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

[bossram]

you still expect a little more offensive from your 3rd line Center. 1 goal and 0 assists in 14 games is not good enough. You can't have an offensive black hole. That's the problem we had with Beagle.

Bolded below is the problem. Everyone wanted to believe that Dickinson could be that player. But he never was before, and expecting him to be it was unrealistic. His best play in Dallas was as a no-offense, defensive winger doing the dirty work for better players. He was never even a "hard minutes" player there.

Based on his track record, I was expecting him to post strong defensive metrics and basically nothing out of him offensively. That's what he's done.

I think it's because #3c that could produce some offense and handle hard matchups was such a need that people pigeonholed him in that role.

He seems to be a lesser version of Pearson and I guess that's the logic of playing him with # 40 and # 6

Obviously we are only 16 games into the season, but they might have been better off not signing Dickinson and Poolman and instead going after Danault.

I'm not sure, Petey and the rest of the top 6 being so bad skews everything in regards to the forward group

You've identified the structural flaw of the team. The roster is very top-heavy offensively, with poor team defense, and a poor blueline. Success is predicated on 1) fantastic goaltending, and 2) significant offensive overperformance from the top-six players. If one of those things don't happen, the team is just flat out bad and doesn't have the depth or playdriving ability to overcome it. Dickinson would certainly be more overlooked if the top-six were dominating, and he were just putting in some zero-event hockey (as he can only be reasonably expected to produce).

A team like the Leafs, despite a SH% in the dirt, creates enough volume of chances and controls the balance of play enough that they've been able to overcome that. The Canucks can't.

And yes, Danault would be a massive improvement over a Dickinson/Poolman combo. Danualt is one of the strongest two-way centers in the league at even-strength.

 

[bossram]

Has Dickinson been playing wing for the Canucks? I think he has been playing C over 90% of the time here no?

In terms of the I test, I do feel that he has underwhelmed so I am disappointed in him so far. But his underlying numbers does suggest he has come advertised defensively.

I think it's been closer to a mix of center/wing. I more mean that what he's produced (no offense, strong defense) is exactly what folks should've expected.

I'm still reading posts from people saying they need a 3C who can play tough matchups and chip in with some scoring. Yes, the Canucks do need that. But Dickinson was never going to be that.

 

[TraderJim]

Reminds me of Loui Eriksson.

 

[MS]

I'm not saying that Dickensons deal is great, and I'm not justifying it..just pointing out that it was always going to be north of $2M...Again, he had a rough start, and I'm not going to tar and feather him just yet.

People tried explaining to you why paying Dickinson wasn't worth what they paid him, and you argued with them.

If he was 'always' going to get $2.65 million, you don't trade for him.

Tanner Pearsons salary is in line with where he plays..$3.2M is not top 6 money, ...I guesstimated he would get around $2.5M, but he got $700K more (I thought he was a RFA).

You were horrified by the prospect of this deal before it happens and are now an apologist for it.

 

[Quinning]

Another feather in the cap for pro scouting.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

People tried explaining to you why paying Dickinson wasn't worth what they paid him, and you argued with them.

If he was 'always' going to get $2.65 million, you don't trade for him.



You were horrified by the prospect of this deal before it happens and are now an apologist for it.

I’ve never endorsed the Pearson signing..and yes..I was off by $700k..It’s still an ok deal considering where he plays in the lineup
The bigger question was..did they need to sign him at all..?

 

[F A N]

I think it's been closer to a mix of center/wing. I more mean that what he's produced (no offense, strong defense) is exactly what folks should've expected.

Nah. Outside of a few shifts here and there he's been playing C.

I'm still reading posts from people saying they need a 3C who can play tough matchups and chip in with some scoring. Yes, the Canucks do need that. But Dickinson was never going to be that.

