Player Discussion Tanner Pearson

Status
Not open for further replies.

GetFocht

Indestructible
Jun 11, 2013
9,077
4,373
Just imagine if the Canucks had Pettersson/Horvat/Bonino/McCann down the middle. That's a whole lot better than having Sutter/Beagle. Could convert Gaudette into a winger (which should have been done a while back). That would make the team deep down the middle with plenty of speed that McCann brings and Bonino's clutchness in the playoffs.

Perhaps that team can win 5 straight in the playoffs and go 2-0 against the defending Stanley Cup champs.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,771
7,701
West Coast
Perhaps that team can win 5 straight in the playoffs and go 2-0 against the defending Stanley Cup champs.
You never know how things shake up if you change a player. Butterfly effect and all. But what I do know is a team that has better center depth is usually a better team.

Let's talk about Tanner Pearson vs McCann though. As much as we like to meme that Loui is the empty net machine it's actually Pearson. He has a staggering 9 empty net points and 6 empty-net goals. That's tied for the most in the league. Remove those and he's basically identical regular-season points as McCann.

McCann is a RFA at the end of the year and is making 1,250,000. Pearson is making 3,750,000. So Pearson is making 3x more than McCann running through 2021. Considering how cap starved the Canucks are it's fair to say that a cost-controlled McCann is better in the long run than Pearson. As good as a year Pearson is having I doubt he would take a pay cut. Especially the fact he turns 30 in his UFA years so that would be his last contract. Pettersson and Hughes are due for contracts once Pearson's runs out so the likely hood of Pearson walking after his contract is extremely high.

Whereas McCann could be fit into the cap quite well for a long time. You have to think long-term with a young guy like McCann rather than the short term with Pearson. This is a young team that is cap-starved and they would be better off in the long run with a McCann than a Pearson. Plus McCann plays center and can play wing. By the time the Canucks should be contending, Pearson will probably not be on the team.
 

GetFocht

Indestructible
Jun 11, 2013
9,077
4,373
You never know how things shake up if you change a player. Butterfly effect and all. But what I do know is a team that has better center depth is usually a better team.

Let's talk about Tanner Pearson vs McCann though. As much as we like to meme that Loui is the empty net machine it's actually Pearson. He has a staggering 9 empty net points and 6 empty-net goals. That's tied for the most in the league. Remove those and he's basically identical regular-season points as McCann.

McCann is a RFA at the end of the year and is making 1,250,000. Pearson is making 3,750,000. So Pearson is making 3x more than McCann running through 2021. Considering how cap starved the Canucks are it's fair to say that a cost-controlled McCann is better in the long run than Pearson. As good as a year Pearson is having I doubt he would take a pay cut. Especially the fact he turns 30 in his UFA years so that would be his last contract. Pettersson and Hughes are due for contracts once Pearson's runs out so the likely hood of Pearson walking after his contract is extremely high.

Whereas McCann could be fit into the cap quite well for a long time. You have to think long-term with a young guy like McCann rather than the short term with Pearson. This is a young team that is cap-starved and they would be better off in the long run with a McCann than a Pearson. Plus McCann plays center and can play wing. By the time the Canucks should be contending, Pearson will probably not be on the team.

You're essentially doing mental gymnastics to justify your argument. Sorry I don't engage in wall of text of hypotheticals, I prefer to live in reality.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,771
7,701
West Coast
You're essentially doing mental gymnastics to justify your argument. Sorry I don't engage in wall of text of hypotheticals, I prefer to live in reality.
Alright, let's say that Pearson has a good year.

Hughes and Pettersson are up for big contracts when Pearson is a UFA. Will Pearson take a pay cut on possibly his last contract? Will he ask for term or money? What's the likely hood?

We know McCann is an RFA so he's cost-controlled to a certain extent. Will he fit in better into the cap structure than Pearson will? What's the likely hood?

Is Pearson really worth more than McCann, in the long run, considering contracts/position/age? If Pearson leaves, is his two years on a non-contending team worth it over McCann staying longer?
 

CantStoptheBrock

Registered User
Jun 26, 2020
176
138
No he’s playing like a decent middle six forward. 52 points in 98 games since joining the penguins.
A decent middle six forward healthy scratched for Sam Lafferty (who???) in the Penguins' most important games of the year. Meanwhile Pearson is PPG for the Canucks, and providing excellent leadership with his Stanley Cup pedigree. I know who I'm taking on my team.
 

M2Beezy

Objective and Neutral Hockey Commentator
May 25, 2014
45,287
30,123
Alright, let's say that Pearson has a good year.

Hughes and Pettersson are up for big contracts when Pearson is a UFA. Will Pearson take a pay cut on possibly his last contract? Will he ask for term or money? What's the likely hood?

