[Report] Tanner Pearson to miss the remainder of 2022-23 season

[RakuRaku]

8 hours ago, stawns said:

Nothing wrong with his cap hit in context on what he provides.  That's how much players like him cost

Sorry.. had to disagree... have u seen some of the offeseason FA signings?? some veterans capable of scoring more points could only get like $2M or less....

[Provost]

We should be able to put him retroactively on LTIR and be able to take money back in a trade between now and the deadline.

 

This could be a good thing if the brass actually takes advantage of it.

[DeNiro]

5 minutes ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

So......has Tanner been asked to stay injured for the rest of the season so that they have confirmed cap space to maneuver or he wasn't handled well medically?  When I read the headline I had to ask myself if / how a GM could get a player to stay injured without risking everything (insurance fraud?).  So perhaps this didn't occur.  But now I read this quote and have to ask what it means.  Tanner staying injured is probably better for him financially vs getting bought out but it's a tough career move.  Hopefully this is all irrelevant.

If I had to guess I would say the medical staff gave him the green light too soon, hence the setback. Then he was forced to have a second surgery.

 

Hopefully Hughes is just talking about the medical staff. If we have GMs pulling garbage moves like getting him to stay injured they need to clean house right now. Players will not play for teams that do that.

[NHL97OneTimer]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

If I had to guess I would say the medical staff gave him the green light too soon, hence the setback. Then he was forced to have a second surgery.

 

Hopefully Hughes is just talking about the medical staff. If we have GMs pulling garbage moves like getting him to stay injured they need to clean house right now. Players will not play for teams that do that.

I agree.....that's my concern.  If Hughes was referring to management, this team is going to turn on management pretty quickly (if they haven't already)

[NHL97OneTimer]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

We should be able to put him retroactively on LTIR and be able to take money back in a trade between now and the deadline.

 

This could be a good thing if the brass actually takes advantage of it.

Seems convenient at this dark moment in history for this club.......

[BigTramFan]

9 hours ago, grumpyone said:

but if a team is already AT the limit, and say take Pearson & Boeser for some $4mill player, they take on 6.65 +3.25 = 9.9

but they trade away 4.0 (aprox) then they could, in theory, only be gaining 6.65-4.0=2.65 besides the 3.25 that is on ltir. 

therefore they end up being 600k to the good. 

us on the other hand... would be 6.65-4.0 =2.65 more cap space because we would not be needing the cap relief of ltir. 

you see what I'm getting at? 

If a team is at the cap limit and they trade a $4m player for Pearson + Boeser. Then they are taking on $9.9m and sending out $4m.
 

Their total cap hit goes up by $5.4m so they are now $5.4m over the cap limit.

 

Due to Pearson’s LTIR they can be $3.25m over, so they are now not cap compliant.

 

So no, Pearson being on LTIR would not help a team take on Boesers contract.

[Baggins]

8 hours ago, grumpyone said:

but if a team is already AT the limit, and say take Pearson & Boeser for some $4mill player, they take on 6.65 +3.25 = 9.9

but they trade away 4.0 (aprox) then they could, in theory, only be gaining 6.65-4.0=2.65 besides the 3.25 that is on ltir. 

therefore they end up being 600k to the good. 

us on the other hand... would be 6.65-4.0 =2.65 more cap space because we would not be needing the cap relief of ltir. 

you see what I'm getting at? 

LTIR doesn't actually save you cap space. Pearson's cap hit still counts towards the team cap. The cap relief is you can exceed the cap limit by his salary. Trading for him adds 3.25m to your team cap total and adds 3.25 to the cap limit. You gain nothing.

[kanucks25]

1 hour ago, BlastPast said:

No, it was fine. Not great; not terrible. The injury is unfortunate. My comment was a joke too, my man.

I've heard enough "it was fine" and "it's not that bad" and "if we didn't pay X some other team would have" and etc. when it comes to Benning's transactions enough.

 

The proof is in the pudding, clear as day, insert other cliche here.

 

Garbage moves. If they weren't garbage moves, we would have been a better team. It's about as simple as that.

[Pears]

6 hours ago, NHL97OneTimer said:

So......has Tanner been asked to stay injured for the rest of the season so that they have confirmed cap space to maneuver or he wasn't handled well medically?  When I read the headline I had to ask myself if / how a GM could get a player to stay injured without risking everything (insurance fraud?).  So perhaps this didn't occur.  But now I read this quote and have to ask what it means.  Tanner staying injured is probably better for him financially vs getting bought out but it's a tough career move.  Hopefully this is all irrelevant.

