Dazzle

Guys jumping to conclusions in favour of the women are simps. Generalizations are stupid, like this one.

Look - another 'blame management' post. It seems to me like we weren't the only team that signed bad UFAs that year. So you're telling me a lot off the paid people who have a lot of experience in the game can't make mistakes? So many GMs flubbed this... HMM. This was an exceptional year of bad signings, and blaming management is probably the laziest way to understand the situation. Not sure what your post has anything to do with Tucker Poolman, but I'll just link this. https://thewincolumn.ca/2019/06/24/a-ufa-cautionary-tale-the-2016-free-agent-class-is-nightmare-fuel/ Milan Lucic EDM 28 7 $42,000,000 $6,000,000 Kyle Okposo BUF 28 7 $42,000,000 $6,000,000 Andrew Ladd NYI 30 7 $38,500,000 $5,500,000 Loui Eriksson VAN 30 6 $36,000,000 $6,000,000 Frans Nielsen DET 32 6 $31,500,000 $5,250,000 David Backes BOS 32 5 $30,000,000 $6,000,000 Troy Brouwer CGY 30 4 $18,000,000 $4,500,000 James Reimer FLA 28 5 $17,000,000 $3,400,000 Mikkel Boedker SJ 26 4 $16,000,000 $4,000,000 Eric Staal MIN 31 3 $10,500,000 $3,500,000 Jamie McGinn ARI 27 3 $10,000,000 $3,333,333 Matt Martin TOR 27 4 $10,000,000 $2,500,000 Dale Weise PHI 27 4 $9,400,000 $2,350,000 David Schlemko SJ 29 4 $8,400,000 $2,100,000 Ben Lovejoy NJ 32 3 $8,000,000 $2,666,667 Dan Hamhuis DAL 33 2 $7,500,000 $3,750,000 David Perron STL 28 2 $7,500,000 $3,750,000 Lee Stempniak CAR 33 2 $5,000,000 $2,500,000 Joe Colborne COL 26 2 $5,000,000 $2,500,000

What does this have to do with Sutter's signing again?

The usual suspects going off topic about Sutter's past performances. Fortunately good character does go a long way. Him signing 1M is a credit to how much respect he has for himself, and for his team. He did collect a lot when he did play, but this is a good gesture on his part to give back to the team.

Anyone reading the stats box could've given this statement. Do you wish to elaborate on this player? Have you seen this player play?

And yet you've said very little about the player, including the history of how he played in Winnipeg. 2.5 is low, as you've stated, and it's hilarious that you equate this with Benning's other signings, namely Gudbranson at 4 M, which most of us in hindsight can say it was an ill-advised move. However, we ended up getting an underperforming Pearson who has now found a home in Vancouver. In that light, Benning has LEARNED not to put in too much term/money for defencemen, especially ones that don't generate a huge amount of offense. Despite Benning's missteps with contracts, he has managed to turn his mistakes into pieces that the team can use moving forward. Unlike other GMs this offseason, he managed to get rid of his mistakes, while TAKING ON assets like Garland through the use of a first rounder. OEL is also not a 'throw in'; he is very much a main piece, with the success of the team dependent on how he performs these next few years. Given our much improved roster, it is more than reasonable to assume that OEL will play BETTER than his previous years in AZ that had substandard rosters. Toronto/Philadelphia/NYI had to pay substantial amounts of picks to get rid of their problems. Again, your point about contracts is extremely repetitive. Only now on Page 94 do you finally realize that you've "said enough". Other posters had already pointed out the redundant posts that focussed squarely on cap management, not the player. Therefore, you really had nothing to add in this thread. However, just because you have decided not to participate in this thread any further, other posters with more perspectives should be allowed to weigh in on this player.

Although stats alone don't showcase the vast differences of Boeser's and Garland's game, it is extremely promising that both players share some similar stats. Garland's going to be a real nice addition to this team. Edit: MSS just means missed shot attempts, so I think that kind of illustrates what we could expect from Garland, in comparison to what we've seen with Boeser. Shooting percentage is half of that of Boeser, even though SOG for both players are about the same, so that speaks to how lethal Boeser is.

Something to add onto this, Poolman is now the 7th biggest hitter on the team. (This is of course moving the player's stats from another team onto this team) IN FACT, look at what the new acquisitions could potentially bring. Motte is well respected as a beast, and we have Schenn potentially producing a similar style of game on the backend. Ekman Larsson, Dickinson and Poolman are also no slouches. Even Giuseppe could potentially be a useful addition. It should be noted that Motte generated that many hits with FEWER GAMES.

Repeating the same points shouldn't mean anything. It just solidifies the idea that you are a one-dimensional poster. Quit derailing the thread about Poolman if you have nothing more to add. But by all means, if you do have something to add ABOUT THE PLAYER, I am all ears.

I think Poolman's game is not really deserving of this many pages. He plays a fairly straightforward game and it won't be sexy. That being said, I don't think he'll hurt this team either. Last season of 39 games, he only had 2 PIM. In total, he only has 26 PIM of 120 games. His prior chemistry with Boeser will be helpful. I think he'll be a character guy.

Agreed. There needs to be more mods on this forum. With this many users, we can't expect the mods to be here 24/7 babysitting some people like AV who have very little to contribute to this thread. Seeing him restate what he already said is hilarious. Too bad the mods don't see this as 'spam'.

Why?

I asked him to talk about the player's performance, how he was utilized, etc. And yet, not only does he refuse to elaborate on 'what he's seen', he keeps claiming that the contract is overpaid, without elaborating in any meaningful way why that is the case. Simply talking about how Hakanpaa is only paid 1.5 mill on a short term contract doesn't seem to indicate WHY Poolman was signed for this much, specifically that Shaw was happy about this player. Anyone who is actually looking at this conversation fairly will see that AV's primary objective is to highlight that the player is overpaid, plain and simple. This has little to do with the player himself. It's not that hard to figure out.

