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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, wai_lai416 said:

2.5mil is bottom pairing money?? most of the top 10 teams in the league the bottom 2 hell some even bottom 3 doesn't even make 2.5mil combined

Veteran players take discounts to play on a contender. Or those teams cycle through prospects on cheap ELC's etc. Most of those teams also tend to overload cap on their top 4 and their bottom pair barely play 10 minutes.

 

But if you're signing newly UFA aged players, top 4 D start at about $3.5-$4m (through about $6m for second pair, $6m+ for top pair).

 

So yes, unless you're overloading your top 4 and playing scrubs, contender discounted vets, kids etc. Actual, prime aged, bottom pair UFA's cost ~$1.5-$3m +/-.

 

If you want to argue the merits of signing one last year, have at'er. But that's what they make.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol and that's why you overload ur top 4 and have guys like schenn burrough hunt rotate in ur bottom 2 pairings.. coz last i checked the canucks are still rotating in your so call scrubs in the bottom 2 the hunts/burrough/schenn. if we didn't sign hamonic and poolman easily could have brought back edler at 3-3.5 on a 1-2 year playing in the bottom 4 and still have money to work with on the bottom 6. 

 

wonder why we struggle so hard on offense? coz we allocated so much money on defense and bottom pairings and such we are bottom 3rd in the league for cap allocation to the forward.. we are like 26th in the league in offense.. coincident? it's pretty sad when you have to run a 4 forward 1 defenseman PP because u don't have defenseman that are capable of playing on the PP.. and it's even worse when the extra forward on ur PP are the likes of dickenson chiasson who is not a threat other than being a pylon and hope for a lucky goal to bounce off of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

 if we didn't sign hamonic and poolman easily could have brought back edler at 3-3.5 on a 1-2 year 

 

The ironing... Lol

 

8 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

wonder why we struggle so hard on offense? coz we allocated so much money on defense and bottom pairings 

Hey, look at my sig, I'd happily have brought Eagle back. But your solution to fixing our 'overspending' on bottom pair D (after lecturing me about how $2.5m is too much for bottom pair D) is to spend $3.5m on Edler for our bottom pair instead...? :blink: Are you serious right now? :lol:

 

Again, if you want to debate the merits of signing Poolman at all, because of fit, circumstance etc, I have no problem with it. Probably agree with you on most of it. But to say he's overpaid, or lecture people about $2.5 not being bottom pair dollars and then recommend $3.5 Edler as your solution to that overspending is fracking hilarious! Thanks for that! :lol:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

The ironing... Lol

 

Hey, look at my sig, I'd happily have brought Eagle back. But your solution to fixing our 'overspending' on bottom pair D (after lecturing me about how $2.5m is too much for bottom pair D) is to spend $3.5m on Edler for our bottom pair instead...? :blink: Are you serious right now? :lol:

 

Again, if you want to debate the merits of signing Poolman at all, because of fit, circumstance etc, I have no problem with it. Probably agree with you on most of it. But to say he's overpaid, or lecture people about $2.5 not being bottom pair dollars and then recommend $3.5 Edler as your solution to that overspending is fracking hilarious! Thanks for that! :lol:

edler can play in the middle pairing lol.. edler is not playing bottom 2 mins in LA is he? he's more than capable of playing in the 15-18min range pk and 2nd PP funny if u think edler is only capable of playing bottom 2 pairing 10mins a night.

Edited by wai_lai416
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

edler can play in the middle pairing lol.. edler is not playing bottom 2 mins in LA is he? he's more than capable of playing in the 15-18min range pk and 2nd PP funny if u think edler is only capable of playing bottom 2 pairing 10mins a night.

So he's displacing Hughes, or OEL?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

So he's displacing Hughes, or OEL?

Who knows maybe the coach could stick him on their off side? Not like it's never been done and still a far better option than whatever the hell we have. Even if u insist on plugging ppl in their natural spot playing just because playing on the 3rd pairing doesn't mean u are a bottom 2 defenseman? Having an Edler with whomever and OEL with whomever can reduce over playing hughes and whoever he's partnered with. Just coz EP is playing with hoglander and podz on the 3rd line does that make him a bottom 6 forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I am listening to Sportsnet and some discussion on why The Canucks signed Poolman in that term and money.

 

Now I don't know if this was speculation or based on some rumors. But this is what they said 

again this is not 100% fact though brining this up there might be some truth to this:

  • 4 Way mobility and ability to play a Top 4 role (in Theory)
  • RHD and Tall 
  • Debate in Management on signing Poolman 
  • John Weisbrod and the coaching staff were high on Poolman 
  • Analytics folks were more weary 

 

Edit this came from Drance 

Edited by iinatcc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, iinatcc said:

So I am listening to Sportsnet and some discussion on why The Canucks signed Poolman in that term and money.

