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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

Guys like Burroughs are why you don't give that kid of term and money to a guy like Poolman with no resume and limited upside.

There are always guys close or at the same level that can fill the bottom end of your roster for cheap and short term contracts.  Some of them are also veterans like Schenn who can be had for cheap.  There is an opportunity cost to using up that extra cap on guys that don't make a material difference on the ice.

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Provost said:

Guys like Burroughs are why you don't give that kid of term and money to a guy like Poolman with no resume and limited upside.

There are always guys close or at the same level that can fill the bottom end of your roster for cheap and short term contracts.  Some of them are also veterans like Schenn who can be had for cheap.  There is an opportunity cost to using up that extra cap on guys that don't make a material difference on the ice.

Yeah, I think most of us can agree that the 4 year term was a mistake. The old regime gambled that they were smarter than everyone else, and believed Poolman’s contract would ultimately prove to be a bargain, when he outperformed his salary. The early results suggest this won’t happen. But if Poolman had proved to be an ideal partner for OEL or Hughes in the top-4, it would have looked like a shrewd move, as $2.5M in years 3-4 would be a lot cheaper than the price of extending Poolman, when he’d become a proven top-4 RHD. Unfortunately, that hasn’t come to pass, and doesn’t appear to be in the cards (although stranger things have happened). But instead, what we appear to have right now is a 3rd pair/depth player in Poolman, locked in to yet another inefficient multiyear contract that probably can’t be traded (without a sweetener).

 

The deal itself wasn’t really an overpayment, however (at least under the market conditions when it was signed). The AAV is right at the range you’d expect for that term. Even the analytics nerd twins at Evolving Hockey predicted $2.4M AAV with their model, if any team actually chose to give Poolman 4 years. It was just seen as highly unlikely he’d ever get that kind of term. At least from any team other than Vancouver (under Benning/Weisbrod). Poolman really did not have the playing history or profile to give him the leverage to demand 4 years as a free agent. It’s pretty clear that term was the club’s decision, but Poolman’s camp certainly wasn’t going to turn it down. 
 

Even still, I actually don’t really mind the thought process behind the contract itself. If a team is confident in their pro scouting and able to target a player that is underutilized/undervalued and lock them up long term before their value increases, that’s good business. But that approach only really works when the pro scouting is really good (and the team actually is smarter than everyone else, at least in the case of the player they’re targeting). When it’s not, then a pro scouting “miss,” can become a very costly error, and one that’s only compounded by the length of the contract.  Especially for a team that’s struggling and needs to improve several spots on its roster, but unfortunately is already tight to the salary cap. Under those conditions, a gamble like Poolman’s 4 year deal really needs to pay off.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Soooo glad Jim signed Tucker Poolman in desperation to keep his job though. So so glad.

 

Edit: the tweeter corrected his 'Jackson' 'Jason' mistake in a later tweet, get over it.

Edited by awalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, awalk said:

 

Soooo glad Jim signed Tucker Poolman in desperation to keep his job though. So so glad.

 

Edit: the tweeter corrected his 'Jackson' 'Jason' mistake in a later tweet, get over it.

Why are we comparing D men to a forward?

 

5.5 mil is pretty good value for two top 6 D men.

 

Dickinson is being paid for his shutdown ability. He just hasn’t been a fit here so far.

 

Horrible comparisons. Why don’t we compare Garland to Toffoli? Similar value contracts.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

Why are we comparing D men to a forward?

 

5.5 mil is pretty good value for two top 6 D men.

 

Dickinson is being paid for his shutdown ability. He just hasn’t been a fit here so far.

 

Horrible comparisons. Why don’t we compare Garland to Toffoli? Similar value contracts.

Because we're talking about cap space and how it was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, awalk said:

Because we're talking about cap space and how it was used.

We needed defensemen though.

 

You can argue about which D men we should have acquired, but that cap space needed to be used to upgrade the D.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

We needed defensemen though.

 

You can argue about which D men we should have acquired, but that cap space needed to be used to upgrade the D.

I can also say the cap space was brutally wasted on these specific two D men and one forward in this past off season and that was a big part of us being a cap strapped team right now that still needs an overhaul on the blueline. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, awalk said:

I can also say the cap space was brutally wasted on these specific two D men and one forward in this past off season and that was a big part of us being a cap strapped team right now that still needs an overhaul on the blueline. 

Yep no argument there.

 

Those signings are not connected to Toffoli though.

 

I’m glad we didn’t sign him. He wouldn’t have solved the problems this team had and we’d be in the same positon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Yep no argument there.

 

Those signings are not connected to Toffoli though.

 

I’m glad we didn’t sign him. He wouldn’t have solved the problems this team had and we’d be in the same positon

It's all connected my friend. 

 

I wish we had re-signed him for a multitude of reasons, not the least bit being it was a waste of assets. Would have been nice to get some assets back for him instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, awalk said:

It's all connected my friend. 

 

I wish we had re-signed him for a multitude of reasons, not the least bit being it was a waste of assets. Would have been nice to get some assets back for him instead.

If that cap wasn’t spent on those three player it would have been spent on another three players.

 

We needed upgrades on d and a third line center.

 

So no they’re not connected. We never had cap space for Toffoli if we wanted to make the upgrades necessary. And if we did have another 4 million it would have gone to Tanev not Toffoli.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

If that cap wasn’t spent on those three player it would have been spent on another three players.

 

We needed upgrades on d and a third line center.

 

So no they’re not connected. We never had cap space for Toffoli if we wanted to make the upgrades necessary. And if we did have another 4 million it would have gone to Tanev not Toffoli.

Sorry, I don't agree with you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Then why keep him?

 

Just to save face from the trade?

In a perfect world, to be the ones trading him here for a bundle of picks and prospects.

 

Although if we really need to get into it, we probably would have benefitted from having him in the lineup last year. But the point I am aiming to lean on, is that in a flat cap world every move, every penny of cap space used is all connected.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Why are we comparing D men to a forward?

 

5.5 mil is pretty good value for two top 6 D men.

 

Dickinson is being paid for his shutdown ability. He just hasn’t been a fit here so far.

 

Horrible comparisons. Why don’t we compare Garland to Toffoli? Similar value contracts.

Because it would be a positive take.

  • Cheers 1
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...