So what's the point in re-emphasizing about something is done? None of this has anything to do with the player, but rather a comparison of the contracts. There are loads of these examples of you doing this. You have zero interest in talking about the player.

So once again, you've demonstrated that you know very little about the player, even when given a chance to elaborate on the player, and once more are re-emphasizing about the contract and cap space. It's almost like you want this player to fail because it would satisfy your 'proof' that he was overpaid.

Supposedly there were 12 teams that offered contracts to him, thus one can assume there was a significant amount of attention to him. This is Jani Hakanpaa, a player you have often endorsed as a good value signing. This is Tucker Poolman Poolman has played TWICE as many games as Hakanpaa. Given how well he had been regarded in the playoffs, is 2.5 really that much of an overpayment? Furthermore, the term doesn't matter so much as the actual cap hit. If Poolman makes big strides, the 2.5 could be a decent value. In general, you have exaggerated how much of an 'overpayment' and the 'risk'. I feel the Canucks needed someone with more experience helping the younger defenseman like Juolevi in the backend. Again, AV, your commentary is dishonest, just like how Master Mind is faithfully following you around in this thread. Lol. It's only you two that are doing the same things with the reactions. It's hilarious really.

Well, lots of players go on to try playing with a new team. It doesn't necessarily mean that the injuries didn't affect them. Notice how you deliberately avoided what the article said, that the hip received a CAREER ENDING INJURY So now you're talking about the contract again, even though you've restated this endlessly before. Do you have anything more to add about Poolman? For a guy you claim to know about through your fantasy hockey, it's shocking how little you talk about how the player performs, how he was utilized, etc. Why is that? I wonder. It's ALWAYS going back to the contracts, and seemingly back to the GM. The obsession that you have of Benning is just unhealthy.

@Master Mind @AV. It's just hilarious seeing you two paired together. So, AV, given your position that you already contributed to this thread by talking about Aaron Rome, I take it you'll have nothing more to add about Poolman then?

What types of players are these then? Defensive defenseman? You also left out a super juicy detail, @AV. https://www.si.com/hockey/news/report-former-nhler-rome-sued-league-insurance-company-over-injury-benefits Defenseman Aaron Rome hasn’t played in the NHL since 2014 due to injury and he’s reportedly sued the NHL and his insurance company for compensation because of it. The Dallas Morning Newsreported Rome, 32, made a claim for disability payments after suffering a career-ending left hip injury in a 2014 game at American Airlines Center. Rome was playing for the Stars when the injury occurred. Might as well not sign any player more than 2 mill because they could get career injuries.

He is a good goalie, but yeah, that's pretty pricey. @DeNiro called it.

So please elaborate on how the player has played in Winnipeg. Please describe how he was utilized by the coaches. And describe what you think the player can contribute to THIS team. Simply hearing that you are concerned about the signing doesn't cut it anymore because you have always stopped short of elaborating on the player.

You won't have to look very far to find this answer. What does this have to do with the Pettersson/Hughes signing? It's almost like this discussion is being deliberately derailed to talk about the past moves by the GM, which can't be changed now. This is the path that we are in - just accept it.

Sure, it's pertinent for a discussion in general, but as usual, you are still nitpicking at contracts, which in turn is a larger argument about the GM. You've admitted it as much in previous posts. The actual player discussion is lost. Look no further than the fact that you claimed to have reservations about the signing, and you used Jeff Finger as your example. You have barely contributed to this thread in any kind of meaningful way, aside from the size of the contract, and management's previous offseason moves. You had a chance to educate Chip Kelly about this player, but unfortunately, you simply claimed that the defense was a bottom 10 one, without any meaningful explanation for how you reached that conclusion. Equally, one could say that this defense is a top 10 one, so long as you don't have to elaborate on it. Then you approved this message by a guy that took a position that aligned with your views, as seen here. Of course, an unnecessary slag at the GM is mentioned, without really talking about the player. Simply saying "At best he is a late bloomer" is pretty substandard analysis. I guess Tanev, who was once upon a time JUST a free prospect, was "at best a late bloomer". If you're just looking at the stats of him, you'd think he's just a plug. The point I'm making with this is: Chip Kelly has no clue about the player, and he has admitted as such. However, he's already disregarded the player that he doesn't actually know about. You approved that. @AV. You don't really have a reason to be in this thread, aside from upvoting messages that slag at management, it seems. That is your MO. You claim to be fine with the player, but have this 'concern' about contracts. Then without actually defending the player that you claim to know about, you support Chip Kelly's messages because it primarily slags the GM. Since he knows very little about the player, his position is essentially invalid, if we were to be fair. Therefore, your purpose for being in this thread is to antagonize, or at the very least, you are re-hashing your arguments that have little to do with the actual player.

Except the comparison falls flat on its face. You tried to equate it to him getting a massive payday, when you've neglected a) the context, which is a humongous misstep when comparing players from two different time periods b) the ACTUAL percentage of cap on a player c) the comparable salaries made for a player doing the same types of jobs. This wasn't talking about term/years of experience; the main point was CLEARLY about the responsible use of money. Given how the thread was moderated, did you actually demonstrate a genuine interest in this player? Much has been posted the last day or so, and the toxicity disappeared because you didn't participate in it. Makes me wonder.

It was a very bizarre comparison that he took from 12-13 years ago, again manipulating a situation to make a contract look bad. I'm glad you and @gurn helped dismantle that nonsense. I hope Poolman thrives under Shaw and makes all the doubters look absolutely silly.