 

Now I don't know if this was speculation or based on some rumors. But this is what they said 

again this is not 100% fact though brining this up there might be some truth to this:

  • 4 Way mobility and ability to play a Top 4 role (in Theory)
  • RHD and Tall 
  • Debate in Management on signing Poolman 
  • John Weisbrod and the coaching staff were high on Poolman 
  • Analytics folks were more weary 

 

Edit this came from Drance 

Weisbroad loved soft low intensity players like gaudette, chatfield, rafferty, poolman etc

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/1/2022 at 2:18 PM, iinatcc said:

So I am listening to Sportsnet and some discussion on why The Canucks signed Poolman in that term and money.

 

Now I don't know if this was speculation or based on some rumors. But this is what they said 

again this is not 100% fact though brining this up there might be some truth to this:

  • 4 Way mobility and ability to play a Top 4 role (in Theory)
  • RHD and Tall 
  • Debate in Management on signing Poolman 
  • John Weisbrod and the coaching staff were high on Poolman 
  • Analytics folks were more weary 

 

Edit this came from Drance 

Those all seem like silly reasons to overpay for an unproven fringe NHL defenseman. By the way, despite what *some* people say on here $2.5 was in fact an overpayment for Poolman, it was a gamble. IMO if there was any debate, and analytics were poor you move on and see what else you can do there. Hunt, Burroughs, Juulsen , Schenn all capable of doing what Poolman does for much less. Like many who follow this team have said, we cornered the market on bottom 4 defenseman, not sure why we needed so many lol.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/30/2022 at 9:14 PM, aGENT said:

 

The ironing... Lol

 

Hey, look at my sig, I'd happily have brought Eagle back. But your solution to fixing our 'overspending' on bottom pair D (after lecturing me about how $2.5m is too much for bottom pair D) is to spend $3.5m on Edler for our bottom pair instead...? :blink: Are you serious right now? :lol:

 

Again, if you want to debate the merits of signing Poolman at all, because of fit, circumstance etc, I have no problem with it. Probably agree with you on most of it. But to say he's overpaid, or lecture people about $2.5 not being bottom pair dollars and then recommend $3.5 Edler as your solution to that overspending is fracking hilarious! Thanks for that! :lol:

Agent, no matter how hard you try you will not convince people that $2.5 was not an overpayment and a gamble on Poolman. It most definitely was. Move on, it's like your Tucker's personal publicist or something :picard:. If you look at the majority of NHL teams, a large number of them are paying their bottom pairing D $1m-2m or less. $2.5, it's not "the norm". I can name many, many bottom pairing defenseman who are more proven, more experienced or just plain better than him who make as much or less. The bigger question is did this team need to sign him? Did he make our blue line better? Instead of incessantly arguing he got paid the imaginary market rate for a part time NHL defenseman. 

 

And it not so much "bottom pairing" anymore it's about minutes played as teams will put Dmen together who compliment each other and combinations get shuffled more now. Poolman plays 17 mins a game (when in the lineup). We also have defenseman being paid $7.26,$6, $7.85 million. Some other teams pay almost their entire d core $3-5 million. It really depends on how they've built their blueline as you've said but it doesn't change the fact we overpaid for him.

 

2.5 was too much

Analysts across the league agree on this

Most on here agree on this

 

Edited by Harold Drunken
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Harold Drunken said:

Agent, no matter how hard you try you will not convince people that $2.5 was not an overpayment and a gamble on Poolman. It most definitely was. Move on, it's like your Tucker's personal publicist or something :picard:. If you look at the majority of NHL teams, a large number of them are paying their bottom pairing D $1m-2m or less. Not many bottom pairing D get paid $2.5, it's not the norm. I can name many, many bottom pairing defenseman who are more proven, more experienced or just plain better than him who make less. 

 

And it not so much "bottom pairing" anymore it's about minutes played as teams will put Dmen together who compliment each other. Poolman plays 17 mins. a game (when he can crack the lineup). We also have defenseman being paid $7.26,$6, $7.85 million. Some other teams pay almost their entire d core $3-5 million. It really depends on how they've built their blueline as you've said but it doesn't change the fact we overpaid for him.

 

2.5 was too much

Analysts across the league agree on this

Most on here agree on this

 

No, it wasn't.

