Recalled/Assigned: Canucks recall F Will Lockwood

[iceburg]

Heh, I'd argue the opposite - that Lind's results in the NHL were incredibly predictable based on what we saw in the AHL and this is why we *don't* need to be giving guys like this a shot.

That said, at least it's good that a lot of the people trying to hype him (hey, IMac!) might shut up about it now.

Rathbone, by contract, looked like an elite player at the AHL level and the fact he's looked pretty good in the NHL is not overly surprising, either.

I hear what you’re saying and could be persuaded by your argument. Rathbone’s performance in the AHL, IMO, left little doubt that he could be an NHL player. What is left to find out is how close he can get to his ceiling.
Guys who are closer to tweeners, like Lind, can find a niche in the NHL provided they bring at least one aspect to the table that has value. Motte initially brought simple hard work. He’s turned into a decent bottom 6 role player. At some point you have to start to figure out whether guys like Lind can find a role. The trick is that the role in the NHL, if the tweener makes it, could be quite different than the role they were being asked to play in the AHL.
And they have to play to figure that out.


Edit: Since this is the Lockwood thread I add that, for Lockwood, his role in the NHL, if he makes it, will be exactly what he is projected as being, a bottom 6 player with speed and energy who can play the PK.

 

[theguardianII]

Sutter - After signing Pearsson and listening to the praise Sutter still gets from management, I'd be very surprised not to see him re-signed.

He almost has to otherwise he looks like he is stupid, or proves he is stupid. Pearson got signed because he blew the TDL AGAIN and didn't get assets for departing FA's and couldn't evaluate the team for next year as not being a playoff team. It was too much for Benning to comprehend

Highmore was acquired in a trade for Gaudette. Benninmg has been very reticent to get rid of a player he has just traded for.

Again he HAS to sign him or he just got rid of an asset that could play in the NHL for nothing. Gaudette has already made him look incompetent

 

[Gstank]

Pearson got Resigned because believe it or not he is a useful hockey player and 3.25m IS NOT a lot of money to spend on a 2/3 liner

He almost has to otherwise he looks like he is stupid, or proves he is stupid. Pearson got signed because he blew the TDL AGAIN and didn't get assets for departing FA's and couldn't evaluate the team for next year as not being a playoff team. It was too much for Benning to comprehend
Again he HAS to sign him or he just got rid of an asset that could play in the NHL for nothing. Gaudette has already made him look incompetent

Highmore is signed for next season smarty pants........

 

[Lindgren]

Pearson got Resigned because believe it or not he is a useful hockey player and 3.25m IS NOT a lot of money to spend on a 2/3 liner
.

What do you think his use will be to the Canucks for the duration of his three-year extension? Will he help the Canucks ...

to be mediocre and on the playoff bubble instead of bad?

to be a consistent playoff team though perhaps not a true cup contender?

to be a cup contender and not just a team content to win a round?

 

[Gstank]

What do you think his use will be to the Canucks for the duration of his three-year extension? Will he help the Canucks ...

to be mediocre and on the playoff bubble instead of bad?

to be a consistent playoff team though perhaps not a true cup contender?

to be a cup contender and not just a team content to win a round?

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

 

[theguardianII]

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

A scoring Eriksson contract could be moved, Roussel, Beagle, Sutter but they aged out and there is the flat cap and the expansion draft where players younger than him could be available. Another 3.25 million third liner? If this team does improve that is all he will be, that is what he would be on most teams if they signed him at all. And he ate up a protection spot and any possible trades due to impinging on the cap further
Jimmy just panicked because Toffoli got tired of waiting. Signing him is scary on another level to me, it suggests that Dim Jim will be around for another year.
And 2 years away? If management isn't looking at least that far ahead it is no wonder it is "Day to day" because they can't use logic or add and subtract

 

[MS]

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

You’re so close to getting it here.

Some of us didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and being told that the extra years on Pettersson/Beagle/Roussel/Sutter/Holtby didn’t matter, too.

Anyway, in the here and now what is your perception of Pearson’s effectiveness in the last year or so?