We know McCann is an RFA so he's cost-controlled to a certain extent. Will he fit in better into the cap structure than Pearson will? What's the likely hood?

Is Pearson really worth more than McCann, in the long run, considering contracts/position/age? If Pearson leaves, is his two years on a non-contending team worth it over McCann staying longer?
But why are we comparing Mccann to Pearson, they werent traded for each other?

I think we all know the Mccann/2nd rounder/4th rounder for Gudbranson/5th rounder was a horrible HORRIBLE trade

But somehow Benning turned Gudbranson into Pearson

Doesnt make losing Mccann and the 2nd any better, but he won that 2nd trade and Pearson is performing like hell, and has the experience of a couple a cups that maybe is having a great impact on the young guys
 

BB06

Registered User
Jun 1, 2020
2,973
4,321
A decent middle six forward healthy scratched for Sam Lafferty (who???) in the Penguins' most important games of the year. Meanwhile Pearson is PPG for the Canucks, and providing excellent leadership with his Stanley Cup pedigree. I know who I'm taking on my team.

I never said McCan was better than Pearson just that he’s a decent middle six forward getting scratched one game doesn’t erase the 100 games of production he’s put up with the pens.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
I haven’t been following McCann’s career closely, but wasn’t he a healthy scratch during the play-in? Core players usually don’t get scratched like that.
 

WTG

December 5th
Jan 11, 2015
23,771
7,701
West Coast
But why are we comparing Mccann to Pearson, they werent traded for each other?

I think we all know the Mccann/2nd rounder/4th rounder for Gudbranson/5th rounder was a horrible HORRIBLE trade

But somehow Benning turned Gudbranson into Pearson

Doesnt make losing Mccann and the 2nd any better, but he won that 2nd trade and Pearson is performing like hell, and has the experience of a couple a cups that maybe is having a great impact on the young guys
I agree with you. I thought it would be an interesting discussion

ssion talking about McCann vs Pearson. Gave some reasons why you'd keep McCann over Pearson.
I'm not married to the idea that having McCann is better than having Pearson.

I haven’t been following McCann’s career closely, but wasn’t he a healthy scratch during the play-in? Core players usually don’t get scratched like that.

Yes he was. A post of mine got deleted so I'll just respond with the same argument I gave in that post.

Pearson's contract is running out when the Canucks need to sign Hughes and Pettersson. Considering he'll be turning 29 you'd think he would want to cash out. Can the Canucks afford to keep a guy like Pearson around compared to keeping a guy like McCann if McCann was not traded and we didn't trade for Gudbranson?

Thinking about it more I'm not sure if I'd go for McCann over Pearson. Because you could always move salary and Pearson is a great playoff player. Plus you have Gaudette who is basically in McCann's situation anyway and you'd just end up with two McCann's. IDK I just wanted to entertain a discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nosskire ot Elgaeb

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
Few have mentioned the possibility of trading Pearson so I thought we can discuss it here. Pearson has been a great fit alongside Horvat and is friends with Tofolli (if we were to re-sign him). The team is better with him than without him. However, I thought he was largely ineffective in his last few games against Vegas. He's a solid complimentary player who is going into the last year of his contract at $3.75M AAV. He just turned 28. He really has been a great acquisition for the Canucks. But is he a player you want to extend? Unless it's a short-term 2 year type extension, most of us here would probably prefer to go younger. He is likely one of those players where you got good value out of him and then you move on.

To me, Pearson is one of the candidates whom you should be able to trade. His salary is reasonable, he's coming off a productive season, and he only has one year left on his contract. He also just returned to the playoffs and did relatively well. Trading him for a pick clears up $3.75M in cap space and you're not trading a long term piece here. As for his potential replacements, Ferland if he can stay healthy can slot in on left wing. So can Virtanen if he's every allowed to play the left side. Roussel would be a step down offensively but has played on Horvat's wing before. There's a lot of uncertainty and risk there of course. You trade Pearson and lose Tofolli and our top 6 wingers consist of Miller, Boeser and the guys I just mentioned (perhaps throw Gaudette in there).
 

Mr. Canucklehead

Kitimat Canuck
Dec 14, 2002
39,974
29,798
Kitimat, BC
Few have mentioned the possibility of trading Pearson so I thought we can discuss it here. Pearson has been a great fit alongside Horvat and is friends with Tofolli (if we were to re-sign him). The team is better with him than without him. However, I thought he was largely ineffective in his last few games against Vegas. He's a solid complimentary player who is going into the last year of his contract at $3.75M AAV. He just turned 28. He really has been a great acquisition for the Canucks. But is he a player you want to extend? Unless it's a short-term 2 year type extension, most of us here would probably prefer to go younger. He is likely one of those players where you got good value out of him and then you move on.

