Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

-Vintage Canuck-
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Roger Neilsons Towel,

In thread warning from the mods. There have been lots of reports generated from this thread for name calling. Both sides, for and against, are guilty of this. Let’s dial down the insults and discuss the team in a civil manner. We should all be able to disagree without having to resort to name calling. Let’s try to do this ourselves without having to get warning points involved. Thanks everybody. Cheers

In thread warning from the mods

Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel

  • Vintage
  • Huggy Bear
  • Upvote
  • Cheers
  • Thanks
  • Like

19 reactions

Go to this post
AV. Canucks Franchise Player

AV.

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The Lock said:

Yeah. They were trying something different. That's it. Nothing more needs to be read into it.

Sure, but if we actually contextualize things, we saw Winnipeg get swept in the playoffs and we know through the eye test and reputable public opinion that Winnipeg's D was a weak point.

 

Ultimately, that has no bearing on what Poolman does here, but in response to the comment that he was a top 4 guy in Winnipeg, it's important to highlight this because evidently they felt the need to switch things from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Millerdraft Canucks Regular

Millerdraft

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted (edited)

Sifting through these posts it appears half our fan base will be unhappy unless we had a D-core that looked like this:

 

Hughes - Hamilton 

Reilly - Barrie

Rathbone - Ellis

 

”How in the sweet $?#% is 1pt worth $2.5m?!”

 

Yeah, who gives a $#!T about killing  penalties…

Edited by Millerdraft
Autocorrect typo
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
  • Haha 11
  • Wat 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alflives Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Alflives

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, CanuckGAME said:

Our 3rd pairing is not that of a team that would make the playoffs.

OJ and Poolman are a fantastic bottom pairing.  Young puck mover, and a solid stay put guy.  You do realize Poolman played over 23 minutes/game for the Jets in the playoffs, right?  

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CanuckGAME Canucks Third-Line

CanuckGAME

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Millerdraft said:

Sifting through these posts it appears half our fan base will be unhappy unless we had a D-core that looked like this:

 

Hughes - Hamilton 

Reilly - Barrie

Rathbone - Ellis

 

”How in the sweet $?#% is 1pt worth $2.5m?!”

 

Yeah, who gives a $#!T about kulling penalties…

 

I'd be down with that dcore.

 

I'd rather Makar over rathbone though.

Edited by CanuckGAME
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DeNiro Canucks Hall-of-Famer

DeNiro

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Bridge contracts for superstar players is garbage, sign they long term so they are at reasonable cap hits during their prime. 

Petey for sure should be locked in long term. His agent would probably be against that though. More chance to earn big money after a few really good seasons.

 

Hughes hasn’t proven to be a 7.5 million dollar defenseman. Too risky to sign him long term to big dollars yet. He needs to round out the rest of his game first.

 

Both will likely be signed to bridge deals for different reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stawns Canucks Hall-of-Famer

stawns

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

More like supporting him with a suitable partner.

I think that 3LD is OJ's to lose.  Rathbone doesn't require waivers and is likely Abby bound to develop into a top 4.  Why not give him time to grow and get the ice time he needs?  Zero need to rush him now

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Master Mind Canucks All-Star

Master Mind

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, ilduce39 said:

I doubt it.  “Casually watched games he played in” maybe.

Some yes, others watch intently.

 

This also applies to people praising the deal.

 

It's very possible and reasonable to watch every game Poolman played, and come to the conclusion he was overpaid.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Heffy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

King Heffy

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, stawns said:

I think that 3LD is OJ's to lose.  Rathbone doesn't require waivers and is likely Abby bound to develop into a top 4.  Why not give him time to grow and get the ice time he needs?  Zero need to rush him now

Agreed.  Wouldn't mind Schenn as a 7.  Looks like Benning agrees.

Edited by King Heffy
Benning read my mind
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Lock Canucks Franchise Player

The Lock

Posted
Posted
Just now, AV. said:

Sure, but if we actually contextualize things, we saw Winnipeg get swept in the playoffs and we know through the eye test and reputable public opinion that Winnipeg's D was a weak point.

 

Ultimately, that has no bearing on what Poolman does here, but in response to the comment that he was a top 4 guy in Winnipeg, it's important to highlight this because evidently they felt the need to switch things from him.

Yet, they made the playoffs.

 

Do we claim that Hedman's a bad defenseman during the time Tampa Bay got swept by Columbus? Sure, Winnipeg's weak point might have been defense, but how does that translate to it being Poolman's fault? Even if they didn't resign him, that doesn't immediately mean it was his fault either. I get that it's easy to jump to conclusions on things but that's just what it ends up being: jumping to conclusions.

 

Unless if I actually hear that Poolman's a bad player (with actual proof, ie. not "my friend told me") I don't see reason to believe he was the reason for anything at this point.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bure_Pavel Canucks Third-Line

Bure_Pavel

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Petey for sure should be locked in long term. His agent would probably be against that though. More chance to earn big money after a few really good seasons.

 

Hughes hasn’t proven to be a 7.5 million dollar defenseman. Too risky to sign him long term to big dollars yet. He needs to round out the rest of his game first.

 

Both will likely be signed to bridge deals for different reasons.

Not a doubt in my mind Hughes would be worth his 7.5 contract in 2 years maybe even as early as next year. Will likely be point/game and will get better defensively as he gets stronger. With his work ethic I could sleep easy at 7.5. I could see the Hughes' summer training camp being very competitive we that family.    

Edited by Bure_Pavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BPA Canucks Star

BPA

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Plus Dickenson; Nucks spending to the cap again and do they hate cap flexibility ?

Most teams spend to the cap.  I expect Canucks will do the same.  Just so they can make use of Ferland LTIR money.  That's $3.5M wasted if we don't reach the cap.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maniwaki Canuck Canucks Third-Line

Maniwaki Canuck

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

Would still like to add another top 4 D man.

 

Poolman can fill the role that Benn did the last couple years.

 

The way I see things now.

 

OEL - UFA/Trade

Hughes Hamonic

Rathbone Myers

 

Juolevi Poolman

 

Need a better top 4 guy IMO

Not gonna happen.  Better get used to

OEL-Myers

Hughes-Hamonic

Rathbone-Poolman

Juolevi

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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