Seravalli: Canucks looking to move Tanner Pearson and or Jason Dickenson

[topched88]

Pearson had a good year, I dont think you'd have problem moving him on without taking anything negative back, albeit the return will likely be light.

Dickenson will take an asset to move, and with 2 years left at a caphit that doesn't break you id rather just see what he can do. He can still be decent on the wing or play 4c, and may have a bounceback year like pearson did this past year.

 

[Cogburn]

Pearson had a good year, I dont think you'd have problem moving him on without taking anything negative back, albeit the return will likely be light.

Dickenson will take an asset to move, and with 2 years left at a caphit that doesn't break you id rather just see what he can do. He can still be decent on the wing or play 4c, and may have a bounceback year like pearson did this past year.

I dunno, I don't think Dickinson was that bad, at least overall. Offensively, he was disappointing, but in transition and defensively he was outright fine. He is, of course, a little overpaid if he plays like this next year, but not by enough for him to need a sweetener in my eyes. I think a team like Arizona or Ottawa could find a role for him pretty easily, and being signed for two more years would be of benefit too, although I see him being a cap dump or replacement player in another trade. If not, Dickinson+5th for a 4th or something would still work for me.

 

[topched88]

I dunno, I don't think Dickinson was that bad, at least overall. Offensively, he was disappointing, but in transition and defensively he was outright fine. He is, of course, a little overpaid if he plays like this next year, but not by enough for him to need a sweetener in my eyes. I think a team like Arizona or Ottawa could find a role for him pretty easily, and being signed for two more years would be of benefit too, although I see him being a cap dump or replacement player in another trade. If not, Dickinson+5th for a 4th or something would still work for me.

I just think there is a lot of guys around the league like dickinson that could be had for nothing likely at a lower cap hit

 

[Cogburn]

I just think there is a lot of guys around the league like dickinson that could be had for nothing likely at a lower cap hit

I don't disagree, but teams that miss out on these others, or that have a hard time bringing in UFAs in general, might be more receptive.

 

[Canucks LB]

Pearson had a pretty good year, Dickinson is a pure cap dump

 

[Tempo]

Jim Benning.

Perfect example of how not to be a GM.

 

[Tact]

If the price was right, maybe the Leafs would have an interest in Dickinson.

Mrazek going the other way?

How about Kerfoot instead?

 

[Djp]

Why would Canucks want to anchor Garland's value like that?

Garland was our best 5 on 5 player and is 25 yrs old signed for 4 more yrs at 4.9 mil. thats a fantastic contract.

Its not like Dickenson or Pearson are negative value or having massive contract with long terms.

Canucks also dont have a massive cap space crunch that they need to lower Garland's value like that because they are desperate to get rid of a 3.2 mil aav or 2.6 mil aav.

Unfortunately tho, i do think Garland is available for trade is SJ is interested.

they don’t ne es sari ly have negative value, they also don’t move the needle with other teams interest.

a team who might acquire them might look at them as a bridge to youth developing….but on the market they coukd get similar players at more than half the salary. These woukd be thise not QOd or those that move from team to team each year

 

[Bettman Returnz]

Not sure another thread was needed for this… Pearson is like a plan C for teams who can’t land any top 9 depth and experience. As for Dickinson, only way I see us trading him is if we are sweetening it with something more appealing and/or taking back a similar “project” level player. Coyotes reached out to us about offloading salary, so maybe that’s the route you have to consider for Dickinson.

 

[Chainshot]

It's like every week there is a new name or names on the list from Vancouver. Does it ever not get tiresome?

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

I dunno, I don't think Dickinson was that bad, at least overall. Offensively, he was disappointing, but in transition and defensively he was outright fine. He is, of course, a little overpaid if he plays like this next year, but not by enough for him to need a sweetener in my eyes. I think a team like Arizona or Ottawa could find a role for him pretty easily, and being signed for two more years would be of benefit too, although I see him being a cap dump or replacement player in another trade. If not, Dickinson+5th for a 4th or something would still work for me.

Why would Ottawa or Arizona take on a 2.65m 4th line player without sweetener?

There are tons of guys in the NHL who make sub 1m providing the same value.

 

[Cogburn]

Why would Ottawa or Arizona take on a 2.65m 4th line player without sweetener?

There are tons of guys in the NHL who make sub 1m providing the same value.

He played on our third line, sometimes even second line. As a strictly defensive asset, I don't see a ton of options that would be in that "sub 1m" club. Arizona, perhaps more so than Ottawa, has also expressed interest in multi year deals for these kinds of players at a low price to fill out the roster during the rebuild and not feeling confident in the teams ability to court and sign UFAs.