To me, Pearson is one of the candidates whom you should be able to trade. His salary is reasonable, he's coming off a productive season, and he only has one year left on his contract. He also just returned to the playoffs and did relatively well. Trading him for a pick clears up $3.75M in cap space and you're not trading a long term piece here. As for his potential replacements, Ferland if he can stay healthy can slot in on left wing. So can Virtanen if he's every allowed to play the left side. Roussel would be a step down offensively but has played on Horvat's wing before. There's a lot of uncertainty and risk there of course. You trade Pearson and lose Tofolli and our top 6 wingers consist of Miller, Boeser and the guys I just mentioned (perhaps throw Gaudette in there).

I'd be happy to keep him at close to his current salary, if he's up for it. He's been a solid complimentary player, good on Horvat's wing, solid defensively and good along the boards. But if's asking for a significant raise, I agree, you likely need to move on from him and see what he can bring back in a trade.

I think offensively, he did about as well as could be expected in the bubble. He's always been a streaky scorer, and he put up some good offense against Minnesota and St. Louis before running cold again. That's why he gets paid in the neighbourhood he does, as opposed to someone who more consistently brings the offense.
 

wonton15

Höglander
Dec 13, 2009
18,176
24,421
He's a good stopgap 2LW until we can find someone younger/faster to replace him with. His salary is nothing to complain about, especially if he gets something similar to what it is now
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Few have mentioned the possibility of trading Pearson so I thought we can discuss it here. Pearson has been a great fit alongside Horvat and is friends with Tofolli (if we were to re-sign him). The team is better with him than without him. However, I thought he was largely ineffective in his last few games against Vegas. He's a solid complimentary player who is going into the last year of his contract at $3.75M AAV. He just turned 28. He really has been a great acquisition for the Canucks. But is he a player you want to extend? Unless it's a short-term 2 year type extension, most of us here would probably prefer to go younger. He is likely one of those players where you got good value out of him and then you move on.

To me, Pearson is one of the candidates whom you should be able to trade. His salary is reasonable, he's coming off a productive season, and he only has one year left on his contract. He also just returned to the playoffs and did relatively well. Trading him for a pick clears up $3.75M in cap space and you're not trading a long term piece here. As for his potential replacements, Ferland if he can stay healthy can slot in on left wing. So can Virtanen if he's every allowed to play the left side. Roussel would be a step down offensively but has played on Horvat's wing before. There's a lot of uncertainty and risk there of course. You trade Pearson and lose Tofolli and our top 6 wingers consist of Miller, Boeser and the guys I just mentioned (perhaps throw Gaudette in there).

Wow, we agree completely here.

I have no problems with Pearson and in a perfect world if other bad contracts weren't causing a problem I'd be happy to keep him around to finish out his contract.

But in our current situation, he should literally be the first player we're looking to move. There is basically zero chance we re-sign him next summer (or that it's a good idea to re-sign him). We're going to be in even more of a cap crunch with the new Hughes/Pettersson contracts and signing a slow 29 y/o 40-point winger for $4 million+ into his declining years will not be a good option at that point.

We've caught a huge break that this player who we acquired as a negative-value cap dump has turned himself back into a positive-value asset (on the back of a ton of EN points) and we should be doing everything we can to sell high. It's frankly bonkers to be talking about dumping Stecher/Virtanen types who make substantially less than Pearson and have years of team control and utility ahead of them so we can keep Pearson around for 1 more year before releasing him.

Also, I don't think people really realize how badly he played to close out the regular season and through the playoffs. From February 1 onward, once you take out EN points he was 35-7-3-10 -18 while being chained to Horvat in top-6 minutes the entire time. He basically turned back into the 18-19 version of himself.
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,047
14,079
Jared McCaan was traded over four years ago. Why the hell is he still being talked about in this thread? For God's sake, move on people.
The reason McCann is inevitably linked to Pearson, is that he was one of the guys Benning sacrificed to bring Gudbranson to Vancouver. And of course Gudbranson was then flipped to the Pens even-up for Pearson.

A good trade for Benning. Pens were desperate for d-man that spring after being decimated by injuries, and Pearson just wasn't fitting in with the Pens after they acquired him the from Kings. Gudbranson didn't even last half a season in Pittsburgh, while Pearson has been a solid 'add' for the Canucks as a top-six winger.

But his contract is up at the end of the next season, and I'd be surprised if he doesn't become a UFA. His money will need to go to re-signing Hughes and Petterson.....and the Canucks will need younger, cheaper options on the forward line to make that happen.

As for McCann....if he was still here, he'd be battling Gaudette, Sutter and Beagle for ice-time at the center slot. And he might be better than all three.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HockeyWooot

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
Wow, we agree completely here.

I have no problems with Pearson and in a perfect world if other bad contracts weren't causing a problem I'd be happy to keep him around to finish out his contract.

