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

Tanner Pearson Is the Most Criminally Underrated Canuck

Rate this topic


Rindiculous

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Rindiculous said:

So in closing, we should hold on to Pearson for sure because obviously he would not bring much value in a trade, and he is worth way, Way, WAY more to us than anything we could possibly fetch in a return on a trade.

Judge Joe Brown GIF

 

I'm happy with Pearson.  We can revisit this in a year or two. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

Yes, it's me again, with another topic, because I'm bored with almost no games for the past 3 weeks.

 

However, I was reading a Canucksarmy article that basically listed all the Canucks in tiers for how likely they would get traded.  While most I agreed with, Tanner Pearson was put in the "Trade 'Em If You Can" tier.  This tier basically said that if anyone gave you any value for that player, you make that trade in a heartbeat.  He was joined there by Hamonic and Poolman, who I completely agree should be in that tier, but having Pearson there struck a nerve with me because I've seen many people with the same opinion and I disagree 100% with anyone who says Pearson is not worth his contract value this year.

 

Yes, Pearson had a bad year last year.  So did almost every single Canuck with the exclusion of Brock Boeser.  However, this year is completely different.  Pearson is criminally underrated in this market and has been since he was traded here. Even with his 'slow' start (which wasn't really slow as I show below), he's almost on pace for 40 points this season, and he's worth so much more than the points he puts up. Almost the entire year, the line that he has been on has been the best Canucks line whether it was him Hog and Bo at the beginning of the year to him, Bo, and Garland, to most recently him, Miller, and Boeser. He's a catalyst to each and every line at 5 on 5. He's not flashy but he's good defensively, and very good in puck battles along the boards. He's 5th on the Canucks in +/-, is a prominent player on the PK, and has the third...THIRD best expected goals for % of the entire team only behind Brad Hunt (who has seen very limited action) and Conor Garland. On top of that he is THE BEST Canuck in the Scoring Chance % department meaning that he's on the ice for the more scoring chances for than against better than any other Canuck on the roster.  He's the type of grind it out player you need on every line to open up space for your snipers and playmakers.  It's no fluke that every line he gets put on suddenly becomes the Canucks best line by both the eye test and statistically.

 

You won't see much interest in him around the league because he isn't flashy or puts up a ton of points, but almost everyone in and out of our market severely underrates Tanner Pearson. They look at him whiffing on the odd scoring chance and think he's just bad and not worth his own weight. But this year Pearson has been worth every penny of his contract more than almost anyone paid more than him in this lineup with the exception of JT Miller and possibly Quinn Hughes and Conor Garland.

 

And the last thing is most people like Tanner Pearson, but for some reason hate his contract.  Well, he's not making 3.75 mill a year anymore.  This year he got signed to 3.25 mill AAV.  What top 9 player that is consistently playing first or second line minutes is signed for that low a contract?  Basically noone except for maybe Marcus Foligno who is having a career year this year in Minnesota.  For what Pearson provides on a night in and night out basis I'd consider a bargain rather than an overpayment.  He's definitely earning his contract way more than the likes of Pettersson, Boeser, Dickinson, Poolman, and Hamonic and dollar for dollar there could be an argument he's got more bang for his buck than Horvat, OEL, Myers, Garland and even possibly Hughes (probably a bit of a stretch there).  The only one he's definitely not outperforming dollar for dollar is Miller, and if that's the case, it's not a bad contract seeing as Miller's is probably a top 5 contract in the entire league.  Also, for people who say that the contract might not age well cause he's old, the guy is still only 29, only signed for 3 years.  He'll be 32 when the contract expires when most players are still in their prime.

 

So in closing, we should hold on to Pearson for sure because obviously he would not bring much value in a trade, and he is worth way, Way, WAY more to us than anything we could possibly fetch in a return on a trade.

Pearson is good if he is paid like a mill

 

That’s the issue 

  • Wat 2
  • RoughGame 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D-Money said:

You had me until this

 

Horvat takes more faceoffs than anyone in the league, his value goes way beyond creating scoring chances (and when he does he's been clutch). Garland's speed, forechecking, and plain old peskiness has added an element this team has lacked for years. And Hughes is putting up one of the best years for a Canucks' defenceman EVER.

 

Pearson has been surprisingly good. But saying stuff like that only undermines your point.

Faceoffs mean like way less than you’re pumping them up to be 

  • Haha 1
  • Wat 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

So in closing, we should hold on to Pearson for sure because obviously he would not bring much value in a trade, and he is worth way, Way, WAY more to us than anything we could possibly fetch in a return on a trade.