I'm not saying the guy has some kind of intrinsic, extra value, but a big winger that plays defensively, physically, is apparently a leader in the dressing room, blocks shot and has pretty impressive goal suppression (looking at his heat maps compared to other Canucks or Stars). he doesn't seem like a negative asset to me. I'd even want to keep him if we found a way to keep our core together, yes, even at his cap hit.

 

[AcerComputer]

How about Kerfoot instead?

Kerfoot is as valuable to the Leafs as Garland is to VAN. VAN would never take Mrazek for Garland, and the Leafs would never take a cap dump for Kerfoot.

 

[Siludin]

I'd take both on Detroit if they came with a monster sweetener

Makes sense with new management that almost everyone is on the table.
They haven't moved on from their message that only Hughes/Pettersson/Demko are untouchable.
My guess is they are doing rumour rounds like this to get a better gauge on fan sentiment on particular scenarios. They probably have at least a few employees scouring popular hockey message boards to peer into the minds of fans and armchair GMs for reactions (and perhaps some nuggets of wisdom here and there)

 

[wonton15]

Can we send Dickinson back to Dallas?

 

[WTFMAN99]

How about Kerfoot instead?

What is Vancouver adding? Kerfoot is a lot better and has a really owner friendly contract with just 750k salary owed after July 1st.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

He played on our third line, sometimes even second line. As a strictly defensive asset, I don't see a ton of options that would be in that "sub 1m" club. Arizona, perhaps more so than Ottawa, has also expressed interest in multi year deals for these kinds of players at a low price to fill out the roster during the rebuild and not feeling confident in the teams ability to court and sign UFAs.

I'm not saying the guy has some kind of intrinsic, extra value, but a big winger that plays defensively, physically, is apparently a leader in the dressing room, blocks shot and has pretty impressive goal suppression (looking at his heat maps compared to other Canucks or Stars). he doesn't seem like a negative asset to me. I'd even want to keep him if we found a way to keep our core together, yes, even at his cap hit.

I can't wrap my head around how you and a few other Canuck fans seem to think players you want to get rid of are somehow more valuable to other teams.

I mean, it would be like me trying to find a Mrazek taker, then going "honestly, he's quite good, very much worth his cap hit". If that was true, we'd keep him.

The same reasons you don't want Dickenson and management doesn't want Dickenson apply to other teams too. The guy has negative value, although it's nothing drastic like, say, Nick Ritchie or Marleau. You will be able to unload him with a mid pick IMO.

 

[MS]

Dickinson is a serviceable depth defensive winger who would be a decent asset at $1.2 million. At $2.65 million we'll have to add something significant to get rid of him.

Pearson was very good last year and the team should have no problem moving him for a decent pick. If he was a UFA right now he'd be getting a bigger contract than the 2 x $3.25 he has remaining.

 

[Cogburn]

I can't wrap my head around how you and a few other Canuck fans seem to think players you want to get rid of are somehow more valuable to other teams.

I mean, it would be like me trying to find a Mrazek taker, then going "honestly, he's quite good, very much worth his cap hit". If that was true, we'd keep him.

The same reasons you don't want Dickenson and management doesn't want Dickenson apply to other teams too. The guy has negative value, although it's nothing drastic like, say, Nick Ritchie or Marleau. You will be able to unload him with a mid pick IMO.

He is just fine and outside of a handful of Canucks fans no one is wanting him gone yet. Our problem is simply cap space, not a need to move the players out. Think of these guys as Kerfoot or Muzzin(useful, but too expensive to keep if we want to keep the core or improve other areas when the alternative is Nylander or Miller/Boeser/Garland) where as Poolman would be like Mrazek (so far playing himself off the team and overpaid even if his play improved some).

It's not that he would be valuable to the teams I mentioned in a starring role, but a small payment (I stated my comfort with Dickinson and our 5th for a 4th, as an example) isn't like asking for a top prospect. Much like how we traded a third two seasons ago for Schmidt, the player was worth more, but the contract and cap hit relative to the teams needs meant his cap space was more valuable. Schmidt wasn't a cap dump, to the teams he departed or the recieving team, but he was sold cheaply.

 

[JesusNPucks]

Faksa for Dickinson?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

This is the trick with Pearson and Dickinson that makes for a bit of a messy situation.