 

[Gstank]

You’re so close to getting it here.

Some of us didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday and being told that the extra years on Pettersson/Beagle/Roussel/Sutter/Holtby didn’t matter, too.

Anyway, in the here and now what is your perception of Pearson’s effectiveness in the last year or so?

He is a 2nd line place holder for 1 or 2 more season until either Hog and/or Podkolzin can solify that spot and then He will move to a 3rd line roll while still getting PP2 minutes and PK time. Which still makes him a useful player to have, he doesnt have game breaking speed which IMO means he will age better then some or the speedsters who relay on having that extra step to produce or the guys who relay on physical play to separate defenders from the puck. He would slot into a 3rd line roll pp2 roll on any contender and if we are in that spot in 3 seasons I dont see that being an issue.

Even if he regresses to a 4th line roll we would have young players on Cap friendly contract on the 3rd line as young players take 2-5 years to develope depending on a lot of factors.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i am glad he gets a shot in garbage time. a nice little paycheck too.

who knows why but they must be looking at shutting down players with lingering injuries at this point.

 

[Lindgren]

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

My post refers to "the duration" of his contract. So I'll repeat my question: what do you see as the use of Pearson for the duration of the contract? That means from the beginning of it through to the end of it.

If the Pearson signing is a good one, it's good relative to some plan. It's good because it helps the team to accomplish something that management is trying to do.

It could be that it will be a terrible contract in the final year, but that that's perfectly okay, because it's something that management is willing to accept because of what Pearson contributes in years one and two. It could even be that the contract projects as bad for the final two years, but that's okay because Pearson makes a very important contribution to some goal in year one.

But for this signing, or any signing, to be good, it must be good relative to some management goal for the team. What do you think that goal is over the duration of Pearson's contract?

 

[MarkMM]

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

This kind of short-term thinking is exactly how we ended up stuck with junk like Eriksson, Beagle, Sutter, Roussel, Baertschi, etc.

A lot of similarities to the "cap space doesn't matter to a rebuilding team" folks that have mysteriously disappeared from this forum once they were proven so very, very wrong.

 

[MS]

He is a 2nd line place holder for 1 or 2 more season until either Hog and/or Podkolzin can solify that spot and then He will move to a 3rd line roll while still getting PP2 minutes and PK time. Which still makes him a useful player to have, he doesnt have game breaking speed which IMO means he will age better then some or the speedsters who relay on having that extra step to produce or the guys who relay on physical play to separate defenders from the puck. He would slot into a 3rd line roll pp2 roll on any contender and if we are in that spot in 3 seasons I dont see that being an issue.

Even if he regresses to a 4th line roll we would have young players on Cap friendly contract on the 3rd line as young players take 2-5 years to develope depending on a lot of factors.

1) Pearson has been an utter failure as a '2nd line placeholder' for the last 15 months.

2) '2nd line placeholder' means 3rd liner, and you don't pay old 3rd liners that much.

3) Comparables like Connor Sheary are signing for nowhere near what Pearson did.

4) Pearson's skating is awful and trending downhill, and his new contract is probably going to look ugly.

5) This sort of 'who cares about year 3!' thinking is the garbage that got us into this mess. It's the sort of planning you see from bad hockey people who don't understand the salary cap.

 

[4Twenty]

Why are you worried about year 3 there is literally 164 games of hockey to be played before that season even starts and it's not even a hard contract to move. And even then 3.25 for a 3rd liner who can be on your pp2 is not an albatross of a contract. You are worried about something that is literal 2 years away. to put that into prospective 2 years ago Roussel was 5th in team scoring. Petey was a rookie and Hughes had just made his debut and we were arguing about Broberg or Sieder.
A lot can chance in 2 years there is no point in even discussing how bad a 3 mill a year contract for someone who will most likely be a 35-45 point player in 2/3 year will impact the team

Simplistic and much like the day by day management we’ve borne witness to.

Stockholm syndrome at its finest.