But in our current situation, he should literally be the first player we're looking to move. There is basically zero chance we re-sign him next summer (or that it's a good idea to re-sign him). We're going to be in even more of a cap crunch with the new Hughes/Pettersson contracts and signing a slow 29 y/o 40-point winger for $4 million+ into his declining years will not be a good option at that point.

We've caught a huge break that this player who we acquired as a negative-value cap dump has turned himself back into a positive-value asset (on the back of a ton of EN points) and we should be doing everything we can to sell high. It's frankly bonkers to be talking about dumping Stecher/Virtanen types who make substantially less than Pearson and have years of team control and utility ahead of them so we can keep Pearson around for 1 more year before releasing him.

Also, I don't think people really realize how badly he played to close out the regular season and through the playoffs. From February 1 onward, once you take out EN points he was 35-7-3-10 -18 while being chained to Horvat in top-6 minutes the entire time. He basically turned back into the 18-19 version of himself.

Agreed. I can't say that my opinion of him isn't partially influenced by his time in Pittsburgh. We really haven't seen Pearson play away from Horvat except in the Vegas series. So we don't really have a good idea how well Pearson would perform away from Horvat. Can you put up say 16-20 goals if he's a 3rd line mainstay? I'm not too sure. I would look and see if we can recoup a 2nd round pick for him. Perhaps even retaining some money + pick to try and get a late 1st.
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
53,367
83,458
Vancouver, BC
Agreed. I can't say that my opinion of him isn't partially influenced by his time in Pittsburgh. We really haven't seen Pearson play away from Horvat except in the Vegas series. So we don't really have a good idea how well Pearson would perform away from Horvat. Can you put up say 16-20 goals if he's a 3rd line mainstay? I'm not too sure. I would look and see if we can recoup a 2nd round pick for him. Perhaps even retaining some money + pick to try and get a late 1st.

A first might be pushing it (and I don't think we're in a position to retain money - the biggest reason for moving him is to clear cap space to protect other assets) but I'd be looking for a 2nd and settling for a 3rd if that's what the market is.

If he and Virtanen are worth about the same amount (which I think would be a fair deduction), I don't see how you can possibly justify keeping a 28 y/o 20-goal Pearson at $3.75 with 1 year of team control before UFA over a 24 y/o 20-goal Virtanen at ~$2.5 with years of team control left. It doesn't make any sense and is basically just having a tantrum because you got mad about Virtanen's fitness issues.

And yeah, I'm leery about his inconsistency, too. The weirdness of his season really slid under the radar - 33 points in 33 games in one stretch where he was lights-out, but he was the same Pittsburgh underperforming slow liability outside of that stretch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: I am toxic

I am toxic

. . . even in small doses
Oct 24, 2014
9,352
14,635
Vancouver
Wow, we agree completely here.

I have no problems with Pearson and in a perfect world if other bad contracts weren't causing a problem I'd be happy to keep him around to finish out his contract.

But in our current situation, he should literally be the first player we're looking to move. There is basically zero chance we re-sign him next summer (or that it's a good idea to re-sign him). We're going to be in even more of a cap crunch with the new Hughes/Pettersson contracts and signing a slow 29 y/o 40-point winger for $4 million+ into his declining years will not be a good option at that point.

We've caught a huge break that this player who we acquired as a negative-value cap dump has turned himself back into a positive-value asset (on the back of a ton of EN points) and we should be doing everything we can to sell high. It's frankly bonkers to be talking about dumping Stecher/Virtanen types who make substantially less than Pearson and have years of team control and utility ahead of them so we can keep Pearson around for 1 more year before releasing him.

Also, I don't think people really realize how badly he played to close out the regular season and through the playoffs. From February 1 onward, once you take out EN points he was 35-7-3-10 -18 while being chained to Horvat in top-6 minutes the entire time. He basically turned back into the 18-19 version of himself.

It's becoming apparent that someone has recently hacked @F A N 's account. Advanced stats bear this out, he has 0.00 "likes" from me up until August 2020, and now is 0.687 LPP (likes per post) in September.
 

Burke's Evil Spirit

Registered User
Oct 29, 2002
21,373
7,337
San Francisco
Pearson could also be a useful trade chip for a defender given how poor the UFA market looks.

I've been interested in a potential Pearson for Adam Larsson swap. Larsson ticks a lot of Benning boxes (big, physical, draft pedigree), but is also a useful player, and would look good next to Quinn for a year.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,629
5,893
Pearson could also be a useful trade chip for a defender given how poor the UFA market looks.

I've been interested in a potential Pearson for Adam Larsson swap. Larsson ticks a lot of Benning boxes (big, physical, draft pedigree), but is also a useful player, and would look good next to Quinn for a year.

But that would add salary to the cap.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->