Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Jason Dickinson to 3-Year, $7.95M Deal ($2.65M AAV)

[F A N]

Projecting forward to get a discount can be a good thing. The problem is that this management group has been absolutely awful at projecting out more than a year. Their track record on signing or trading for players from other teams to 3+ year deals is amazingly bad. They are very, very bad at figuring out how players can fit in.

That is why my preference this off-season once the trades were made is to do 1-yr deals for Dickinson & Garland. Lets see how they fit in, and if they fit well then pay them what they're worth.

I've said this before, this management team has been better at their own RFA signings than on newly acquired players/UFAs.

With that said, I think there's a stronger case of giving Dickinson a one year deal rather than Garland. With Garland you already paid a big price for him and he has a sterling reputation around the league. I.e. There's little risk that you can't move him if he proves to be a bad fit. With Dickinson, I think they're definitely betting on Dickinson being a 3rd line C with size who can neutralize his opponents.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Negotiations with star players can be difficult. Certainly, the Canucks haven't been the only team that "signed the supporting cast" first. In recent years, teams and players have waited for a comparable to sign. In 2019, Marner signed in early September. That led to Rantanen, Tkachuk, Barzal, and Point signing afterwards.

Pearson was signed before the trade deadline. Either you re-sign him or you trade him is common strategy.

I get what your saying with waiting for a comparable and you can't force someone to sign. However was there really a need to re-sign Pearson when we were already in cap trouble? You have to remember at the time we still had Loui, Roussel and Beagle expected to return. I'm not sure when Benning decided to upgrade the top 6 this off season but since we already had Miller, EP, Boeser, Horvat and Hoglander why was he going to pay Pearson 3 million plus to be a 3rd line winger? Guess I would have been happy trading him at deadline last year I suppose.

Benning definitely given us a great top 6 and I'm happy about that. However seems to me if he could ever figure out how to manage a cap we'd be way better off. The defense is a sore spot but I'm happy we added Hamonic and Poolman. Moving forward I pray OEL get's rejuvenated playing again to his old self because we need him badly. I feel we have a team that will be top ten in scoring if not higher but am very worried we will also allow just as many goals.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Likely at least in part he sucked ass at faceoffs.

Damn I thought this guy was a defensive plus this not good just saw his face off stats. He must be a much better checker then at FO's as he's not here for his offense.

 

[Hit the post]

Damn I thought this guy was a defensive plus this not good just saw his face off stats. He must be a much better checker then at FO's as he's not here for his offense.

To be fair, who knows how he will perform in a Canucks uniform. As I posted already, we can only hope he does alright as he was given some term on his contract.

 

[Killer Orcas]

To be fair, who knows how he will perform in a Canucks uniform. As I posted already, we can only hope he does alright as he was given some term on his contract.

Were Canucks fans hope is all we have

 

[F A N]

I get what your saying with waiting for a comparable and you can't force someone to sign. However was there really a need to re-sign Pearson when we were already in cap trouble? You have to remember at the time we still had Loui, Roussel and Beagle expected to return. I'm not sure when Benning decided to upgrade the top 6 this off season but since we already had Miller, EP, Boeser, Horvat and Hoglander why was he going to pay Pearson 3 million plus to be a 3rd line winger? Guess I would have been happy trading him at deadline last year I suppose.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing your view of Pearson and Canucks' view of Pearson. If you can understand the Canucks' view of Pearson, then you could see it from their perspective even if you don't agree with it. The fact of the matter is the Canucks don't see Pearson as a just a "3rd line winger" who has showed signs of decline. They see him a a middle 6 winger who has been a staple alongside Horvat since he arrived here. He is also seen as a leader in the locker room and the Canucks are bringing him back through his 29-31 aged years.

 

[Killer Orcas]

I think you're having trouble distinguishing your view of Pearson and Canucks' view of Pearson. If you can understand the Canucks' view of Pearson, then you could see it from their perspective even if you don't agree with it. The fact of the matter is the Canucks don't see Pearson as a just a "3rd line winger" who has showed signs of decline. They see him a a middle 6 winger who has been a staple alongside Horvat since he arrived here. He is also seen as a leader in the locker room and the Canucks are bringing him back through his 29-31 aged years.

I get they value him much more than I do I just don't agree. In my opinion they could have waited til the off season (preferably at a lower rate) and brought him back there was no rush but it's done.

 

[MS]

I think you're having trouble distinguishing your view of Pearson and Canucks' view of Pearson. If you can understand the Canucks' view of Pearson, then you could see it from their perspective even if you don't agree with it. The fact of the matter is the Canucks don't see Pearson as a just a "3rd line winger" who has showed signs of decline. They see him a a middle 6 winger who has been a staple alongside Horvat since he arrived here. He is also seen as a leader in the locker room and the Canucks are bringing him back through his 29-31 aged years.

I mean, Benning's view on Sbisa was that he was a solid #4-5 defender who was continuing to improve and worth $3.2 million/year.

I think everyone knows that this management group loves Pearson. It just doesn't mean that they aren't totally wrong in their evaluation of the player, as they've been constantly in the past.

Pearson was so, so, so bad last year. And in the bubble.

 

[theguardianII]

I mean, Benning's view on Sbisa was that he was a solid #4-5 defender who was continuing to improve and worth $3.2 million/year.

