[Proposal] Pearson for Clutterbuck

[kloubek]

Not keen on this, for a couple of reasons.

Pearson has turned out to be a good player for us. He's not terribly consistent, but at least he plays a heavier game along the boards than many other of our players. I understand we have an abundance of forwards, but if we are going to move any of them out I would rather us do so for an appropriate defenseman rather than another forward.

In addition to that, the potential line of Lazar, Joshua, and Lockwood appears somewhat baked already. Lazar and Joshua ware both recently acquired with the expectation to play full-time. Lockwood may still be a bit of a question mark, but I think management has some confidence in his play, and it's always better to try to develop a young guy like that than bring in an aging 4th line player. 

 

Now, I know there is a cap savings here which was probably the main driver for the proposal, and certainly we could use some extra space. But in order for the trade to not obviously hurt us, we'd certainly need a sweetener back.

[VegasCanuck]

10 hours ago, Master Mind said:

 

That's the point -- downgrading on Pearson to gain cap space.

 

Can't look at the trade as just Pearson for Clutterbuck. But rather, Pearson for Clutterbuck + the cap savings.

I really don't think we need to downgrade to create cap space, we are compliant now.

 

Any trades we do, need to address weakness at RD. Until we find a team willing to part with a RD, IMO, we should just roll into camp as we are.

 

Opportunities will present themselves as teams start to incur injuries. 

[JM_]

6 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

SO WHY NOT FREAKING KEEP HIM.  In terms of contract value for non ELC's he's top 5 on the team.

 

1. Miller

2. Demko

3. Hughes

4. Horvat

5. Pearson

 

I should probably put him higher because he boosts Miller's production so very much.  Cap dumping Pearson is the most braindead thing that this forum keeps obsessing about.  It would be criminally negligent by Allvin to cap dump Pearson.

because operating under the cap also has a lot of value for us, and imo he is expendable given the F depth we have now.

 

I think maybe people are building him up a bit here.... 

[D.B Cooper]

Wrong forum.  
 

Man I can’t wait for the kids to get back to class…..

[JM_]

8 hours ago, VancouverHabitant said:

I wouldn't do it.  

 

Pearson is a much better player and 4 years younger.  He makes JT Miller, Brock Boeser, and Bo Horvat better when he's playing on their line.  

 

Saving a measly 1.5 million wouldn't be worth it.  We need to off-load Ferland's LTIR deal to even think about getting under the cap, otherwise there's no point. 

 

We're -2.7 right now, shedding 3.25 has us operating outside of LTIR tho does have some significant benefits, its easier to make roster movements, we may not have to carry over bonuses and can bank cap space for the TDL.

 

Of course there are other contracts that would be better to move, but Pearson might be the one we can move. 

[Gator]

How did this thread last so long in this section? 

[grandmaster]

15 minutes ago, Gator said:

How did this thread last so long in this section? 

All our mods had a late night of partying and are currently down for the count….

 

[Bure_Pavel]

Clutterbuck must have some hard miles on him at this point, maybe if he only had one year left and they included a late pick.   

[Hairy Kneel]

I wonder what would have happened if we signed serviceable players like Clutterbuck and Helm instead of LE...

[Rindiculous]

6 hours ago, JM_ said:

because operating under the cap also has a lot of value for us, and imo he is expendable given the F depth we have now.

 

I think maybe people are building him up a bit here.... 

There's literally no point to operate below the cap while we still have Ferland on the books and management knows that which is why they signed Mikeyhev.

[JM_]

2 hours ago, Rindiculous said:

There's literally no point to operate below the cap while we still have Ferland on the books and management knows that which is why they signed Mikeyhev.

of course there is, we don't have to use LTIR if we clear Pearsons salary. Using LTIR isn't without consequences. 

[BigTramFan]

20 minutes ago, JM_ said:

of course there is, we don't have to use LTIR if we clear Pearsons salary. Using LTIR isn't without consequences. 

In the OP we only save $1.5m in cap hit switching Pearson for Clutterbuck. That doesn’t get us anywhere near operating outside LTIR unfortunately. Even a trade that moves Pearson’s full cap hit will probably still require us to operate in LTIR, when you consider the need to replace him with at least another forward on a minimum of $750k. 

This could be a good secondary trade if we made a deal for a top 4 RD and we needed to move some cap out to be compliant (and likely still operating in LTIR).

