Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Trade] Flames trade Sam Bennett, 2022 6th-round pick to Panthers for Emil Heineman, 2022 2nd-round pick


Recommended Posts

Bennett wanted to play in the top 6. He should get that chance with the Panthers. He will also still be an rfa so he can be resigned. I think he will do well on a new team with more responsibility.

 

Boo flames.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Bennett wanted to play in the top 6. He should get that chance with the Panthers. He will also still be an rfa so he can be resigned. I think he will do well on a new team with more responsibility.

 

Boo flames.

I hope he turns into a perennial 30 goal guy :emot-parrot:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 12:05 PM, wallstreetamigo said:

Iaffallo is twice the player Pearson is. See I can do that too.

Actually no, he's not. Show statistics to prove this. Also, Iafallo's contract is longer and more expensive than Pearson. You are so wrong on so many levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2021 at 9:26 PM, DeNiro said:

He’ll thrive under Quinnvelle.

 

Might wanna wait on this one before praising the Flames for getting such a good haul.

I think he might thrive in Florida too. I hope he does tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Actually no, he's not. Show statistics to prove this. Also, Iafallo's contract is longer and more expensive than Pearson. You are so wrong on so many levels.

Since you clearly failed to connect the dots on the irony of why I actually posted that, do you have the stats to prove Bennett is twice the player Gaudette is? That ridiculous comment was what I was responding to. Bennet is better but is not twice the player Gaudette is.

 

I am sure you guys will come up with a bunch of non stat reasons to justify such a hyperbolic statement but since you want actual stats their career ppg are practically identical.

 

And no, Iaffallo is not twice the player Pearson is. But he is a better player who is still improving and was actually still producing well when he just signed his extension while Pearson sandwiched a career year between his two worst ppg output seasons of his career before he signed his.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Since you clearly failed to connect the dots on the irony of why I actually posted that, do you have the stats to prove Bennett is twice the player Gaudette is? That ridiculous comment was what I was responding to. Bennet is better but is not twice the player Gaudette is.

 

I am sure you guys will come up with a bunch of non stat reasons to justify such a hyperbolic statement but since you want actual stats their career ppg are practically identical.

 

And no, Iaffallo is not twice the player Pearson is. But he is a better player who is still improving and was actually still producing well when he just signed his extension while Pearson sandwiched a career year between his two worst ppg output seasons of his career before he signed his.

You clearly hate a player, which is fine. I only ask that you produce the statistics and other pieces of evidence to support your claim.

 

Tanner Pearson and Alex Iafallo are the same age. Pearson has produced more than Iafallo has thus far. He is a proven player. Iafallo might turn out to be better than Pearson, and his contract is not only longer than Pearson's, but costs more too.

 

Your logic, if you had one, isn't consistent at all. You're so hellbent on trying to prove your case that you are willingly ignoring stuff, or exaggerating your claims to try and sound right. Unfortunately, your point is easily refuted.

 

The fact that you tried to sarcastically claim "Iafallo is twice the player that Pearson is" shows how disingenuous you are about rational discussion. That was my entire point.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

You clearly hate a player, which is fine. I only ask that you produce the statistics and other pieces of evidence to support your claim.

 

Tanner Pearson and Alex Iafallo are the same age. Pearson has produced more than Iafallo has thus far. He is a proven player. Iafallo might turn out to be better than Pearson, and his contract is not only longer than Pearson's, but costs more too.

 

Your logic, if you had one, isn't consistent at all. You're so hellbent on trying to prove your case that you are willingly ignoring stuff, or exaggerating your claims to try and sound right. Unfortunately, your point is easily refuted.

 

The fact that you tried to sarcastically claim "Iafallo is twice the player that Pearson is" shows how disingenuous you are about rational discussion. That was my entire point.

You are wrong quite a but here.

 

I don't hate Pearson at all. I hate his contract. There is a difference bud.

 

They aren't the same age. Iaffallo is about a year and a half younger actually. Iaffallo is used as a top line player. 4 mil per for a 1st line player is pretty reasonable especially when they are actually producing reasonable numbers at the time they sign their extension.

 

Pearson is used as a 2nd line player. He has a whopping 11 points so far so in no statisticalmetric is he outproducing Iaffallo this year. He does have more career points. Of course being in the league a bunch of years longer might have something to do with that.

 

Iaffallo - Dec 21, 1993 (turned 27 in Dec) 41 gp, 11 g, 15 a, 26 pts this season. 20 min atoi, 1st line winger

 

Pearson - Aug 10, 1992 (turns 29 in Aug) 33 gp, 5 g, 6 a, 11 pts this season. 16 min atoi, 2nd line winger

 

4 mil for a currently producing and improving player that you see as a 1st line winger vs 3.25 mil for a 2nd line forward in the midst of a terrible season.

