Popular Post apollo Posted April 21, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted April 21, 2021 11 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said: Your randomness never ceases to amaze me apollo well done lol I scrolled thru first 3 pages... So toxic. There was 1 funny post with the no ragrets gify but rest was absolutely gut wrenching to read (with the exception of a few posts) People should be ashamed and flat out editing posts completely. Our boys (Jim and greener included) don't deserve this garbage. There was very few good posts... Just trolls fulfilling their OCD to bash the GM because they like playing GM mode on Xbox and make decisions based on ea sports ratings Half the trolls bashing Tanner are oblivious to how good of a two way game he has The lack of respect for our GM and his decisions is disgusting it and must change. I stand by it. I will defend Jim. I've been a die hard for almost 20 years now... We've never had anyone like Benning... No one has ever had an eye for talent like he does. I'll stand by all his decisions and expect the best. Go Canucks go! 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 2 hours ago, spook007 said: Think that was a big reason for him getting an extension... Happy captain happy team kinda like happy wife happy life 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook007 Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 14 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. Maybe we should just let Pearson become 30 before we speak about a 30+ third liner... He may very well end up on the third line in the future, maybe even near future, but I'm sure that will depend on the progress of our prospects. If any of them are good enough to dislodge him from 2LW good on them... Regardless, get what you're saying. Any team is in it to win it, but our window is still not really open. Think another 1-2 years before this team begins to make serious noises. At that stage Pearson can be traded if needed, but I think Benning likes to keep some players around with experience. This summer and next, most of the 'old timers' will be gone and Horvat and Miller will be the senior leaders, while we are still bringing in youth. At that stage, the fact he is so defensively responsible, that he would make a lot of third lines better, should just be an advantage for Canucks. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour 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. +/- $3m is pretty much bang on for an 'elite', 30+ point, 3rd liner, with a solid two way game, who can play in your top 6 with injuries etc. Precisely what Pearson is. We paid Malhotra $2.5m, for far less production, ten years ago when the cap was $59.4m and we were a cap spending contender. Granted at (more important) C, and he wasn't paid to (directly) produce offense... but still, your assessment of the value of better third/borderline 2nd line players is (still) laughingly, off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: +/- $3m is pretty much bang on for an 'elite', 30+ point, 3rd liner, with a solid two way game, who can play in your top 6 with injuries etc. Precisely what Pearson is. We paid Malhotra $2.5m, for far less production, ten years ago when the cap was $59.4m and we were a cap spending contender. Granted at (more important) C, and he wasn't paid to (directly) produce offense... but still, your assessment of the value of better third/borderline 2nd line players is (still) laughingly, off. The Malhotra to Pearson comparable is not just cherry picked, its laughably idiotic. Different positions, different roles, different point on the contending timeline of the team, different overall cap structure of the team (they didn't have a half dozen overpaid players and wasted money sitting in the press box and ahl). They actually had a pretty good cap manager who managed to get guys from top to bottom to sign reasonable discounted contracts. Probably so they could afford to pay a guy like Malhotra a bit more to cement the 3rd line. This kind of contract is one that should only be signed by an actual contending team who has not put the team in the position of having a quarter of its cap committed with 3-4 year terms to average or worse players, many of whom are either always injured and not playing or just not playing because they arent very good. The Canucks are a bottom feeding team and probably will befor the foreseeable future if these kind of deals keep getting signed. Not many teams (more like only the Canucks) were going to offer Pearson a 2nd line guaranteed spot alongside a guy like Horvat, significant pp time, above market value dollars, a 3 year term, a ntc, and expansion projection as a ufa. Expecting Pearson to take abit of a discount to help the team's cap situation is something Gillis/Gilmanwould have demanded - and gotten. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: The Malhotra to Pearson comparable is not just cherry picked, its laughably idiotic. Different positions, different roles, different point on the contending timeline of the team, different overall cap structure of the team (they didn't have a half dozen overpaid players and wasted money sitting in the press box and ahl). They actually had a pretty good cap manager who managed to get guys from top to bottom to sign reasonable discounted contracts. Probably so they could afford to pay a guy like Malhotra a bit more to cement the 3rd line. This kind of contract is one that should only be signed by an actual contending team who has not put the team in the position of having a quarter of its cap committed with 3-4 year terms to average or worse players, many of whom are either always injured and not playing or just not playing because they arent very good. The Canucks are a bottom feeding team and probably will befor the foreseeable future if these kind of deals keep getting signed. Not many teams (more like only the Canucks) were going to offer Pearson a 2nd line guaranteed spot alongside a guy like Horvat, significant pp time, above market value dollars, a 3 year term, a ntc, and expansion projection as a ufa. Expecting Pearson to take abit of a discount to help the team's cap situation is something Gillis/Gilmanwould have demanded - and gotten. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 2 minutes ago, aGENT said: Snappy comeback. That is some in depth analysis you brought there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Snappy comeback. That is some in depth analysis you brought there. I already made my point. No real need to reply to the rest of your nonsense. Elite 3rd/borderline 2nd line, UFA aged players, at C or otherwise pretty much make $3m+ universally. But you keep on keep'n on ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 3 minutes ago, aGENT said: I already made my point. No real need to reply to the rest of your nonsense. Elite 3rd/borderline 2nd line, UFA aged players, at C or otherwise pretty much make $3m+ universally. But you keep on keep'n on ... Yet you keep answering. There are a lot of examples of guys playing on 2nd and 3rd lines that arent making that. And if they are they arent getting term, a ntc, and expansion protection on top of it. The cumulative effect of the entire contract, plus the other bad ones already on the books, are what makes the contract suck. Pearson is not elite at anything. He is not overly fast, not particularly physical, not an aggressive forechecker, and not overly consistent offensively. So really he is not elite as a 2nd liner or 3rd liner really. He is pretty average in either role. Thats not to say he is a garbage player, he isnt and I have never said otherwise. Its not him that sucks, its his new contract. You can't use his premium usage on this team and translate it directly to how he would perform (especially offensively) on a 3rd line. If his center is Sutter and other winger is Virtanen or MacEwan, etc, I think it might be a bit more offensively challenging than playing with Horvat and Hoglander bud. And Pearson is a complimentary type player, he isn't the guy who drives the line. Thats not a knock on him, most players are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 We still debating the value of a 2nd line/top tier 3rd liner? We aren't gonna convince the haters they're wrong, cause their egos won't allow it. 3mil for Pearson is great value. I'ma just leave it at that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 7 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said: Yet you keep answering. There are a lot of examples of guys playing on 2nd and 3rd lines that arent making that. And if they are they arent getting term, a ntc, and expansion protection on top of it. The cumulative effect of the entire contract, plus the other bad ones already on the books, are what makes the contract suck. Pearson is not elite at anything. He is not overly fast, not particularly physical, not an aggressive forechecker, and not overly consistent offensively. So really he is not elite as a 2nd liner or 3rd liner really. He is pretty average in either role. Thats not to say he is a garbage player, he isnt and I have never said otherwise. Its not him that sucks, its his new contract. You can't use his premium usage on this team and translate it directly to how he would perform (especially offensively) on a 3rd line. If his center is Sutter and other winger is Virtanen or MacEwan, etc, I think it might be a bit more offensively challenging than playing with Horvat and Hoglander bud. And Pearson is a complimentary type player, he isn't the guy who drives the line. Thats not a knock on him, most players are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 6 minutes ago, N7Nucks said: We still debating the value of a 2nd line/top tier 3rd liner? We aren't gonna convince the haters they're wrong, cause their egos won't allow it. 3mil for Pearson is great value. I'ma just leave it at that. Funny part is, there isn't even a debate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 Where did the whole "verbal agreement to not expose for expansion" thing come from anyway? Also who "gaurenteed" Pearson a spot on the 2nd line? Just wondering. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 22 minutes ago, gurn said: Where did the whole "verbal agreement to not expose for expansion" thing come from anyway? Also who "gaurenteed" Pearson a spot on the 2nd line? Just wondering. It was reported originally as a handshake agreement from Benning to Pearson to protect him (since his current contract would make it so even if he signed an extension with a nmc, it would not actually conteactually guarantee him protection since he doesn't currently have one). We will see if Pearson actually gets protected and which player gets exposed or traded as a result if he does. From Pearson's perspective it absolutely makes sense he would want such a guarantee. Its too bad the media doesn't know how to ask a direct question to Benning. Pretty easily resolved as accurate or not. "As part of the contract extension, did you give a verbal or written guarantee Pearson would be protected in the expansion draft?" Benning either says yes, no, or deflects, which is essentially a yes given his history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 Just now, wallstreetamigo said: It was reported originally as a handshake agreement from Benning to Pearson to protect him (since his current contract would make it so even if he signed an extension with a nmc, it would not actually conteactually guarantee him protection since he doesn't currently have one). We will see if Pearson actually gets protected and which player gets exposed or traded as a result if he does. From Pearson's perspective it absolutely makes sense he would want such a guarantee. Its too bad the media doesn't know how to ask a direct question to Benning. Pretty easily resolved as accurate or not. "As part of the contract extension, did you give a verbal or written guarantee Pearson would be protected in the expansion draft?" Benning either says yes, no, or deflects, which is essentially a yes given