I wouldn't say he was "never" going to be that. He has certainly spent time playing C in high leverage situations in Dallas and he can definitely play C. He's not good on faceoffs but last year he was close to 48%. Not a guy I want taking defensive zone draws but other than that I think there's enough there to believe that he is good defensively. As for offense, I mean how much offense are we expecting? Judging from his past few seasons, his offensive production is a bit underwhelming for a 3C. Is he a black hole offensively? I thought Garland and Pods plays really well with Dickinson.

There are plenty of natural centres who have spent a lot of time on the wing in the NHL. Sometimes it's just about opportunity. There are people who declared that McCann would never going to be a 2nd line C but he looks fine right now in Seattle.

 

[RobertKron]

I’ve never endorsed the Pearson signing..and yes..I was off by $700k..It’s still an ok deal considering where he plays in the lineup
The bigger question was..did they need to sign him at all..?

When people predicted that he would get the money he was given, you got mad at them for posting "depressing hypotheticals." Bull f***ing shit you think it's "still an ok deal."

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

When people predicted that he would get the money he was given, you got mad at them for posting "depressing hypotheticals." Bull f***ing shit you think it's "still an ok deal."

Yes..well documented.and I owned it…considering that Pearson was a UFA and not an RFA ( which I thought he was) it’s a fair deal

 

[RobertKron]

I wouldn't say he was "never" going to be that. He has certainly spent time playing C in high leverage situations in Dallas and he can definitely play C. He's not good on faceoffs but last year he was close to 48%. Not a guy I want taking defensive zone draws but other than that I think there's enough there to believe that he is good defensively. As for offense, I mean how much offense are we expecting? Judging from his past few seasons, his offensive production is a bit underwhelming for a 3C. Is he a black hole offensively? I thought Garland and Pods plays really well with Dickinson.

He's basically been dogshit at winning important face-offs. Both last year and this year, his SH FO numbers are atrocious, same with the PP (ie. face-offs where both teams are absolutely invested in winning the draw). This year he's already taken nearly the same number of SH face-offs as he did all season last year.

That doesn't bode well if one is looking to be a defensive matchup centre.

 

[RobertKron]

Yes..well documented.and I owned it…considering that Pearson was a UFA and not an RFA ( which I thought he was) it’s a fair deal

The f*** you did:

Think so..?...they walked away from contacts in the last UFA (hopefully they're learning..?)...
I don't see Pearson getting anywhere near $3M..I'm sure that they (Jonathan Wall) have an internal number that they're not budging on..

It's weird that you didn't mention thinking he was an RFA here in May:

The overpayment probably comes down the fact that he had a career year 2019-20 (45 points), and the fact that he was going to UFA...If he gets 40 points next season, thats a fair value..(I know he was slow to recover from a lingering high ankle sprain this season)..If his production craters, next season it will definitely look bad.

But yeah, I thought we could have had him for less.​

​

So now you think it's a fair deal?

lol...I admitted I got it wrong (was $750k off), and I didn't like the deal...what more do you want..?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The f*** you did:

Fair enough.obviously my memory of the UFA/RFA matter was off the mark, and sketchy...but in retrospect, I've revised my opinion..It's a fair deal, when you look around the league, and see what a player similar to Pearson would get...It's not top 6 money.

I'm not saying that to prop Benning up either.....In fact, I would say it was an absolute mistake to re- sign Pearson at all..The money could/should have been spent elsewhere in the lineup..RHD problem solved.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Guys got 25 goals in 260 nhl games. He’s a 20 point forward who’s shit at face offs. Not sure you need to go 3 years with a player you can get in FA literally every year.

I posted this a couple hours after we signed him. People thought I was “being negative”
I was bang on

 

[F A N]

He's basically been dogshit at winning important face-offs. Both last year and this year, his SH FO numbers are atrocious, same with the PP (ie. face-offs where both teams are absolutely invested in winning the draw). This year he's already taken nearly the same number of SH face-offs as he did all season last year.

That doesn't bode well if one is looking to be a defensive matchup centre.

I guess the biggest question is the importance of faceoffs for a "matchup centre." I'm actually a big believer in faceoffs (despite the analytics) so I don't really disagree here but it is something that can be gotten around. It isn't ideal though.