 

Its not about hating the player, thats just something people throw around to try to minimize someone else's opinion. I have met Pearson a few times. He is a nice guy. I don't "hate" players, I hate contracts that overpay them.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You are wrong quite a but here.

 

I don't hate Pearson at all. I hate his contract. There is a difference bud.

 

They aren't the same age. Iaffallo is about a year and a half younger actually. Iaffallo is used as a top line player. 4 mil per for a 1st line player is pretty reasonable especially when they are actually producing reasonable numbers at the time they sign their extension.

 

Pearson is used as a 2nd line player. He has a whopping 11 points so far so in no statisticalmetric is he outproducing Iaffallo this year. He does have more career points. Of course being in the league a bunch of years longer might have something to do with that.

 

Iaffallo - Dec 21, 1993 (turned 27 in Dec) 41 gp, 11 g, 15 a, 26 pts this season. 20 min atoi, 1st line winger

 

Pearson - Aug 10, 1992 (turns 29 in Aug) 33 gp, 5 g, 6 a, 11 pts this season. 16 min atoi, 2nd line winger

 

4 mil for a currently producing and improving player that you see as a 1st line winger vs 3.25 mil for a 2nd line forward in the midst of a terrible season.

 

Its not about hating the player, thats just something people throw around to try to minimize someone else's opinion. I have met Pearson a few times. He is a nice guy. I don't "hate" players, I hate contracts that overpay them.

LOL, 3.25 is NOT an overpayment. If he can pot 40 points like he has basically done all his career, the amount is just fine.

 

This one season was a bad season. Did Boeser's second season show him 'declining' too? Your narrative is such a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

LOL, 3.25 is NOT an overpayment. If he can pot 40 points like he has basically done all his career, the amount is just fine.

 

This one season was a bad season. Did Boeser's second season show him 'declining' too? Your narrative is such a joke.

Are you really comparing an almost 29 year old (who actually had the same ppg numbers the year before last with 3 teams that he has this year, so 2 of the last 3 years are statistically as bad as this one actually) with a young player who was in his second season? Come on man. Thats not even remotely comparable. 

 

IF he can pot 40 points? What if he can't, like he isn't so far this season or the season before last? 

 

That's the problem. If a contract will only look "fine" if the best case scenario happens, then it's not a good contract from a team perspective.  With how much Pearson has struggled this year with the top 6 and PP minutes he gets, Benning should have had some leverage on that deal to not have to give up all of dollars, term, trade protection, and - as rumored - expansion protection.

 

We will see what types of contracts are signed in the offseason.

 

In the meantime, all we can do is hope Pearson gets on a hot streak and puts up some points. I am hoping he does for the next 3 years and proves me wrong. But I have hoped for that with lots of players Benning signs but it has rarely happened unfortunately.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drakrami said:

How does Bennett fetch ALOT more than Gaudette.... sigh. This is how you trade and get value back. 

easy, his physical play. DIdn't you watch the games? SB has a habit of showing up during the playoffs as well. Its easy to see why he'd be worth a lot more than AG.

 

Look at it this way - what would the Canucks have had to add to trade AG for Bennett? 

 

Edited by Jimmy McGill
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Are you really comparing an almost 29 year old (who actually had the same ppg numbers the year before last with 3 teams that he has this year, so 2 of the last 3 years are statistically as bad as this one actually) with a young player who was in his second season? Come on man. Thats not even remotely comparable. 

 

IF he can pot 40 points? What if he can't, like he isn't so far this season or the season before last? 

 

That's the problem. If a contract will only look "fine" if the best case scenario happens, then it's not a good contract from a team perspective.  With how much Pearson has struggled this year with the top 6 and PP minutes he gets, Benning should have had some leverage on that deal to not have to give up all of dollars, term, trade protection, and - as rumored - expansion protection.

 

We will see what types of contracts are signed in the offseason.

 

In the meantime, all we can do is hope Pearson gets on a hot streak and puts up some points. I am hoping he does for the next 3 years and proves me wrong. But I have hoped for that with lots of players Benning signs but it has rarely happened unfortunately.

 

If you're gonna go, "what if he can't" logic, then you might as well pay everyone 1 million dollars. What if Boeser didn't score like his first season? What if Demko doesn't do as well with his new contact?

