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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, stawns said:

Huh?

 

OEL Myers

Hughes Harmonic

OJ/jR Poolman

 

 

 

You know, the more I think about it, I think Myers could actually be really good beside OEL. OEL is solid defensively, Myers doesn't have to be perfect. The two of them together would be an absolute terror to play against too. I'm pretty excited to see the matchups they try out. 

Hamonic did good beside Hughes, probably will do even better now that they're not going to be matching up against other team's top lines. 

I really like too that Poolman played on the PK in winnipeg. That gives us 3 solid PK d-men, OEL, Hamonic, Poolman. 

Good contract too - tradeable and bury-able if needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Lock said:

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.

Because they let him walk and acquired two other D to replace him.  No, that doesn't make it his "fault' but they felt the need to improve D by letting him go and trading assets for other guys.  They didn't even wait til FA.

 

Again, this doesn't make Poolman a bad player, but it does suggest his deployment in the top 4 can spell trouble since one organization tried and moved on from that.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 48MPHSlapShot said:

That's....not good.

We'll have to see.  At least there's a clear division of labour between puck movers on the left and more physical D on the right.  If everyone plays within themselves and isn't asked to do something they're not capable of, it could also work out pretty well. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AV. said:

Because they let him walk and acquired two other D to replace him.  No, that doesn't make it his "fault' but they felt the need to improve D by letting him go and trading assets for other guys.  They didn't even wait til FA.

 

Again, this doesn't make Poolman a bad player, but it does suggest his deployment in the top 4 can spell trouble since one organization tried and moved on from that.

Again, how so? How does this actually "spell trouble"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he plays like he did in 2019-20 then yeah this could be a good contract. 
 

Yeah he struggled with COVID and injuries last season but you’d think you’d be able to get him on a bit more of a lesser deal. 
 

This may sound high-strung but cap is a premium nowadays with the flat cap. You need as many good-value deals as you can get. 
 

They must have really liked him in the playoffs last season as he was better and relied upon more there. 
 

Like OEL gotta take the wait and see approach on this. 

Edited by Junkyard Dog
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stawns said:

Nhl.com.says 6'2, 200.

He’s still growing. Late bloomer.

Actually, I’m good with this. The extra year is not the end of the world. I imagine Tyler Myers had some input as to character etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this as a win. Essentially Schmidt for Poolman and a 3rd. We get a cheaper, more defensive-minded defenseman with the same contract length. A solid gamble for a player with possibly top 4 upside in the next year or so. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Lock said:

Again, how so? How does this actually "spell trouble"?

Because his deployment is Winnipeg can allow us to infer that his previous experiences in the top 4 were not great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AV. said:

Because his deployment is Winnipeg can allow us to infer that his previous experiences in the top 4 were not great.

But how does it allow us to infer it? That's what I'm asking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Lock said:

But how does it allow us to infer it? That's what I'm asking.

He's an NHL player lol.  People watch him play.

 

This is no different to when we got Gudbranson and people suggested he was better suited to a bottom pair role and not a top 4 one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AV. said:

He's an NHL player lol.  People watch him play.

 

This is no different to when we got Gudbranson and people suggested he was better suited to a bottom pair role and not a top 4 one.

So "he's an NHL player" is your reasoning?

 

You're a forum poster; therefore, so many people against you means you don't make good posts. Similar logic but is it true?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Maybe he's considering multiple options.

Could be. He’s probably looking for a 4 year deal. Benning went with Hamonic instead. Short term deal at a fair cap hit and keeps the continuity with Hughes from last year. 
 

Makes sense to me. Even though I love me some Hakanpaa.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...