 

[Gstank]

I see the Canucks plan over the next 3 years (Pearson contract) to transition the team from older players in the bottom 6 to younger more cost effective players so they can spend in other places. As far as predictions its impossible to predict what the trajectory of this team is since it's most important players are still developing. I would hope in the next 2 years we see progression from the young players that would make use a playoff team year in and year out.

How has Pearsson failed as a second liner? he was on pace for 50 points last year. was .5PPG in the playoffs. This year he would be on pace for a 20 goal year granted his assists totals are lower which is probably reflected in our late of offense since Petey has been Injuried. Compared to Connor Sheary Pearson as out produced Sheary on worse teams thoughout his career so why are you using him as a comparable? There is a clear difference in production between the two players. Your 4th point is speculation and doesnt have any bases. hence why you used "probably". If you dont resign Pearson who are you replacing his 40 points with? We dont have anyone ready to move from a 3rd line to 2nd line roll. If you want to take a shot at a UFAs we are going to be using roster spots that young players could use to develop to guys who are known commodities and won't be around to help us complete in the future.

As for the people complainning about the 3rd year. Who are we going to have to sign to major increases in the next 3 years? Boeser makes 5.75 I doubt he gets more then 7 in a flat cap. Horvat is making 5.5 and again what do you think he's going to get in his second contract 6 maybe 7.5 on the highside. I believe that Miller isnt going to stick around for the length of his existing contact as he is going to get a pretty heavity rise and that would put us in Toronto Terriorty with paying too much for our top 6. Petey and Hughes are going to sign bridge contracts which are generally 3 year with a flat cap and with there play this year that number may start with a 6 instead of a 7. Hoglander is the one guy who we hope gets a rise but even if he hits its going to be close to Boesers contract. maybe a tad less. We also dont know if the Cap is going to rise in that 3rd year which is very likely.

Complain all you want about silly things like a 3rd year on a player who is 28 and will be 31 (which is still a prime age for NHLers) in this Era. Is still a productive middle 6 player and doesnt relay on a game that has proven to age poorly, but i see it as a waste time and effort to nitpick such silly things like a 3rd year or 500k more or less then what people can sign these players for in NHL 21

 

[Lindgren]

I see the Canucks plan over the next 3 years (Pearson contract) to transition the team from older players in the bottom 6 to younger more cost effective players so they can spend in other places. 21

Am I right in thinking, then, that you don't see Pearson helping the Canucks to compete for a cup during the time of his contract?

Signing Pearson, an older player, to a significant contract doesn't help transition the team to younger, more cost-effective players in the bottom six. It does precisely the opposite.

 

[Gstank]

Am I right in thinking, then, that you don't see Pearson helping the Canucks to compete for a cup during the time of his contract?

Signing Pearson, an older player, to a significant contract doesn't help transition the team to younger, more cost-effective players in the bottom six. It does precisely the opposite.

The Pearson signing does help Transition younger players by giving us a known piece of the puzzle the can act as a stop gap for young players to develop. If we went the route of UFAs on PTO or 1 year deals they would only be here a year and we dont know what we are getting with that player that may force players into positions that will hinder there development and if we do mass PTO or 1 year contracts we are taking up roster spots in camp or during the season.

We aren't going to be a Cup Contender for at least 2 years maybe more depending on the development of Hughes and Petey. We still need to wait for younger pieces to develop who are still in there early 20's to grow into there roles (Rathbone, Pod, Hoglander etc). Also this years pick might be the most important of those pieces as it will most likely be the top 4 Defenseman, possibly top pairing Dman we are missing.

From a team stand point we are still 2 top 4 Dman and at least 2 middle six players away from being a consistent Stanley Cup threat. I believe that Benning 2 year plan is refering to the fact that we would be a consistent playoff team. Not neccessarily a President trophy or top seed team.

 

[Lindgren]

The Pearson signing does help Transition younger players by giving us a known piece of the puzzle the can act as a stop gap for young players to develop. If we went the route of UFAs on PTO or 1 year deals they would only be here a year and we dont know what we are getting with that player that may force players into positions that will hinder there development and if we do mass PTO or 1 year contracts we are taking up roster spots in camp or during the season.