 

Poolman, as evideneced by the higher than average, 3rd pair minutes he plays, as you noted, plays and is capable of playing bottom pair/mid pair fill in. Ergo, he get's paid in the upper range of a bottom pair/borderline mid pair D.

 

Same largely applies to Hamonic. He tilts a little closer to mid-pair capable/high end 3rd pair, ergo, gets paid even more at $3m.

 

In reality we don't really have a true mid pair (+/-$4m) player and a bottom pair (+/-$1.5m) player. So Benning signed two above average bottom pair guys for basically the same overall cap, as a band-aid. He went for depth over quality, given quality wasn't available.

 

And again, the discussion I was having with the other poster was his laughably ironic complaint about "overpaying" our 3rd pair and his solution to that being paying even more ($3.5m) for Edler instead. I thought that was hilarious :lol:

 

Again, this has nothing to do with 'defending' Poolman and you're, as usual ignorant, ad-hominem nonsense about being his agent. I'm no Poolman fan, and I've had many posts about shedding no tears, should we trade him. But he's not overpaid.

 

Should we aim to improve upon him in our top 4 and hence look for a cheaper, 3rd pair alternative? Absolutely.

 

Does that make him overpaid? Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Provost said:

 

I was actually more annoyed at the early Pearson signing as there was no need for it.  We jumped right back into playing bottom of the lineup players too much (Poolman, Dickenson, Pearson) as soon as we gave away a 1st round player and took on OELs anchor contract to get rid of them same kind of problems. 

-Pearson is 6th in forward production for our team this year.

-was 6th in forward production last year

-was 4th in forward production the year before

 

Since when did top 6 become bottom of the lineup? :picard:

  • Cheers 3
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, coryberg said:

-Pearson is 6th in forward production for our team this year.

-was 6th in forward production last year

-was 4th in forward production the year before

 

Since when did top 6 become bottom of the lineup? :picard:

Pearson is a fill in top 6 player when injuries happen and when a roster is bad.  He isn't a top 6 player in the league.

Schenn is playing top 4 minutes for us... it doesn't make him a top 4D in the league.

Player Name spent a ridiculous number of minutes on our top lines and isn't even an NHLer.

Pearson is 242nd in points per 60 minutes played, 206th in points per game.... he is a solid 3rd liner but has no place in the top 6 of any team that wants to win a lot of games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Provost said:

Pearson is a fill in top 6 player when injuries happen and when a roster is bad.  He isn't a top 6 player in the league.

Schenn is playing top 4 minutes for us... it doesn't make him a top 4D in the league.

Player Name spent a ridiculous number of minutes on our top lines and isn't even an NHLer.

Pearson is 242nd in points per 60 minutes played, 206th in points per game.... he is a solid 3rd liner but has no place in the top 6 of any team that wants to win a lot of games.

Good thing Pearson isn't making top 6 money then and is making top end, 3rd line/top 6 fill-in money.

 

Just like Poolman, I have all sorts of time for arguments that we signed Pearson unnecessarily early, or if you don't like his "fit" on this team/in our cap structure etc, etc but neither guy is "overpaid".

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Provost said:

Pearson is a fill in top 6 player when injuries happen and when a roster is bad.  He isn't a top 6 player in the league.

Schenn is playing top 4 minutes for us... it doesn't make him a top 4D in the league.

Player Name spent a ridiculous number of minutes on our top lines and isn't even an NHLer.

Pearson is 242nd in points per 60 minutes played, 206th in points per game.... he is a solid 3rd liner but has no place in the top 6 of any team that wants to win a lot of games.

Pearson is 175th in points by forwards this season... 32 teams x 6 (top 6 forwards)= 192 top 6 forwards

 

Pearson is actually 141st in points by forwards over the last 3 seasons combined 

Edited by coryberg
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Pearson is 175th in points by forwards this season... 32 teams x 6 (top 6 forwards)= 192 top 6 forwards

 

Pearson is actually 141st in points by forwards over the last 3 seasons combined 

He has played a bunch more games than a whole pack of players right behind him (as has the entire team)... that is why you use points per game to standardize scoring.  You are using the same logic as the people who crow about the Canucks only being a few points out of the playoffs, when they ignore the fact we don't get to play 5 more games than the rest of the teams in the league.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Provost said:

He has played a bunch more games than a whole pack of players right behind him (as has the entire team)... that is why you use points per game to standardize scoring.  You are using the same logic as the people who crow about the Canucks only being a few points out of the playoffs, when they ignore the fact we don't get to play 5 more games than the rest of the teams in the league.

By that logic Spencer Martin just won the vezina. :frantic:

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...