 

3.25 is hardly a gamble. Only someone with an agenda would associate a pretty average signing as an 'overpayment'. This isn't one of them  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

If you're gonna go, "what if he can't" logic, then you might as well pay everyone 1 million dollars. What if Boeser didn't score like his first season? What if Demko doesn't do as well with his new contact?

 

3.25 is hardly a gamble. Only someone with an agenda would associate a pretty average signing as an 'overpayment'. This isn't one of them  

You clearly don't understand risk vs reward analysis at all. And you don't understand how much the cumulative effect of bad contracts impacts a teams cap situation.

 

Comparing Boeser and Demko to Pearson makes me laugh. First, they are both way more talented players. Second, they are much younger. Third, even if they didn't live up to expectations other teams would be happy to take them on because of point 1 and 2 above.

 

Please don't suggest Pearson is a core player on this team by comparing him to core players. 

 

So you think its a good strategy to pay your support players based on the best case scenario happening? You don't think a GM should understand the risk and the current cap reality, especially with older veteran players, and use them to his advantage to negotiate lower contracts?

 

Thats how you get a bottom feeding team that's maxed out cap wise. Like the Canucks have been throughout Benning's tenure and are continuing to be.

 

The only agenda I have is to see the Canucks actually improve. They won't with Benning giving out contracts like these. I would argue they won't be actual contenders until they replace him with someone that understands both pro scouting and cap management.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

You clearly don't understand risk vs reward analysis at all. And you don't understand how much the cumulative effect of bad contracts impacts a teams cap situation.

 

Comparing Boeser and Demko to Pearson makes me laugh. First, they are both way more talented players. Second, they are much younger. Third, even if they didn't live up to expectations other teams would be happy to take them on because of point 1 and 2 above.

 

Please don't suggest Pearson is a core player on this team by comparing him to core players. 

 

So you think its a good strategy to pay your support players based on the best case scenario happening? You don't think a GM should understand the risk and the current cap reality, especially with older veteran players, and use them to his advantage to negotiate lower contracts?

 

Thats how you get a bottom feeding team that's maxed out cap wise. Like the Canucks have been throughout Benning's tenure and are continuing to be.

 

The only agenda I have is to see the Canucks actually improve. They won't with Benning giving out contracts like these. I would argue they won't be actual contenders until they replace him with someone that understands both pro scouting and cap management.

Risk vs reward analysis, huh?

Let's actually go with that. Pearson has evidently produced more than Iafallo. If we're actually going to go with that idea, the reward is on the proven Pearson player who has CLEARLY demonstrated that. Using YOUR logic, what if last year was Iafallo's ceiling? (No one knows the answer to that, but this is how illogical of a point you're trying to make).

 

You seem to overemphasize Pearson's bad year as some kind of 'proof' that this is a bad signing. If everyone knew what the future would play out, people should have signed cheaper contracts (or not at all) to players that would perform poorly, and big amounts of money to players that would eventually score high. Does this make ANY sense to you? NO, it shouldn't. That's not how reality works.

 

The 3.25 signing of Pearson is a pretty standard contract for a player of his calibre. Your argument that he is 'declining' is illogical, considering you DON'T KNOW that this is the case. Pearson after all ASSUMES he will bounce back. He has no reason to think he will decline.

 

It's really funny that you think Iafallo's contract is great, even though it is slightly longer and slightly more expensive. Your bias is really telling. It seems you can't rationally discuss this topic because you are hellbent on 'proving' Pearson's contract is crap at all costs, regardless of the weak evidence you have.

 

Pearson's contract is fine. The people who crap on this deal have something else on their mind.

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Risk vs reward analysis, huh?

Let's actually go with that. Pearson has evidently produced more than Iafallo. If we're actually going to go with that idea, the reward is on the proven Pearson player who has CLEARLY demonstrated that. Using YOUR logic, what if last year was Iafallo's ceiling? (No one knows the answer to that, but this is how illogical of a point you're trying to make).

 

You seem to overemphasize Pearson's bad year as some kind of 'proof' that this is a bad signing. If everyone knew what the future would play out, people should have signed cheaper contracts (or not at all) to players that would perform poorly, and big amounts of money to players that would eventually score high. Does this make ANY sense to you? NO, it shouldn't. That's not how reality works.

 

The 3.25 signing of Pearson is a pretty standard contract for a player of his calibre. Your argument that he is 'declining' is illogical, considering you DON'T KNOW that this is the case. Pearson after all ASSUMES he will bounce back. He has no reason to think he will decline.

 

It's really funny that you think Iafallo's contract is great, even though it is slightly longer and slightly more expensive. Your bias is really telling. It seems you can't rationally discuss this topic because you are hellbent on 'proving' Pearson's contract is crap at all costs, regardless of the weak evidence you have.