I think everyone knows that this management group loves Pearson. It just doesn't mean that they aren't totally wrong in their evaluation of the player, as they've been constantly in the past.

Pearson was so, so, so bad last year. And in the bubble.

They need Pearson to play defence when Hughes is on the ice out of position.

I wonder why Benning didn't give him more, he only made 1.5 mil last season, at least there is no clause. Will he be better than Sutter was last year or the year before or the year before or is this just another roster player that is paid a little less than Sutter was?

 

[strattonius]

They need Pearson to play defence when Hughes is on the ice out of position.

I wonder why Benning didn't give him more, he only made 1.5 mil last season, at least there is no clause. Will he be better than Sutter was last year or the year before or the year before or is this just another roster player that is paid a little less than Sutter was?

Pearson has been better than Sutter for the last 5 years..no reason to suspect that will change.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Dickinson leads both players you compared in hits, blocked shots, and take aways.
Fenwick and Corsi in advanced stats.
In last year.

Compare Players - Frozen Tools

So, not sure where you get the substantially better player comment from.

Hits= you don’t have the puck
Blocked shots = you don’t have the puck
Takeaways = you don’t have the puck.


See where this is going?

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned that this deal set a bad precedence for Motte's next contract should the Canucks want to extend him.

The Mottes of the nhl can be had every year for Cheap. Interchangeable player.

 

[JAK]

Hits= you don’t have the puck
Blocked shots = you don’t have the puck
Takeaways = you don’t have the puck.


See where this is going?

If you score, you don't have the puck.

Analytics can only go so far. Don't be weird and try and spin blocked shots into a negative thuung.

 

[RobertKron]

If you score, you don't have the puck.

Analytics can only go so far. Don't be weird and try and spin blocked shots into a negative thuung.

Aside from the odd own-goal, how are you suggesting that a team scores without having had the puck?

 

[Killer Orcas]

If you score, you don't have the puck.

Analytics can only go so far. Don't be weird and try and spin blocked shots into a negative thuung.

Well to be honest sometimes you do when you or your teammate retrieve the puck for milestone goals assists etc

 

[JAK]

Aside from the odd own-goal, how are you suggesting that a team scores without having had the puck?

No. If you score, you lose possession of the puck, and according to the guy's logic, blocking shots is bad because you don't have puck.

So you shouldn't score, that way you always have the puck.

 

[RobertKron]

No. If you score, you lose possession of the puck, and according to the guy's logic, blocking shots is bad because you don't have puck.

So you shouldn't score, that way you always have the puck.

When you score, you have the puck. You're can't even make an absurdist comparison correctly. Geez.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

When you score, you have the puck. You're can't even make an absurdist comparison correctly. Geez.

but a 2nd round pick has the same chances of success as a 7th round pick

 

[F A N]

The Mottes of the nhl can be had every year for Cheap. Interchangeable player.

The Motte since the play-in? He's scored 10 goals in his last 41 games. That's a 20 goal pace.

Not that I think Motte can stay healthy and have a 20 goal season but the past while Motte has really emerged. If he can stay healthy and put together a full season he's a quality 3rd line player who is a very good PKer to boot.

 

[bandwagonesque]

I guess that would make Horvat and Miller almost exactly average too?

Last season, yes.

 

[JAK]

When you score, you have the puck. You're can't even make an absurdist comparison correctly. Geez.

that's what i'm saying, the guy is saying blocked shots is a bad stat, i'm using his line of thinking to make him understand that it's a bad argument.

however, when you score, you don't have the puck, the net usually does.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

that's what i'm saying, the guy is saying blocked shots is a bad stat, i'm using his line of thinking to make him understand that it's a bad argument.

however, when you score, you don't have the puck, the net usually does.

Your argument doesn't make much sense, though. Blocked shots is a nothing statistic. It's not good or bad on the surface level. Look at the league leaders and you'll come across some plugs like Jack Johnson or Kris Russell.

 

[racerjoe]

that's what i'm saying, the guy is saying blocked shots is a bad stat, i'm using his line of thinking to make him understand that it's a bad argument.

however, when you score, you don't have the puck, the net usually does.

Actually that’s generally not true, you score when you have possession. When the “net” has the puck it’s past tense you had the puck.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

If you score, you don't have the puck.

Analytics can only go so far. Don't be weird and try and spin blocked shots into a negative thuung.

Wait …. How can you score without the puck?

 

[bobbyb2009]

I don't know what kind of a player Dickinson ends up being and if he is worth the contract or cost or not. We will find out.

But seriously, come on: The above poster is making a point saying you have to give away the puck to score and that possession is not everything. It has been proven so many ways in the history of sport that having the puck/ball is only a tool for either not allowing the other team to score, to create the opportunity to take the risk to try to score, and/or in some cases to rest and recover. But he is absolutely correct that the objective of the game is to score; and ultimately give the other team possession.

And come on, we would all rather have a player who wins the puck back a lot (takeaways) so that we can try to give the puck away again -)); who is willing to hurl his body in front of pucks to stop the other team from scoring (blocks); and who hits people in order to try to separate them from pucks than to have a player that does not do those things (all other things being equal). To say (or imply) otherwise is an absurd argument, kind of parallel to the argument that scoring a goal is the equivalent to giving the puck away- Which, I am taking as his point- it really isn't that hard.