his history. There are other forms of protection that havent been talked about much. We could just as easily leave him unprotected and send seattle a pick to not select him. We can do that with Pearson, or protect pearson and do that with another player like lind or gadj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: above market value dollars, a 3 year term, a ntc, and expansion projection as a ufa. Expecting Pearson to take abit of a discount to help the team's cap situation is something Gillis/Gilmanwould have demanded - and gotten. burrows 4.5m contract is that a discount too? how about luongo's genius contract? you make a mockery of bettman and his cap, there will be a price to pay. one of the greatest things someone told me was "think, before you speak" I was 12 years old, and it stopped me in my tracks. your reality that benning is "selling low" and "over paying" pearson is just your opinion. your not fooling anyone, we know your not a expert on the matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 5 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said: burrows 4.5m contract is that a discount too? how about luongo's genius contract? you make a mockery of bettman and his cap, there will be a price to pay. one of the greatest things someone told me was "think, before you speak" I was 12 years old, and it stopped me in my tracks. your reality that benning is "selling low" and "over paying" pearson is just your opinion. your not fooling anyone, we know your not a expert on the matter Burrows was on a 2 mil per contract during 4 of his best years. Luongo's contract was within the rules at the time and several teams were circumventing the cap signing deals like that. It only looked bad after the fact when the Canucks were retroactively punished by the nhl (while teamslike the Hawks and Red Wings were allowed to further $&!# on the spirit of the cba). Had Luongo himself not decided to &^@# the Canucks by retiring and done what many others have done by going on permanent disability, his contract would be a non issue. At the time, the cap hit for a top goalie was actually very reasonable, not an overpayment cap wise. The Canucks are a bottom dweller operating at the cap while 2 of its stars are still on elc. It doesnt take an expert to see something clearly isnt working. And its not a stretch to look at all the overpriced contracts on the roster to see what it is. My goal is not to prove anything to people on cdc. Why would that matter even? I know better than anyone what I actually know or dont and I am conpletely comfortable with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad_BOI_pete Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said: The Malhotra to Pearson comparable is not just cherry picked, its laughably idiotic. Different positions, different roles, different point on the contending timeline of the team, different overall cap structure of the team (they didn't have a half dozen overpaid players and wasted money sitting in the press box and ahl). They actually had a pretty good cap manager who managed to get guys from top to bottom to sign reasonable discounted contracts. Probably so they could afford to pay a guy like Malhotra a bit more to cement the 3rd line. This kind of contract is one that should only be signed by an actual contending team who has not put the team in the position of having a quarter of its cap committed with 3-4 year terms to average or worse players, many of whom are either always injured and not playing or just not playing because they arent very good. The Canucks are a bottom feeding team and probably will befor the foreseeable future if these kind of deals keep getting signed. Not many teams (more like only the Canucks) were going to offer Pearson a 2nd line guaranteed spot alongside a guy like Horvat, significant pp time, above market value dollars, a 3 year term, a ntc, and expansion projection as a ufa. Expecting Pearson to take abit of a discount to help the team's cap situation is something Gillis/Gilmanwould have demanded - and gotten. also chris higgins 2.55M over 4 years equates to 3.17m to todays dollars he scored 15points in 45 games that year. the exact same ratio as pearson when he signed... really, please give your arguments some thought before typing a 1000 words on why west jet is superior to air canada 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 ' It was reported" By who? Lot's of people saying he has a verbal deal, nobody seems to know who it was first "reported" by. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wallstreetamigo Posted April 21, 2021 Share Posted April 21, 2021 1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said: also chris higgins 2.55M over 4 years equates to 3.17m to todays dollars he scored 15points in 45 games that year. the exact same ratio as pearson when he signed... really, please give your arguments some thought before typing a 1000 words on why west jet is superior to air canada You do realize that at the time the Canucks were also a top tier, competitive team that did not have a half dozen other dead money or overpaid contracts on the roster, right? They were not a bottom feeding team operating at the max salary cap with 2 young players to pay big money to in the offseason. They could afford to pay those guys because the overall cap management of the roster was solid top to bottom. Its an apples to oranges comparison. Comparing Pearson to Malhotra or Higgins is a ridiculous stretch. They were depth players added to a top competitive team to get them over the hump. Does Pearson get us over that hump? Obviously not since we are and have been a bottom feeding type team since long before he got here. Contenders sign those type of contracts, bottom feeders dont. Because he doesnt actually move the needle much at all in terms of making the team a contender. If you can argue that letting Toffoli and Tanev walk for nothing is smart but are defending having to hang onto Pearson, take your own advice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now