It kind of sucks because he's a victim of circumstance... $3.25 million as you said is a good cap, esp. for what he brings.  
In our context though, if by dumping him and say Poolman or Hamonic for minimal cap we can re-sign Miller without needing to lock into term and that leads us to win it all, then the space needed to lock up a 2nd #1 C is truly invaluable.  Not saying Pearson doesn't bring it on the ice, but top-6 C's are worth more and crucial for building around, and if it means dumping peripheral pieces like depth wings to keep them then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, D-Money said:

You had me until this

 

Horvat takes more faceoffs than anyone in the league, his value goes way beyond creating scoring chances (and when he does he's been clutch). Garland's speed, forechecking, and plain old peskiness has added an element this team has lacked for years. And Hughes is putting up one of the best years for a Canucks' defenceman EVER.

 

Pearson has been surprisingly good. But saying stuff like that only undermines your point.

Yah, I probably agree with you there.  I was saying might for those because an argument could be made.  Horvat and Garland are definitely better players than Pearson overall.  However Horvat makes 2.25 mill per year more than Pearson.  Is he 40% more valuable than Pearson?  An argument could be made that he isn't, but I agree, premier centers are way more important than good wingers so I agree with you that Horvat does have a better contract for what he brings.  Garland as well.  He only makes 1.75 mill more than Pearson.  He is the only other comparable in terms of fancy stats to Pearson on this team.  Everyone else is way worse than those two and he puts up more points.  So yes, I agree with Garland as well.

 

1 hour ago, Phil_314 said:

It kind of sucks because he's a victim of circumstance... $3.25 million as you said is a good cap, esp. for what he brings.  
In our context though, if by dumping him and say Poolman or Hamonic for minimal cap we can re-sign Miller without needing to lock into term and that leads us to win it all, then the space needed to lock up a 2nd #1 C is truly invaluable.  Not saying Pearson doesn't bring it on the ice, but top-6 C's are worth more and crucial for building around, and if it means dumping peripheral pieces like depth wings to keep them then so be it.

I completely agree.  It's really hard because I really love both Miller and Pearson on this team.  They are probably my #1 and 2 favourite players on this team right now.  Maybe it comes down to having to get rid of Pearson to sign Miller, but I'd really like to keep both on this team because they bring stuff that no other Canuck player brings at this point...being gritty along the boards.  Without those two, we lose almost every single puck battle.  While I hate the big body narrative, it does have merit in being able to win board battles and outmuscle your opponent in the dirty areas.  The only other player who is any good at winning puck battles is Boeser (Garland tries for his size but he can still get outmuscled), that's the main reason why the 'heavy' line has been working so well.  All three are great at causing turnovers and winning puck battles.  Almost every single goal they've scored has been off winning a puck battle in the offensive zone (either Pearson or Miller sometimes both) and passing it to Boeser open in the slot.  I get that we have other younger players we have to sign, and maybe Podkolzin could replace Pearson if he got better at board battles, but right now I don't like the idea of losing either at some point.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good read. Yeah he's a good player. It depends on where he ultimately fits in. He's playing well on numerous lines as you suggest but does a team really want him playing top 6? Not in my opinion. Right now BB is really mixing the lines well though so it's working.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Pearson is worth more to us than whatever his trade value might be for the reasons you mentioned, but I think a lot of other GMs would be interested for those reasons as well. I hope we keep him for at least 1 more season until Podz and Hoglander are ready for more minutes.

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

However, I was reading a Canucksarmy article that basically listed all the Canucks in tiers for how likely they would get traded

I agree with you, Pearson is a valuable member of this team and I have said many times, every player cannot be a high scoring finesse player, you need a few guys that are strong on the forecheck and the boards and can patrol up and down their wing. Pearson checks these boxes very well. 

 

Where I disagree is whin when you say Pearson wouldn't bring much in a trade. Bringing much is a bit arbitrary but a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick or a prospect is something to consider.  At the trade deadline the asking prices are high and a playoff team would covet the style of game that Pearson plays.

 

I used to like Canucks Army but have for the most part tuned them out the last year or so. I wouldn't be too concerned about what they say as they are generally wrong and their two main contributors know very little about hockey in general.

 

 

Edited by GB5
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even close to criminally underrated. He's been overpaid most of his tenure here. His stats are modest, his work effort has been poor for most of his games and he's not a guy that does a whole lot when he isn't producing.

 

However with that said,the Boudreau version of Pearson is an extremely good player and is underpaid. However keep in mind, we've only played a small sample of games with Boudreau as compared to years with Green. His first year was decent, paid about right. After that up until Boudreau he hasn't done anything that couldn't be filled easily by 75% of the league. And at 3 million that's a rough look.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...