**Inb4 it turns we gave him the Hossa disease so we can keep him on LTIR permanently but because we aren’t the Blackhawks Bettman won’t let it slide and as a result he’ll dock us our 1st rounder this year 

[wai_lai416]

18 hours ago, grumpyone said:

actually this may HELP us to trade him... to a team that needs LTIR to also accept Boeser 

so what team wants to add 3.2mil LTIR just to add 6.75mil of cap on top and 10mil worth for next season lmao

[RU SERIOUS]

19 hours ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !  Isn't that the sadest thing you've ever heard! 

[BlastPast]

11 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

I've heard enough "it was fine" and "it's not that bad" and "if we didn't pay X some other team would have" and etc. when it comes to Benning's transactions enough.

 

The proof is in the pudding, clear as day, insert other cliche here.

 

Garbage moves. If they weren't garbage moves, we would have been a better team. It's about as simple as that.

Again you fail to make a point. I guess drafting Pettersson was a mistake too? And Demko? I don't think you know what proof actually is. Although I bet there is a lot of stuff you don't know. Pearson had scored 40 goals in 139 games as a Canuck; that's a ~24/82 game pace. Signing him -- at 28 years of age -- to that contract was reasonable.

 

Benning's IQ > Your IQ. I would bet heavily on that given even money odds and it is not because I think Benning is brilliant. 

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, BlastPast said:

Again you fail to make a point. I guess drafting Pettersson was a mistake too? And Demko? I don't think you know what proof actually is. Although I bet there is a lot of stuff you don't know. Pearson had scored 40 goals in 139 games as a Canuck; that's a ~24/82 game pace. Signing him -- at 28 years of age -- to that contract was reasonable.

 

Benning's IQ > Your IQ. I would bet heavily on that given even money odds and it is not because I think Benning is brilliant. 

The proof is the trash results, trash culture and trash future Benning delivered.

 

If you think this isn't the case then you simply aren't living in reality or perhaps you were in a coma over that time or something, I don't know.

 

I've never said that everything Benning did was bad, but his overall body of work was putrid.

[BlastPast]

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

The proof is the trash results, trash culture and trash future Benning delivered.

 

If you think this isn't the case then you simply aren't living in reality or perhaps you were in a coma over that time or something, I don't know.

 

I've never said that everything Benning did was bad, but his overall body of work was putrid.

I was talking about Pearson's contract. That was my point in the beginning. And the point stands. Deflecting isn't the same as mounting a cogent counterargument. Good day.

[EddieVedder]

29 minutes ago, BlastPast said:

Again you fail to make a point. I guess drafting Pettersson was a mistake too? And Demko? I don't think you know what proof actually is. Although I bet there is a lot of stuff you don't know. Pearson had scored 40 goals in 139 games as a Canuck; that's a ~24/82 game pace. Signing him -- at 28 years of age -- to that contract was reasonable.

 

Benning's IQ > Your IQ. I would bet heavily on that given even money odds and it is not because I think Benning is brilliant. 

It was a good signing.  Pearson brings many elements that can help a team win.  There are just too many posters here that only understand fantasy hockey stats in measuring a players worth.

[Ted Lasso]

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/article/32-thoughts-podcast-where-do-the-vancouver-canucks-go-from-here/

 

The possible implications being he was rushed back, which caused a setback?

 

Will be interested to see if Hughes expands on this or walks it back.

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[24K PureCool]

6 minutes ago, -Vintage Canuck- said:

 

Well that is one way to clear cap space. 

[Strawbone]

If Tanner’s injury was mishandled by the team somehow, this is the kind of thing that could really affect the players. Seeing one of your brothers lose their ability to play hockey for an entire season or potentially more is pretty crappy. 

[Baggins]

21 hours ago, Kenny Powers said:

Can we move him to LTIR,  backdated to when he left? Did we just clear $3M+ cap space? That would take the pressure off finding even money hockey trades.

It can be back dated but the only real effect that has is with his elligible return date. The days and games missed while on IR would count towards his return date from LTIR. Players on LTIR still count towards the cap. The only difference is you can exceed the cap by his salary. Back dating the start date of LTI doesn't create additional cap space.