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

[Rumour] Pearson and Dickson Being Shopped


Recommended Posts

Pearson cops a lot of heat on these boards but look how good and well-balanced this team was with Pearson compared to without. We lack a bit of grit and good defence in our top 6 and Pearson is one of the few players who does it all.

 

If we're trading Pearson we should get a decent defenceman back, and I doubt the value we'd get back would realistically be worth it.

 

Meanwhile, trading someone like Garland, Boeser or Miller will guarantee more value which would be fair compared to the player we're giving up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Pearson cops a lot of heat on these boards but look how good and well-balanced this team was with Pearson compared to without. We lack a bit of grit and good defence in our top 6 and Pearson is one of the few players who does it all.

 

If we're trading Pearson we should get a decent defenceman back, and I doubt the value we'd get back would realistically be worth it.

 

Meanwhile, trading someone like Garland, Boeser or Miller will guarantee more value which would be fair compared to the player we're giving up.

Yeah I really don't see the value in moving Pearson. We won't get nearly the return for what he's worth. Both in terms of assets and cap. To get a similarly valuable on ice player it's 4-5+ mil cap. Someone already listed what other players produced comparatively to Pearson, and Pearson did it with a much lower cap. That doesn't even include the intangibles you mentioned. If we wanna save cap, Pearson isn't the smart move. His cap is one of the best on the team for what he brings imo. Miller and Garland are the moves to make, maybe Myers but we'd likely have to pay to move him. Boeser we won't get much cause he's an RFA with a 7.5mil qualifying offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Well we never saw that out of him because it's hard to flourish without some sort of decent help which he didn't get playing on one of the worst teams in the league but if he stays or goes, I don't care one way or the other, we just need to have a good shut down 3rd line center whoever that may be and good penalty killing skills would help a lot too unless we stop taking so many bonehead penalties and throw away games because of it, which you and I both know happened a LOT last season. 

The line he played with most was with Bo and Hog, which he was on about 11% of the time. Next highest was Brock and Petey, at 9% of his ice time. His 3rd most, Garland and Pod. Dickinson was actually given a ton of support to succeed and still layed a huge egg. I would care less if he was stellar defensively, but he was only alright there as well.

 

For sure, our pk was terrible last year, and unfortunately it got better when Dickinson started playing less pk time or got injured. 

 

I don't care if he's on the team or not next year. I assume there is more to him as a player then what we saw, there has to be. But you said he was an above average bottom 6. and based off last year he really really wasn't.

Edited by Shayster007
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

The line he played with most was with Bo and Hog, which he was on about 11% of the time. Next highest was Brock and Petey, at 9% of his ice time. His 3rd most, Garland and Pod. Dickinson was actually given a ton of support to succeed and still layed a huge egg. I would care less if he was stellar defensively, but he was only alright there as well.

 

For sure, our pk was terrible last year, and unfortunately it got better when Dickinson started playing less pk time or got injured. 

 

I don't care if he's on the team or not next year. I assume there is more to him as a player then what we saw, there has to be. But you said he was an above average bottom 6. and based off last year he really really wasn't.

That sounds like line juggling Green at his best rather than giving it time with ONE line and working it like crazy coaching wise and it will eventually get going and then problem solved but look how many new players coming and going and then expect new players to fit right in even when the rest of the team isn't fitting either? Petey was playing like garbage, Garland on a funk, Bo was ok until he went on a year, Hoglander, he needs to work on his positioning, same with Podz, Boeser's thing isn't D at all, Lamm sucked at times, but you can go through the entire line-up less JT and Demko that had horrible stretches right up to JT saying we don't have a clue on what we're doing! Well Bruce didn't fix it all, we were still making bad passes and players not getting themselves open for D zone exits, not keeping it to short easy passes, lots of sloppy play that got exposed especially on those 2 lopsided losses and it wasn't Green so it still wasn't good on the last game, I'm not saying he didn't play well but neither did 95% of the team but to say it was ALL his fault isn't entirely correct. 

Edited by iceman64
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, iceman64 said:

That sounds like line juggling Green at his best rather than giving it time with ONE line and working it like crazy coaching wise and it will eventually get going and then problem solved but look how many new players coming and going and then expect new players to fit right in even when the rest of the team isn't fitting either? Petey was playing like garbage, Garland on a funk, Bo was ok until he went on a year, Hoglander, he needs to work on his positioning, same with Podz, Boeser's thing isn't D at all, Lamm sucked at times, but you can go through the entire line-up less JT and Demko that had horrible stretches right up to JT saying we don't have a clue on what we're doing! Well Bruce didn't fix it all, we were still making bad passes and players not getting themselves open for D zone exits, not keeping it to short easy passes, lots of sloppy play that got exposed especially on those 2 lopsided losses and it wasn't Green so it still wasn't good on the last game, I'm not saying he didn't play well but neither did 95% of the team but to say it was ALL his fault isn't entirely correct. 

No one said it was all his fault. You said he was an above average bottom 6 player. He wasn't. That's all this conversation was about.

Edited by Shayster007
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

No one said it was all his fault. You said he was an above average bottom 6 player. He wasn't. That's all this conversation was about.

Ok well, at the end of the day I got my assessment from his +/- and seasons before the last one in Dallas, his +/- was 9 and 7 respectively so that says when he's on a decent team he plays extremely well defensively and obviously that potential is why he was signed in the first place but plummeted when he played here and the disasterous start and lucky to have Demko finish, I think points to the Canucks, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Dixon Ward said:

Mike Hoffman played 1 less game and had 1 more point. He makes 4.5.  JVR had 4 more points in 14 more games and his hit is 7mil.  Tanner is paid exactly right for what he brings and they should only trade him if the return actually makes us better.  Losing him on an off the ice will be a blow.