[JM_]

1 hour ago, BigTramFan said:

In the OP we only save $1.5m in cap hit switching Pearson for Clutterbuck. That doesn’t get us anywhere near operating outside LTIR unfortunately. Even a trade that moves Pearson’s full cap hit will probably still require us to operate in LTIR, when you consider the need to replace him with at least another forward on a minimum of $750k. 

This could be a good secondary trade if we made a deal for a top 4 RD and we needed to move some cap out to be compliant (and likely still operating in LTIR).

we'd be sending someone down from the current roster to make room for him. I think we could just squeak in under the cap. 

[BigTramFan]

1 hour ago, JM_ said:

we'd be sending someone down from the current roster to make room for him. I think we could just squeak in under the cap. 

My point is that we would still need to operate in LTIR if we trade Pearson for Clutterbuck. Below is the cheapest 23-man roster that we can ice after the proposed trade, and it is still over the cap by $664k. This is with Dickinson + Poolman waived and Lockwood + Juulsen on the roster (which saves the maximum cap possible) and we are still over.

 

Of course the below roster is with Ferland on IR (not LTIR). We can put Ferland on LTIR and be compliant, but that doesn't achieve anything in terms of banking cap space or paying for bonuses...

 

[TheCammer]

Those that want to toss Pearson for a POS like Clutterbuck should stop watching hockey because you clearly haven' the foggiest ****ing clue. 

[JM_]

11 hours ago, BigTramFan said:

My point is that we would still need to operate in LTIR if we trade Pearson for Clutterbuck. Below is the cheapest 23-man roster that we can ice after the proposed trade, and it is still over the cap by $664k. This is with Dickinson + Poolman waived and Lockwood + Juulsen on the roster (which saves the maximum cap possible) and we are still over.

 

Of course the below roster is with Ferland on IR (not LTIR). We can put Ferland on LTIR and be compliant, but that doesn't achieve anything in terms of banking cap space or paying for bonuses...

 

ah OK thanks, I thought we could be just under the cap. 

 

Well then, Clusterbuck can stay where he is then. 

[wildcam]

9 hours ago, TheCammer said:

Those that want to toss Pearson for a POS like Clutterbuck should stop watching hockey because you clearly haven' the foggiest ****ing clue. 

Nothing to do with stop watching hockey its called salary cap and every team has to deal with it?

What is your solution to get under cap? Have to dump salary somewhere?

Good chance Pearson is playing on 4th line making 3.25 million X 2 yrs ?

I like Miller good 200 foot player but he is very slow in todays game and his hands are not the same ?

Playing with Miller most of last season averaging 16 mins per game --GP 68-- G 14 - PTS 34

1.Podkolzin. 21- Petey 23-- Boeser 25

2.Mikheyev 27 - Miller 29 -- Garland 26

3. Kozmenko 26 - Horvát 27 - Hoglander 21

4. Pearson 30 - Lazar  27- Dickinson 26 -- Joshua 26,  6'3, 210 gritty. toughness,  -- Lockwood 24 - speed

 

Baseball is ridiculous no cap..

[wildcam]

Just now, wildcam said:

Nothing to do with stop watching hockey its called salary cap and every team has to deal with it?

What is your solution to get under cap? Have to dump salary somewhere?

Good chance Pearson is playing on 4th line making 3.25 million X 2 yrs ?

I like Pearson good 200 foot player but he is very slow in todays game and his hands are not the same ?

Playing with Miller most of last season averaging 16 mins per game --GP 68-- G 14 - PTS 34

1.Podkolzin. 21- Petey 23-- Boeser 25

2.Mikheyev 27 - Miller 29 -- Garland 26

3. Kozmenko 26 - Horvát 27 - Hoglander 21

4. Pearson 30 - Lazar  27- Dickinson 26 -- Joshua 26,  6'3, 210 gritty. toughness,  -- Lockwood 24 - speed

 

Baseball is ridiculous no cap..

Sorry, I like Pearson good 200 foot game but he is slow and hands are not the same..

[wildcam]

Just now, wildcam said:

Sorry, I like Pearson good 200 foot game but he is slow and hands are not the same..

 

[wildcam]

On 8/25/2022 at 5:43 PM, JM_ said:

if we were getting Clusterbuck + a pick back it might be worth considering. 

not getting a very high pick back? Clutterbuck & 4th rounder? NYI are also taking 1.5 million back in deal for Pearson?

I don't think this deal will happen..

 

I still think Miller trade will happen before October 10th..I think NYI, NJ Devils will be the active teams with Colorado making a pitch with Miller...

Canucks can't have Miller trade distraction all season long and come trade deadline Canucks are in playoff race?

Things will heat up over next 6 weeks once training camp starts...