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

[bandwagonesque]

There are a lot of things Benning should not have done.

I don't want to detain you, you're a busy man I'm sure, but perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[Canucker]

Personally, despite Dickinson's rough season...I don't have a lot of heartburn over his signing...I think he's better than the sum of his play this season and should rebound and be a more effective player next season...likely still not worth $2.65m (and never was), but better nonetheless. If you can trade him at equal or positive value, by all means trade him...but if you need to give assets to get rid of him, I'd rather keep him.

 

[F A N]

Personally, despite Dickinson's rough season...I don't have a lot of heartburn over his signing...I think he's better than the sum of his play this season and should rebound and be a more effective player next season...likely still not worth $2.65m (and never was), but better nonetheless. If you can trade him at equal or positive value, by all means trade him...but if you need to give assets to get rid of him, I'd rather keep him.

He's a sum is less than his parts kind of guy. I have no issues with the target and the signing at the time but it looks to me that the Canucks are wrong on this player and his contract stinks accordingly.

The Canucks should consider buying him out if they can't move him.

 

[Shareefruck]

^ Yeah, it's a little bizarre. I've never really had any issues with his character, work ethic, professionalism, willingness to sacrifice on the ice, approach to the game, or even his physical tools for the most part (he's not that soft and skates well enough), but it just translates into nothing remotely positive on the ice for some reason, even just looking at defensive play alone.

 

[Canucker]

He's a sum is less than his parts kind of guy. I have no issues with the target and the signing at the time but it looks to me that the Canucks are wrong on this player and his contract stinks accordingly.

The Canucks should consider buying him out if they can't move him.

It's a bad contract for sure, but its not a "desperately gotta get out of it" type deal...its when you add Poolman's bad contract, to Myers bad contract, to OEL's bad contract, to Halak's bad contract and the buyouts of Holtby and Virtanen and its death by a million cuts...its going to be tough to rid themselves of all of this mess, but if they can get Myers gone and one of Poolman or Dickinson, it'll be Christmas come early...but I think I'd rather have Poolman's contract gone over Dickinson's.

 

[m9]

If you can dump him for cheap, great.

If not, then you bring him back and hope he just plays better.

As much as I don't like handing the fringe roster guys spots, I think the 10th-14th forwards next year should be Dickinson, Lammikko, Lockwood, Highmore and you can work on fixing the top 9 from there.

 

[vancityluongo]

Shouldn't do anything with Dickinson this summer unless you can dump him for free. The team is not winning the Cup next year, so it does not make any sense to move assets to move this cap hit.

Best case scenario is he has a big rebound season and you can move him for a real return at the deadline. Worst case, you bury him in the minors or buy out at that point

 

[Cogburn]

I just dont like seeing him on a scoring line. I dont feel his defensive play is super high end, but hes effective in that role. He's overpaid, but not to the extent of having to pay to move him. There are far more egregious contracts holding up moves and resignings, and assuming we move Dickinson for no cap coming back, what do we save, at best, on an equivilant player? Sutter was making 1.125 or something....so 1.6 million? That shouldnt be enough to completely nix a signing or prevent a trade, assuming new Jim isnt an idiot.

 

[F A N]

Shouldn't do anything with Dickinson this summer unless you can dump him for free. The team is not winning the Cup next year, so it does not make any sense to move assets to move this cap hit.

Best case scenario is he has a big rebound season and you can move him for a real return at the deadline. Worst case, you bury him in the minors or buy out at that point

On it's face I agree with you but management seems intent on creating cap flexibility. What that translates to I don't know. Obviously, moving a big ticket player would increase cap flexibility instantly, but failing that the team will likely look towards moving a player that is easy to move and there aren't that many secondary options. Dickinson would one of them.

I do think Dickinson can be moved without much issue. I think he still holds some value around the league and his salary isn't prohibitive for a team who seems him as a top 9 player.

 

[wonton15]

His play is so uninspiring on a whole. He's not BAD but he's not really good at anything. Almost Jayson Megna-esque, which is annoying because he's better than this (I think)

 

[me2]

On it's face I agree with you but management seems intent on creating cap flexibility. What that translates to I don't know. Obviously, moving a big ticket player would increase cap flexibility instantly, but failing that the team will likely look towards moving a player that is easy to move and there aren't that many secondary options. Dickinson would one of them.

I do think Dickinson can be moved without much issue. I think he still holds some value around the league and his salary isn't prohibitive for a team who seems him as a top 9 player.

I doubt he'd be claimed off waivers. If there was any chance then I'd waive him today. Flexibility going into the offseason is valuable.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

On it's face I agree with you but management seems intent on creating cap flexibility. What that translates to I don't know. Obviously, moving a big ticket player would increase cap flexibility instantly, but failing that the team will likely look towards moving a player that is easy to move and there aren't that many secondary options. Dickinson would one of them.

I do think Dickinson can be moved without much issue. I think he still holds some value around the league and his salary isn't prohibitive for a team who seems him as a top 9 player.