I think Pearson is a good player. He has been payed fairly for what he brings, and he has delivered adequate value. He is what I call an honest player. I love his heaviness on the boards and his ability to play north south hockey. This is also another name for responsibility when the games ramp up .. like in the playoffs.

 

However I do question where he fits in on this team. Is he a top 6 player? I don't really think so and his $3.25mil is a little expensive for what he adds to the third line. We also have guys like Hoglander, Dickinson, and Garland that can play there. I think we might actually be better served saving the cap space and filling that role with either youth or toughness at a cheaper price. We need to actually start penciling players into specific roles instead of this Swiss army knife approach JB was using that has Dickinson signed for two more years as well.

 

Of course if Miller goes we may just need Pearson to play "warm body" again in the top 6 for a year or two. Tough call. I definitely can see where you're coming from though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2022 at 12:27 PM, VancouverHabitant said:

Move that was initially universally praised, even by Thomas Drance. 

 

Hindsight after one season is that it was a bad move. We will see how next season goes, I kinda hope we keep him and build his value back up. 

I'm not trying to act like I knew it'd be a waste. Just talking about how it turned out. It's not the end of the world, just a waste. Hopefully they can recoup some value or he has a big time bounce back season next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pearson has peaked it it the time to move on from him, this isn't a retirement home. Shouldn't have resigned him, should have traded him during a high for pick IMO. Dickenson has been a huge disappointment since day 1 and should probably just ride that $&!#e contract out one more year.. unless someone will take him cheap but doubt it probably gonna cost a 3rd or a 4th and retain  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still like to move Pearson in some form for Zacha.  Gets us younger with an out of favour (In NJ) C who fits a direct need on the team at 3C.  NJ moves a guy who hasn’t been a fit, for a more seasoned vet for their youth movement.  Win-win in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 10:09 AM, Gawdzukes said:

However I do question where he fits in on this team. Is he a top 6 player? I don't really think so and his $3.25mil is a little expensive for what he adds to the third line. We also have guys like Hoglander, Dickinson, and Garland that can play there. I think we might actually be better served saving the cap space and filling that role with either youth or toughness at a cheaper price. We need to actually start penciling players into specific roles...

I agree with the "role player" approach, and your assessment of Pearson.

 

He's ideally a 3rd liner but like you said, at an inflated cost. But he does play decent on the 2nd line so I'd say he's a 3rd liner in the making while we wait for younger guys to take the role. Until then, he gives us everything you mentioned. I'd also hate to lose more size and heavy board play.

 

I really don't see Pearson as a waste of cap. But then, I'm also of the camp that feels Garland is also not a player we need to move. He has many qualities I think we want (minus the size, of course) and he's on a reasonable contract. Unless we plan to fill the top lines with elite talent (a la Edmonton) we need guys who can at least have some elite abilities even without the whole package. That's Garland, imo.

 

Role players: Myers doesn't have a role. Dickinson had a role but didn't show well. I think these guys will be looked at and possibly moved. Then Miller and Boeser will depend on their demands.

 

Change is coming, in any event. And I really do have faith in the quality of the management group being assembled.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, kloubek said:

I agree with the "role player" approach, and your assessment of Pearson.

 

He's ideally a 3rd liner but like you said, at an inflated cost. But he does play decent on the 2nd line so I'd say he's a 3rd liner in the making while we wait for younger guys to take the role. Until then, he gives us everything you mentioned. I'd also hate to lose more size and heavy board play.

 

I really don't see Pearson as a waste of cap. But then, I'm also of the camp that feels Garland is also not a player we need to move. He has many qualities I think we want (minus the size, of course) and he's on a reasonable contract. Unless we plan to fill the top lines with elite talent (a la Edmonton) we need guys who can at least have some elite abilities even without the whole package. That's Garland, imo.

 

Role players: Myers doesn't have a role. Dickinson had a role but didn't show well. I think these guys will be looked at and possibly moved. Then Miller and Boeser will depend on their demands.

 

Change is coming, in any event. And I really do have faith in the quality of the management group being assembled.

I suppose if we have to ride out Dickinson's contract maybe it's best we keep him and then put that combined 5.9 m towards a higher end player in 2 years time. With the country club comments who knows lol. I too have faith in management so we should see some stuff happening soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 8:14 AM, combover said:

Sabres would be a good spot for Dickenson 
Teams trying to make the league min payroll.

just getting him off the books would be a win. 

same for poolman.

 

lol sabres is not a good spot.. teams trying to reach the min payroll are looking for high cap hit low salary dickenson poolman basically have their entire salary remain to be paid.. they can easily find FA year to year if they are willing to pay actual money to reach the floor. dickinson and poolman will be a hard move without giving up anything both have 3 years term + all the salary remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seravalli has Dickinson 5th on his top-10 buyout candidates.  The buyout window opens on 1 July and closes on the 12th of July.  Dickinson is not eligible for a possible 2nd window - only contracts of more than 4M are.

https://www.dailyfaceoff.com/edmonton-oilers-zack-kassian-among-10-buyout-candidates-ahead-of-nhl-buyout-window/

 

5. Jason Dickinson
Left Wing, Vancouver Canucks
Age: 26
Contract: 2 more seasons, $2.65 million AAV
Buyout Cap Charges: $942k (2022-23), $391k (2023-24), $992k (2024-25), $992k (2025-26)
Scoop: How many times have we heard Canucks president Jim Rutherford talk about cap flexibility? One way to do that and create a little more space would be to move on from Dickinson, who netted just 11 points last season over 62 games. Yes, the dead cap space isn’t ideal, but the Canucks probably aren’t in a position to give up a lot of assets – and that way he’d only count for roughly one minimum salary roster spot, instead of the three or four he’s being paid now.

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...