where were his goals in the games Canucks lost by a goal? 

Edited April 21, 2021 by iinatcc

[Nucksownyou]

23 minutes ago, iinatcc said:

Because he had 2 goals in one game? So he had a monster one game. Where were his goals in the games Canucks lost by a goal? 

You can say that about any player on the team when we lose by a goal.

 

The hatred for Pearson is beyond pathetic.

[iinatcc]

1 hour ago, Nucksownyou said:

You can say that about any player on the team when we lose by a goal.

 

The hatred for Pearson is beyond pathetic.

As I said. I do not hate Pearson and actually don't think the contract is that bad.

 

But he's having a down year and Benning gave him a contract based on his performance the previous season. And there's also the Toffoli factor that reflects on the decision making ability by the management team.

[coryberg]

5 hours ago, iinatcc said:

As I said. I do not hate Pearson and actually don't think the contract is that bad.

 

But he's having a down year and Benning gave him a contract based on his performance the previous season. And there's also the Toffoli factor that reflects on the decision making ability by the management team.

8 goals in 35 games puts him on a 19 goal pace over 82 games. Not too shabby for a guy on a down year who is going to be making only 250k above the league average.

[BPA]

Pearson contract is fair value for a middle six winger.  Most felt he could have come cheaper due to Covid economics.  I felt it a 2yr would have been better.  But it is what it is.

 

The plus side is he has chemistry with Bo, can PK and plays well within Green's system. 

[spook007]

10 minutes ago, BPA said:

Pearson contract is fair value for a middle six winger.  Most felt he could have come cheaper due to Covid economics.  I felt it a 2yr would have been better.  But it is what it is.

 

The plus side is he has chemistry with Bo, can PK and plays well within Green's system. 

Think that was a big reason for him getting an extension...

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, spook007 said:

Think that was a big reason for him getting an extension...

If the Canucks want to win a Stanley Cup though, Horvat needs a better player in that spot. Thats the point. Pearson is not a top 6 winger on a championship calibre team. 

 

3rd line guy on an actual effective 3rd line that can take on some of the harder minutes so the team has two top lines that can score is the better spot for him, although he is not particularly fast or physical. I would prefer a better option there too tbh.

 

There is a pretty good chance he will end up there sooner rather than later (especially if Green is fired/let go and a more effective coach is hired). 3.25 mil for a 30+ 3rd liner is not going to age well.

[Dazzle]

13 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

If the Canucks want to win a Stanley Cup though, Horvat needs a better player in that spot. Thats the point. Pearson is not a top 6 winger on a championship calibre team. 

 

3rd line guy on an actual effective 3rd line that can take on some of the harder minutes so the team has two top lines that can score is the better spot for him, although he is not particularly fast or physical. I would prefer a better option there too tbh.

 

There is a pretty good chance he will end up there sooner rather than later (especially if Green is fired/let go and a more effective coach is hired). 3.25 mil for a 30+ 3rd liner is not going to age well.

Your reasoning that someone else can do better is potentially flawed. This goes back to the idea that you can 'throw money' at a player that has performed in the past (i.e. Eriksson), in the hopes he can play well. Yet there are no guarantees in that happening. Furthermore, trading for a high scoring winger will be super expensive, even if they were a pending UFA, with no guarantees that he'll sign.

 

My point has always been: if Benning does this, he'll get bashed for it. If he does another thing, the same group of ppl will yell about how Benning is throwing away draft picks.

 

You know that this would be the case. There was never ever going to be a time that a GM would win in the eyes of this fanbase.