That is tough to say. Contenders are either tight to the cap or have a better use for their cap space. Bubble teams or bottom-of-the-league teams can find equal or better players on UFA for maybe half the price. I don't see any demand for a guy who is an overpaid and unproductive bottom 6 player with term left on his contract. I guess if a team like Arizona/Ottawa/Buffalo/Detroit really loves this player for some reason, we might be able to dump him for zero return? That is the best case scenario IMO.

 

[MS]

He is what he is. A low-event bottom-6 winger with a bit of emergency utility at C who should be making $1 million.

Unfortunately Jim Benning thought he was a shutdown 3rd line NHL C.

 

[F A N]

I doubt he'd be claimed off waivers. If there was any chance then I'd waive him today. Flexibility going into the offseason is valuable.

Any appetite to buy him out? The problem is you get a $991,667 cap hit in 24-25 and 25-26 but you save over $1.7M next year and over $2.258M the following year.

 

[604]

Any appetite to buy him out? The problem is you get a $991,667 cap hit in 24-25 and 25-26 but you save over $1.7M next year and over $2.258M the following year.

No point, the savings would be eaten up by his replacement.

Need to find a taker for him and Poolman to create some flexibility.

 

[MS]

Any appetite to buy him out? The problem is you get a $991,667 cap hit in 24-25 and 25-26 but you save over $1.7M next year and over $2.258M the following year.

I don't really see it. It seems like you're saving money but he is a serviceable player and then you have to pay another serviceable player to replace him.

You 'save' $4 million over the next two years but by the time you pay the $2 million in 24-26 and then pay $1 million/year for a replacement depth player for the next two years you're right back to square one. Might as well just keep Dickinson.

I consider Poolman to be a bigger problem than Dickinson, for the record.

Dickinson is a useful player who you can fit into the bottom of the lineup somewhere useful - you're just overpaying him. Poolman is just .... in the way of building a functioning, balanced defensive group.

 

[F A N]

I don't really see it. It seems like you're saving money but he is a serviceable player and then you have to pay another serviceable player to replace him.

You 'save' $4 million over the next two years but by the time you pay the $2 million in 24-26 and then pay $1 million/year for a replacement depth player for the next two years you're right back to square one. Might as well just keep Dickinson.

Obviously don't want dead cap to be on the books but dead cap is coming off the books in two years and if smart, that ~$2M can get you an upgrade over Dickinson.

Agree that he's a serviceable player though. The priority probably would be to move a big ticket.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

I wonder if Dallas would take Dickinson back if we retained like $600K or so. He's basically a $1M player. Something like that would make more sense than buying him out.

And again, not the end of the world if he stays. Dickinson-Lammiko-Highmore would be a fine 4th line next season.

 

[MS]

Obviously don't want dead cap to be on the books but dead cap is coming off the books in two years and if smart, that ~$2M can get you an upgrade over Dickinson.

Agree that he's a serviceable player though. The priority probably would be to move a big ticket.

I'd rather be wasting money in 22-23 when we don't have a chance at a Cup than in 24-25 or 25-26 when hopefully we do.

The ideal thing with Dickinson/Poolman would just be to package up some picks and prospects with them to get the full tickets out of here to an Ottawa or Arizona. Dickinson is useful enough that some team might take him if we give up a 3rd.

 

[Vector]

Poolman might be a LTIR candidate if his concussion issues continue to be serious. No sane team should be willing to trade for him after the awful season he had an inability to come back and play more than a few shifts.

 

[MS]

Poolman might be a LTIR candidate if his concussion issues continue to be serious. No sane team should be willing to trade for him after the awful season he had an inability to come back and play more than a few shifts.

Absolutely, although it feels gross to be hoping for that or listing it as a potential positive outcome or 'out' of the the situation.

 

[me2]

Any appetite to buy him out? The problem is you get a $991,667 cap hit in 24-25 and 25-26 but you save over $1.7M next year and over $2.258M the following year.

Probably better off going with minors. $1.15m cap relief. Dickinson's cap hit would be $1.5m in the minors. It's less in a buyout but it goes for longer.

I don't see much benefit, either waive him or keep him as the 10-14 if you can't trade him. Don't drag the pain out to 4 years. Pete and Pod and hog, Rathbone etc will all need raises during those years.

 

[F A N]

Probably better off going with minors. $1.15m cap relief. Dickinson's cap hit would be $1.5m in the minors. It's less in a buyout but it goes for longer.

I don't see much benefit, either waive him or keep him as the 10-14 if you can't trade him. Don't drag the pain out to 4 years. Pete and Pod and hog, Rathbone etc will all need raises during those years.

The guy is an NHL player and it's poor form to waive him and bury him in the minors.

 

[me2]

The guy is an NHL player and it's poor form to waive him and bury him in the minors.

Debatable. Would you waive Poolman to make room for Rathbone? I would.

 

[Fatass]

The guy is an NHL player and it's poor form to waive him and bury him in the minors.

If we can trade Dickinson without adding too much then he’s gone. I just think it will be hard to move him, unless it’s a hockey trade and we take back another team’s similar contract.