 

Pearson's contract is fine. The people who crap on this deal have something else on their mind.

 

No player ever thinks they are going to decline but amazingly it happens to them eventually anyway, especially as they start getting around 30. Its management's job to manage that risk, what the player thinks is irrelevant to the team's side of the contract negotiation.

 

Iaffallo's last 3 year point totals are: 33, 43, 26 (on pace for 52 in a full season this year). Not hard to see a trend there.

 

Over that same time span, Pearson's point totals are 27, 45, 11 (if not injured at all would have been, at best, a pace of 27 points. Much lower with his time missed). Pretty easy to see the up and down.

 

One player is younger and trending in the right direction. The other is older and has a more concerning trend line.

 

Iaffallo also has no trade protection in his contract, which is a likely reason the aav is higher. Pearson has a full one next year and a 7 team list the year after, which in the current cap environment makes blocking a trade in the 2nd year significantly easier. People downplay the impact of that.

 

Combined with all the other untradeable contracts Benning has signed, it creates a real issue clearing cap when needed. Losing Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, etc as a direct result of that inflexibility is not ideal for a team trying to improve. Hopefully it doesn't cost the team a core young player but that trend is concerning too.

 

That is not to address the rumors that he also received a verbal agreement to be protected in the expansion draft, which is not proven either way yet but does make sense as at least possible. 

 

On its face is the Pearson deal terrible? No, but it is a pretty significant overpayment top to bottom. Combined with the other dead money on the books though it increases the risk to the team. No deal exists in a vacuum.

 

You also do not take into account that LA has a lot of cap room to fit that contract in. The Canucks do not have nearly as much cap wiggle room. One is a cap maxed team, the other is not.

 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

No player ever thinks they are going to decline but amazingly it happens to them eventually anyway, especially as they start getting around 30. Its management's job to manage that risk, what the player thinks is irrelevant to the team's side of the contract negotiation.

 

Iaffallo's last 3 year point totals are: 33, 43, 26 (on pace for 52 in a full season this year). Not hard to see a trend there.

 

Over that same time span, Pearson's point totals are 27, 45, 11 (if not injured at all would have been, at best, a pace of 27 points. Much lower with his time missed). Pretty easy to see the up and down.

 

One player is younger and trending in the right direction. The other is older and has a more concerning trend line.

 

Iaffallo also has no trade protection in his contract, which is a likely reason the aav is higher. Pearson has a full one next year and a 7 team list the year after, which in the current cap environment makes blocking a trade in the 2nd year significantly easier. People downplay the impact of that.

 

Combined with all the other untradeable contracts Benning has signed, it creates a real issue clearing cap when needed. Losing Toffoli, Tanev, Stecher, etc as a direct result of that inflexibility is not ideal for a team trying to improve. Hopefully it doesn't cost the team a core young player but that trend is concerning too.

 

That is not to address the rumors that he also received a verbal agreement to be protected in the expansion draft, which is not proven either way yet but does make sense as at least possible. 

 

On its face is the Pearson deal terrible? No, but it is a pretty significant overpayment top to bottom. Combined with the other dead money on the books though it increases the risk to the team. No deal exists in a vacuum.

 

You also do not take into account that LA has a lot of cap room to fit that contract in. The Canucks do not have nearly as much cap wiggle room. One is a cap maxed team, the other is not.

 

You are really stretching the definition of trend.

 

27 + 45 + 11 = Average of 28 over the three years. (rounded up from 27.6666)

 

33 + 43 + 26 = Average of 34 over the three years. Clearly, the major difference is the COVID year. There is no 'trend' (at least for Pearson). By your admission, it is up and down. That doesn't fit any definition of trend - and you know this.

 

You haven't proven that it is a significant overpayment at all. We are simply relying on some statements (opinions) you made of Pearson and you are spinning it off as fact. Your continued use of the word 'trend' is extremely misleading. The numbers don't lie. The difference between Iafallo and Pearson isn't as much as you think it is - and this is taking into account Pearson's poor season.

 

Also, it's interesting that you're using the 'LA has the cap space to do this' explanation. Are you inferring then that the Iafallo deal is an overpayment, but one that the team can stomach, whereas Vancouver can't? Wouldn't that actually justify Pearson's signing because THOSE are the market value prices? Arguably, 3.25 reflects a discount for Vancouver.

 

Is the average point total of 34 versus 27 really worth a difference of 750,000? Plus one extra year?

 

I know you don't want to admit this, but your opinion just doesn't hold any water when you actually compare it with the evidence.

 

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...