Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


AV. last won the day on December 27 2020

AV. had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7,378 Gaming the system

About AV.

  • Rank
    Snubbed Three Times

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

18,684 profile views
  1. I don't believe it's a coincidence that many important figures within our team, such as Judd Brackett and Trevor Linden, have all departed this organization, despite how important their roles were. So, to confirm, I don't believe Benning and Weisbrod's voices are the only voices in the room, but I am willing to allege that any dissenting or different voices aren't always met with open ears. In any event, this is off-topic. Feel free to PM me if you wish to discuss this more as this is a thread on Brandon Sutter's re-signing.
  2. I don't think the Canucks would have picked this guy up without having a ball-park figure that could work. Player/agent probably want 3, Canucks closer to 2, and they'll meet somewhere in the middle. Easy business.
  3. It doesn't need to be an extreme. Things like more pushback from scouts and assistants, using more (any additional) information, could all help inform a decision to avoid getting tunnel vision on certain targets.
  4. Fair enough. The intention behind sharing the tweet I did (the Freidman quote) was to dismantle the notion that it was solely users like myself (ones deemed as "complainers") who had issue with the contract. I wanted to validate some of the concerns shared in this thread by sharing a tweet that highlighted similar concerns from people in the hockey world upon learning the terms of the Poolman contract. Like you and others, I do care a lot about the team and wish the best for the players. It's why this contract matters to me because I would hate to see it a contract like this p
  5. I appreciate the analogy, although I would argue Poolman isn't an essential for us in the same sense that gas might be for people. If we wanted a RD option, there were players like Vatanen, Carrick, the much talked about Hakanpaa, and even internal guys like Chatfield/Rafferty. I don't think we needed Poolman, but it was clear we wanted him, and that's totally fine. If management and coaching feels he's going to be a good piece at the contract they gave him, then let's hope he's a good piece and he rewards them. They make the decisions and I don't.
  6. We certainly have an idea from his experiences in Winnipeg. I'm by no means writing him off, I've just seen this type of story play out before with other players. Of course, every story is different. Here's to hoping Poolman lives up to what management sees in him.
  7. It's gone from "talk about the player" to "not about his contract" to "don't keep reiterating the same points about his play". It seems you're looking for a specific type of discourse that satisfies what you want to read. Maybe during the regular season I can come back here and make an observation about his play or his contract or whatever that's positive, but for now, I can really only discuss what's at hand: his contract, his previous experiences in the NHL, and how he potentially fits with this team. Well, his contract isn't great and previously, he was a depth defenceman/bottom-pair guy
  8. Why? I'm not breaking rules by sharing tweets that also question the length and money in the contract of the player in question. Just because you may not be interested doesn't mean others aren't. I am of the position that Poolman is on a bad contract. Doesn't mean I won't support him but it also doesn't mean I should just avoid sharing points of discussion with this forum.
  9. Quite the opposite. Given what I've seen, he'd be fine here if he came at a lower cost and less term.
  10. There's less term and less money with Hakanpaa. In a cap world, these things are important and should be taken into consideration, especially when we have extensions for Miller, Horvat, Boeser, and Hoglander within the next two seasons. We still haven't even signed Pettersson or Hughes. As such, *if* he takes big strides is rooted in variables. It is my opinion that we should be paying for what he is now rather than what he could be (or hope to be), therefore.
  11. Alluding to his deployment as bottom-pairing/depth defencemen is talking about the player. As I said previously, due to a lack of depth and some injuries, he was asked to play in Winnipeg's top four. Wasn't horrible but it was clear he wasn't a sufficient option there and was better suited to a lower role. This is why it's bizarre he received such a offer from Vancouver.
  12. The injuries were something that impacted him later on. He ended up accepting a try-out for Detroit after he was bought out from his deal in 2014, so clearly he still believed playing in the NHL was possible. The point here is that bottom-pairing/depth defenceman on deals with term and money can backfire, especially if they're being asked to play in deployment above their talent levels. Could say the same for some forwards. It's not that deep. The Friedman quote suggests that management sees something in him. Let's hope that's the case.
  13. I already did that a few pages back and I compared him to Aaron Rome. Funny enough, when Rome left Vancouver and signed 3x1.5M in Dallas, he was out of the league pretty quickly. Maybe another warning sign that committing money and term to these types of players aren't always wise...
  14. I agreed with the sentiment that Poolman getting a guaranteed 10M over 4 years is risky because I also feel that way about the signing.
  15. We're likely not better than Vegas or Edmonton. I think we have a fair shot at 3rd in the division and the wildcard spots, though.
  • Create New...