It's kind of weird. Miller has the same problem except he's actually good at faceoffs 5 v 5 but terrible on the PP and SH.

 

[IslandBeast]

Fair enough.obviously my memory of the UFA/RFA matter was off the mark, and sketchy...but in retrospect, I've revised my opinion..It's a fair deal, when you look around the league, and see what a player similar to Pearson would get...It's not top 6 money.

I'm not saying that to prop Benning up either.....In fact, I would say it was an absolute mistake to re- sign Pearson at all..The money could/should have been spent elsewhere in the lineup..RHD problem solved.

You've been propping up Benning for years, this all must be super awkward for you.

 

[RobertKron]

I guess the biggest question is the importance of faceoffs for a "matchup centre." I'm actually a big believer in faceoffs (despite the analytics) so I don't really disagree here but it is something that can be gotten around. It isn't ideal though.

It's kind of weird. Miller has the same problem except he's actually good at faceoffs 5 v 5 but terrible on the PP and SH.

The rational part of me understands that face-off percentage, in the bigger, wider-scope picture, isn't the end of the world unless you're straying far outside of relatively "normal" numbers.

The other part of me knows that, as a coach, I wanted a guy that I knew was really good on the draw when one of those crucial moments arrived, and no amount of "it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things" was going to convince me otherwise.

 

[F A N]

The rational part of me understands that face-off percentage, in the bigger, wider-scope picture, isn't the end of the world unless you're straying far outside of relatively "normal" numbers.

The other part of me knows that, as a coach, I wanted a guy that I knew was really good on the draw when one of those crucial moments arrived, and no amount of "it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things" was going to convince me otherwise.

Sure. And that was one reason why Green wanted Benning to go out and get Beagle.

 

[M2Beezy]

Fair enough.obviously my memory of the UFA/RFA matter was off the mark, and sketchy...but in retrospect, I've revised my opinion..It's a fair deal, when you look around the league, and see what a player similar to Pearson would get...It's not top 6 money.

I'm not saying that to prop Benning up either.....In fact, I would say it was an absolute mistake to re- sign Pearson at all..The money could/should have been spent elsewhere in the lineup..RHD problem solved.

Lol this is too rich

Unrelated:

But my memory

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

you still expect a little more offensive from your 3rd line Center. 1 goal and 0 assists in 14 games is not good enough. You can't have an offensive black hole. That's the problem we had with Beagle.

Could probably use Jay Beagle right about now...Last season the Canucks had the 5th best PK FOW% in the league with Beagle and Sutter..both RH .

 

[RobertKron]

Sure. And that was one reason why Green wanted Benning to go out and get Beagle.

…which is kind of silly in the same way that having a crease-clearing specialist is silly.

 

[RobertKron]

Could probably use Jay Beagle right about now...Last season the Canucks had the 5th best PK FOW% in the league with Beagle and Sutter..both RH .

and they were still bad on the PK.

 

[F A N]

…which is kind of silly in the same way that having a crease-clearing specialist is silly.

Tell that to Trotz. When WA won the Cup that year, he kept sending Beagle out there for defensive zone draws.

 

[RobertKron]

Tell that to Trotz. When WA won the Cup that year, he kept sending Beagle out there for defensive zone draws.

Sure, but I’m assuming he was also sending out other strong players, which they were able to have in part because they weren’t paying Jay Beagle 3 million dollars for some reason.

 

[F A N]

Sure, but I’m assuming he was also sending out other strong players, which they were able to have in part because they weren’t paying Jay Beagle 3 million dollars for some reason.

In the regular season, Chiasson was one of the top PKers

 

[4Twenty]

Guys got 25 goals in 260 nhl games. He’s a 20 point forward who’s shit at face offs. Not sure you need to go 3 years with a player you can get in FA literally every year.

Tell me you don't know how to watch hockey and make all of your judgments by looking at stats without just saying the words.

Looks like Johnny pays more attention.