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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, AV. said:

Lol.

Just makes me laugh how much certain people stuck their neck out for this guy for no other reason than because Jim Benning signed him.

Makes you wonder...

Actually I was impressed with him in the playoffs with Winnipeg. And he's a Right Handed defenceman. I didn't care if he doesn't get points, we need a defensive defenceman.

He's not as bad as Dickinson has turned out to be. 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

Actually I was impressed with him in the playoffs with Winnipeg. And he's a Right Handed defenceman. I didn't care if he doesn't get points, we need a defensive defenceman.

He's not as bad as Dickinson has turned out to be. 

 

We certainly did need a defensive RD. I don't think many of the complaints were that we got Poolman, but rather that he wouldn't live up to his contract.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AV. said:

Lol.

Just makes me laugh how much certain people stuck their neck out for this guy for no other reason than because Jim Benning signed him.

Makes you wonder...

Thing is I was actually fine moving on from Tanev as long the player replacing him was an upgrade. But if you told me that it would be Poolman with term that ends up being that player Canucks would have been better off sticking with Tanev :frantic:

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AV. said:

Lol.

Just makes me laugh how much certain people stuck their neck out for this guy for no other reason than because Jim Benning signed him.

Makes you wonder...

Are you under the impression that he is a disappointment? I think he has done quite well so far, he leads the team with a +4 in a group full of negatives, has tripled his point production in less than half the games played, is averaging over 18 minutes a game and the 2 games he missed we were utterly destroyed.

All this for less than the league average salary.

 

Makes you wonder.

 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, coryberg said:

Are you under the impression that he is a disappointment? I think he has done quite well so far, he leads the team with a +4 in a group full of negatives, has tripled his point production in less than half the games played, is averaging over 18 minutes a game and the 2 games he missed we were utterly destroyed.

All this for less than the league average salary.

 

Makes you wonder.

 

That's good for Poolman and not good for the team.

Hope this helps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AV. said:

Lol.

Just makes me laugh how much certain people stuck their neck out for this guy for no other reason than because Jim Benning signed him.

Makes you wonder...

I don't mind people sticking their neck out... it was the rampant name calling and trolling just because some of us that happened to agree with the bulk of the analysts and folks outside the market that there was concern about the term given to a guy without much of a resume.

He has been fine, not good and not terrible.   His minutes dropped from over 20 minutes a game at the start of the season down to 13-14 minutes, then got some more minutes the last couple of games.  It is hard to judge when everything else is a tire fire.

If Tucker Poolman's play was our biggest problem this year I would be pretty happy.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Master Mind said:

We certainly did need a defensive RD. I don't think many of the complaints were that we got Poolman, but rather that he wouldn't live up to his contract.

Yes... Poolman instead of Benn, sure. 

Poolman instead of Tanev, or even Schmidt in that spot... not so much.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Provost said:

Yes... Poolman instead of Benn, sure. 

Poolman instead of Tanev, or even Schmidt in that spot... not so much.

If you expect Poolman to equal Tanev or Schmidt, that would be the bargain of the decade for us given how little Poolman makes in comparison to those 2.

 

I think the problem is we're so close to the cap that we can't really afford Tanev let alone Schmidt at this point. I don't know if Poolman was the right answer or not, but I also don't think he's a bad player either.

Edited by The Lock
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Lock said:

If you expect Poolman to equal Tanev or Schmidt, that would be the bargain of the decade for us given how little Poolman makes in comparison to those 2.

 

I think the problem is we're so close to the cap that we can't really afford Tanev let alone Schmidt at this point. I don't know if Poolman was the right answer or not, but I also don't think he's a bad player either.

We were 1 year away from being free of cap.

 

Now we suffer for another 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 73 Percent said:

We were 1 year away from being free of cap.

 

Now we suffer for another 8 years.

I don't know if we'd be free of cap waiting 1 year. It just would have been a little different than it is now, but still needing to sign key players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, The Lock said:

If you expect Poolman to equal Tanev or Schmidt, that would be the bargain of the decade for us given how little Poolman makes in comparison to those 2.

 

I think the problem is we're so close to the cap that we can't really afford Tanev let alone Schmidt at this point. I don't know if Poolman was the right answer or not, but I also don't think he's a bad player either.

Then that is the fault of the guy allocating the cap space.


They slotted Poolman into the exact same roster spot as those guys held… so that is on the GM.

 

As Craig Button put it, last summer the Canucks cornered the market on 3rd pairing D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Provost said:

Then that is the fault of the guy allocating the cap space.


They slotted Poolman into the exact same roster spot as those guys held… so that is on the GM.

 

As Craig Button put it, last summer the Canucks cornered the market on 3rd pairing D.

thats a pretty lame comment from Button (who was a crappy GM), there's nothing wrong with depth. Obviously we need a real 1 RHD but that comments is trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JM_ said:

thats a pretty lame comment from Button (who was a crappy GM), there's nothing wrong with depth. Obviously we need a real 1 RHD but that comments is trash.

Nope… he was just realistic.  He said we had Hughes and OEL as top 4 guys and the rest are 3rd pairing.

 

Maybe he wasn’t a good GM way back when, but his amateur and pro scouting is excellent.  His draft lists have literally blown everyone out of the water, including Benning, for more than a decade when you look back at redrafts.

 

If Button was our GM we wouldn’t have whiffed on half our top 10 picks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Provost said:

Then that is the fault of the guy allocating the cap space.


They slotted Poolman into the exact same roster spot as those guys held… so that is on the GM.

 

As Craig Button put it, last summer the Canucks cornered the market on 3rd pairing D.

The thing is though, there really was no choice but to put Poolman in that slot if you think about it. When you mess up not communicating with Tanev and then Schmidt ends up not really fitting in, what exactly do you do at that point? I still don't see it being fair to Poolman to compare him to players who are making far more than him when it's not his fault being slotted into the same spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Lock said:

The thing is though, there really was no choice but to put Poolman in that slot if you think about it. When you mess up not communicating with Tanev and then Schmidt ends up not really fitting in, what exactly do you do at that point? I still don't see it being fair to Poolman to compare him to players who are making far more than him when it's not his fault being slotted into the same spot.

I am not blaming Poolman at all really.  He is doing fine, even better than I expected.  I am not even blaming Green,  as you say there aren’t really any other options.

 

I blame the GM who put together a crappy defence.  I have heard some ex NHLer pundits (Valk most recently I think) say how our systems are built specifically to protect a bad defence and it is hampering the scoring a lot.  He also talked about whenever we face a team with fast forwards we fall apart because the defence isn’t fast enough.

 

If that is really the case it does make some sense as to why our scoring has also completely dried up.

 

I did worry a lot before the season what impact taking our best defensive D off the team two years in a row was going to be (Tanev and Stecher, then Edler and Schmidt) but hoped we could outscore some problems.  Those guys were doing a lot of heavy lifting for the team in terms of hard minutes, they should have been added to rather than removed and not adequately replaced.

 

 

Edited by Provost
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...