[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[Chris12345]

22 minutes ago, stawns said:

6'2, 200.  Not sure id call him big

I was wondering that too? Small in my books but whatever 

[24K PureCool]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

Are people really whining about a $2.5m cap hit?  Seriously?

I mean they don't have much else to complain about. 

[PhillipBlunt]

Have to see how this plays out. 

[Nucker 67]

Poolman was overplayed in WPG and struggled with the hefty minutes. Poolman will get the bottom pairing in VAN, and under Shaw, I feel good about all of the D being here. The guys on SN650 are complaining about Poolman, the Term seems to be a big deal for them. The guy is 28!  He hasn't even put on the sweater yet, give it a few games.

[BPA]

He's a defensive D man.  He won't be getting points.  I know the +/- is not a good stat but just look at how minimal it is.  Means he's not scored on much when 5v5.

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Josepho said:

All overpayments add up, especially when the term is 4 years. We've seen this so many times during the Benning tenure.

Poolman is a solid, 200ft dman.  He played well in every jets game I watched.  If he doesn't fit, that's an easily tradeable contract.

 

Absolutely no reason to cry about it, but I guess the usual suspects have a quota they have to fill

[Jester13]

I have to agree that this is a bit of a head scratcher. What has Poolman done to deserve such a raise? Free agency? If so, then it's safe to say we overpaid, yeah? 

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Kind of ya, in what world does a D with 1pt garner a 4yr contract at this 2.5m cap hit?? He made 775k last year and was a fringe D on a $&!#ty Jets team

Because he's a defensive defenseman.

[4petesake]

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

A bit too rich for a bottom pairing defenseman. Why give him four years and Hamonic only two? That I don't get. Was hoping for a larger, more physical specimen. Not a huge fan of this signing. Oh well. 

I don’t know much about Poolman or have an opinion on the contract but I will say that if Shaw looked at him and said this is a guy I can work with, then I’m a happy camper. Also anyone making comments about a lack of offence are really missing the mark IMO. With OEL, Hughes, and Rathbone to cover that I want a a good size, good skating, steady stay at home defenceman. If Poolman ca n be that gut I’m thrilled with this.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

This place:

 

Oh terrible signing, way too much.                                    Then in  thesame damn post            they admit "don't know much about him".

 

Can't comment on him                                                       Then in the same damn post            but reminds me of other bad deals.

 

Sad.

4 years is too long no matter how you slice it.

 

Teams are not clamouring for a player like this.

[Wanless]

4 minutes ago, stawns said:

Are people really whining about a $2.5m cap hit?  Seriously?

There always has to be a bad cap hit to whine about. 

 

These people also don't see that if poolman doesn't work out and needs to be buried it's just over a million in cap.

[kloubek]

That's a long term for a guy who doesn't have great stats and will be expected to play a key role. I'm sure Benning feels there is untapped potential there, but for 1 extra million I would have FAR preferred Savard.

[Wolfgang Durst]

1 minute ago, Johnny Torts said:

We needed a big body Defensive D that plays a rough game and can help Hughes and Rathbone. Good deal.

 

Relax SN650, its a 4x2.5M not a 6x6

 

 

 

would you put him on a pairing with Hughes?

[KoreanHockeyFan]

5 minutes ago, Seguin said:

David Savard 4 x 3.5

 

My initial thoughts is that Savard would have been a better option?

Maybe Savard gave a hometown discount - he's a Quebec guy.

[canuckster19]

6 minutes ago, Seguin said:

David Savard 4 x 3.5

 

My initial thoughts is that Savard would have been a better option?

Such a stupid post being thrown out by the twitter crowd, I was watching that douche stream on youtube for a minute, my ears were bleeding, what a moron that was, anyways as others said, you can offer him 4, 4,5 or even 5, doesn't mean he wants to come here.

[guntrix]

I’m fine with the other signings. This one I’m not so sure about. 

[Oregon.Duck]

Hey folks...points are not always the barometer for how much a player is compensated. We've had folks like Willie Mitchell, Tanev, all making several millions, they didn't put up points...but they sure as hell defended well. With better minutes, reasonable expectations, and good structure under Shaw, looking at times when Poolman has succeeded, I think the $2.5M will look fair.

 

You can't run your team on sub $1M contracts.

Edited July 28, 2021 by Oregon.Duck

[AlwaysACanuckFan]

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

Are people really whining about a $2.5m cap hit?  Seriously?

The same people are always going to bit$# about something. 

[stawns]

Just now, kloubek said:

That's a long term for a guy who doesn't have great stats and will be expected to play a key role. I'm sure Benning feels there is untapped potential there, but for 1 extra million I would have FAR preferred Savard.

You can't force guys to sign with you.  Pretty obvious Savard wanted to come home.  The Canucks wouldnt have got him for that $

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, 4petesake said:

I don’t know much about Poolman or have an opinion on the contract but I will say that if Shaw looked at him and said this is a guy I can work with, then I’m a happy camper. Also anyone making comments about a lack of offence are really missing the mark IMO. With OEL, Hughes, and Rathbone to cover that I want a a good size, good skating, steady stay at home defenceman. If Poolman ca n be that gut I’m thrilled with this.

Good point, if Shaw did inform this signing. As I said, have to give it a chance.