Neither of them are terrible players, or on egregiously bad, or long-term contracts. They can both be useful contributors in a Top-9/Bottom-6 role respectively. But they're also sort of "luxury" spends in their respective roles, that the Canucks can't really afford to spend on right now.

Unfortunately, with cap space pretty tight around the league, the list of potential suitors who could afford those sort of contracts in those roles is somewhat limited.


Pearson is still a useful Top-9 Filler with good size and a bit of grit. He can pretty reliably pot 15-20G for you and telescope up and down between your 1st 2nd and 3rd lines as a complementary piece as needed without being completely out of his depth. That's not really unreasonable @ $3.25M...but it's not a "value" deal either. And it's a role where a lot of teams would just prefer to let a younger / ELC type player try to run out some rope for cheaper instead. And he's not really good enough, or dynamic enough to want as a fixture in your Top-6. So he's sort of a "Luxury 7th Forward".

Tough to move, outside of an expiring contract deadline deal. But the catch is that he's also not nearly bad enough or expensive enough to view as a "cap dump" where you're adding a sweetener to get rid of a guy who can absolutely still contribute to your team.


Dickinson had a bit of a rough go with Vancouver. Didn't seem to fit very well, especially offensively. Got sort of shoehorned into a role that isn't really right for him, in a system that didn't seem to jive with his game. But he's got years in the bank of being a really useful Bottom-9 "Swiss Army Knife" type player. No reason to think that in a better situational fit, he couldn't quickly return to the sort of utility that he offered in Dallas. But again, his contract is a little bit on the "premium" end for that sort of utility player. Most teams (including the Canucks) would prefer to staff that role with a younger and cheaper player where possible (even if there are a few more ups and downs).

It's the same situation, where having a few of those sort of contracts really starts to add up for the Canucks. But not individually bad enough, or enough of a problem to actually treat them as a cap dump and give up an asset to get rid of a useful player.



I still think guys like Pearson + Dickinson could have some value (however marginal) to certain teams. Particularly to teams that have trouble landing their choice of UFAs. Unfortunately, that makes it the sort of deal that likely has to happen after that first wave of Free Agent Frenzy rolls over. Once teams can step back and assess whether they've landed the veterans they want that way or not. That adds timeline complications to the whole thing for Vancouver.



But these aren't guys like Tucker Poolman, who is a straight up Cap Dump. On an absolutely bizarre, awful contract. They're just guys caught in an awkward luxury market, for middling "filler" players.

What lol! He was signed for 4 years, it's too long, he's not that good, all true. It's still only 1! year longer than Dickinson. Canucks fans saw that extra year and can't stop going on and on about Poolman's contract. Poolman was going to get at least 3 years somewhere. Yes Dickinson is like Poolman. Probably a bigger cap dump, as Dickinson is a slightly bigger cap hit but more importantly he's a winger. He can fill in at C in a pinch, but he's not one based on last year. Poolman is a RD. Actually screw probably, Dickinson is a way more of a pure cap dump, bottom pairing mostly low event RD have actual value in the league.

I could see Van trading Pearson for a 3rd or 4th and then give the pick with Dickinson to get rid of his contract. = 6+M$ in cap cleared.

 

[Tact]

What is Vancouver adding? Kerfoot is a lot better and has a really owner friendly contract with just 750k salary owed after July 1st.

Ok what’s the + on Vancouver end? What does Toronto want?

 

[EverTheCynic]

You know how teams fighting for a cup pick up a Maroon type player? Or just Maroon himself?

That’s the kind of player Tanner Pearson is. Every contending team wants this guy. He’s a great depth player who can move up into the top 6 in the event of an injury.

He’s wasting his talents here. He should be in the playoffs. No doubts he gets a good return if we eat some of his salary.

 

[WTFMAN99]

Ok what’s the + on Vancouver end? What does Toronto want?

I was gonna say maybe a 2nd since Dickinson isn't overly special on his own, more cap dump territory but lacking a 2nd until next year by the looks of it.

23 2nd I guess.

 

[UrbanImpact]

What is Vancouver adding? Kerfoot is a lot better and has a really owner friendly contract with just 750k salary owed after July 1st.

No thanks on Kerfoot,

We need a Right Hand C, we have no Right shot C on the team and it really hurt the team especially in the PK. 3.5 milaav also too rich. He is also a free agent after this year, why would Canucks give up an asset to possibly have him for 1 year in which they arent supposed to be competitive. If we like him that much just go after him next year as a free agent without it costing us assets.

Would rather target free agents for 3c, would cost less and no assets

Bjugstad
Hinistroza