We aren't going to be a Cup Contender for at least 2 years maybe more depending on the development of Hughes and Petey. We still need to wait for younger pieces to develop who are still in there early 20's to grow into there roles (Rathbone, Pod, Hoglander etc). Also this years pick might be the most important of those pieces as it will most likely be the top 4 Defenseman, possibly top pairing Dman we are missing.

From a team stand point we are still 2 top 4 Dman and at least 2 middle six players away from being a consistent Stanley Cup threat. I believe that Benning 2 year plan is refering to the fact that we would be a consistent playoff team. Not neccessarily a President trophy or top seed team.

You say, and I agree with you, that the goal during Pearson's contract isn't Stanley Cup contention. What you outline as Pearson's contribution, then, isn't really a contribution at all. He holds the team back.

If Pearson is as effective as you expect him to be, he will help the team reach mediocrity and diminish its chances at acquiring elite talent through the draft. If he's ineffective, he's a negative asset, as Beagle and others were very soon after they were signed. Either way, it's a bad contract. (And it contributes to the team's ongoing cap issues.)

 

[Hoglander]

I'm not a fan of the Pearson contract, but I don't mind having him around. He's better than our bottom 6 players, and Our core needs players better than Highmore and Vesey to play with.

The problem is that cap space does matter. Hog and Pod pass him on the depth chart pretty quickly imo. Possibly next season at some point, and then 3.25 for a 3rd liner doesn't look so good. Even if he's still decent, it's at least half a mil too much. Too many of these bottom 6 / 3mil contracts are killing our cap space. Death by 6 paper, or rather cardboard cuts

 

[iceburg]

I'm not a fan of the Pearson contract, but I don't mind having him around. He's better than our bottom 6 players, and Our core needs players better than Highmore and Vesey to play with.

The problem is that cap space does matter. Hog and Pod pass him on the depth chart pretty quickly imo. Possibly next season at some point, and then 3.25 for a 3rd liner doesn't look so good. Even if he's still decent, it's at least half a mil too much. Too many of these bottom 6 / 3mil contracts are killing our cap space. Death by 6 paper, or rather cardboard cuts

Thing is, this in and of itself isn't a strong enough reason to let him play in the top 6. If he isn't good enough to play there then pay him like a bottom 6 forward and go out and find another top 6 with the dollars you save. It's like me saying my budget for a new car is $30K but I can only get to a lot that sells pre-2010 Hyundai Santa Fes. Oh well, I guess I'm paying $30K for a 2009 Santa Fe...

(no disrespect to Hyundai....random selection )

 

[TheOtherGM]

This forum is aces at derailing threads. Come for the Lockwood talk, stay for a deep dive into the long-term usefulness of Tanner Pearson.

And by that way, that Lockwood talk? It doesn't exist! Hahahahahahhaha

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

or maybe Greener has had another alleged 'altercation' with a top 9 player.

wait what did i miss?

 

[Breakers]

I'm glad that he has transformed his game
It was not looking good at the start of his wolverine career. It was such a reckless style of hockey that he had multiple injuries. Twice while sliding into the boards just playing at breakneck pace.

It's crazy what a goal does to ones confidence. After he scored that shorty against the sens farm team team. It opened up for him.

Nice to see another call up

Technically I think he can play MAX 3 games after quarantine.

 

[Get North]

Kid is ready for a starting position next year at forward.

 

[VanJack]

Of the three young forwards the Canucks recalled from Utica, I'd say that Lockwood was easily the most impressive.

He has NHL wheels, that's for certain. With Lind and Gadjovich, that's still an issue.

Lockwood may need another half season or so in Abbotsford.....but once he arrives, he'll be a fixture in the bottom six.....perfectly acceptable for a third round draft pick.

 

[M2Beezy]

Next season start him up hi in the lineup to spread out the offense

Miller Horvat Lockwood
Pearson Pettersson Hoglander
Motte Sutter Boeser
Podz Beagle Roussell
Macewan