[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[elvis15]

Hits a little bit, blocks a bit more, but if he can control his giveaways and put up some offence closer to two years ago, this will be a good signing even at that term. If he truly did have 12 teams interested in him it makes sense we had to go up a bit in term vs wait and try and get something more favourable.

[Devron]

Just now, theo5789 said:

Unfortunately you can tell the minds have been made up already no matter what he does. All they are going to look for in his game are his errors (which all dmen will have some). There's always a scapegoat (or two or three) every year and Poolman is the clear frontrunner already.

 

Unless Poolman puts up 50 points and throws devastating hits every night, the minds won't change.

That is very true. Already CDC favourite whipping boy. Gotta have at least one or two or three. 
 

I’ve literally seen people blame certain players  for things when they weren’t even on the ice at the time of the play lmao.

[Jester13]

43 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Looking through the remaining field of UFA defensemen....

There are two unsigned guys that I'd be interested in - and one is a LHD/ not a fit.

 

Hakanpaa remains available (a comparable in a number of ways) - what separates them might be Hakanpaa's additional aggressiveness, and Poolman's mobility...

 

But beyond him....not much there of interest imo.

 

And the guy they were rumoured to be in on - McCabe - went for 4 million x 4......

Forbort went for 3x3 - physical guy, but another LHD.

Savard's 14 million deal (3.5x4) is one of the few I'd consider unfrenzied value (Larsson 4x4, out ahead of the market, being another).

Eddie got 3.5

Guys like Oleksiak and Ceci went at surprisingly high prices imo.

Even Del Zotto at 2x2 seems a bit inflated.

Ian Cole - still solid at 32 - got 2.9.

 

 

You've nailed it. Poolman was our best choice for cap and term, and we needed him badly. 

[ilduce39]

24 minutes ago, FlyLow_ said:

It's simply analytical evidence that back up a statement that he's replaceable. Instead of the people that clearly watch hockey with blindfolds on around here claiming he's amazing, because reasons. And how dare anyone questiong Jim Benning's free agent signings, he's never messed those up before.

Replaceable with who?  Chatfield?
 

That was our replacement level player last year.  

 

I have no idea what Poolman plays like either but I’m not taking a random graph at face value when I’ve heard the following context:

 

-worst case of Covid last year, brutal puck to the face the year before in a decent showing.

 

-played up the lineup with Morresey, who not only struggled himself but struggled more away from Poolman than with him.  

 

-he’s big and he skates well.. college grad (broke into the NHL at 24) only played 120 games over 3 years so far.  

Despite his age, There’s a lot of reason to believe he can be a lot better than the graph shows.

[ilduce39]

FWIW David “it was my childhood dream to play in Montreal” Savard probably wasn’t a viable option for us without a massive overpayment.

Edited July 29, 2021 by ilduce39

[ilduce39]

20 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

Hits a little bit, blocks a bit more, but if he can control his giveaways and put up some offence closer to two years ago, this will be a good signing even at that term. If he truly did have 12 teams interested in him it makes sense we had to go up a bit in term vs wait and try and get something more favourable.

Yeah, the 12 team interest explains the 4 years he got.  
 

It’s a long contract but that’s free agency.. especially after Seattle poached a bunch of decent D men off the market.

[wildwood12]

Never heard of Tucker Poolman till today. I will wait to see how good he is at season start.
However I was not impressed by Nate Schmidt at all last season. I thought he was better than what he showed with Vancouver.

[PhillipBlunt]

I’m curious why Poolman received 4 and not 2 years. I’d prefer Hamonic get the longer deal. 
 

However I’m also aware that Garland received 5. Team is making new connections. 
 

Or I’m kinda baked. 

[aGENT]

4 minutes ago, mpt said:

Fair enough, I’ll admit I don’t know much about most of these guys but Schenn Hamonic better not be significant pieces to our team, otherwise we aren’t any better especially losing Edler for what was a reasonable contract.  The love for Schenn and Hamonic is bizarre, both didn’t impress me at all, they filled holes, and often had too many holes themselves.  I hope it works out and these new guys are an upgrade

OEL should be an upgrade on Edler (this from a guy with Edler in his sig).

 

Not rusty Hamonic should be better than last year's rusty version with zero preseason, practice time, or any familiarity with team mates, coaches, systems etc.

 

So that leaves Poolman and Schenn replacing Schmidt and... Benn I guess. For whatever reason, Schmidt wasn't a fit here (even though he's probably a better all around player). Poolman, while a lesser player, is likely a better fit (defensive play).

 

Not to mention that Juolevi and Rathbone should be better.

[vancan2233]

2 hours ago, ShawnAntoski said:

Yeah, the group effort approach to roster management that we are hearing, is a good direction for the team cause if a personnel leaves; and there is a solid system in place, things can still get done.

 

I agree, that the Shaw addition could potentially have the biggest impact - pressure is now on the staff; and good chance Shaw was probably consulted on the players.

Poolman was signed because Shaw wanted him.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, vancan2233 said:

Poolman was signed because Shaw wanted him.

Really?

[Millerdraft]

3 minutes ago, wildwood12 said:

Never heard of Tucker Poolman till today. I will wait to see how good he is at season start.
However I was not impressed by Nate Schmidt at all last season. I thought he was better than what he showed with Vancouver.

That’s because he is.  It just didn’t mesh here.

[vancan2233]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Really?

Watch the interview with Benning. When asked about Poolman he said that was what Shaw wanted.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, vancan2233 said:

Watch the interview with Benning. When asked about Poolman he said that was what Shaw wanted.

Good to know. Thank you for the information. This makes me like the trade more.
 

Was he also instrumental in getting OEL? 

[Dazzle]

9 hours ago, AV. said:

Gillis was a good GM.  He managed multiple playoff appearances, including a Stanley Cup finals, made very sensible signings and trades at the pro scouting level.

 

Was he perfect?  Hell naw.  His drafting was horrible.  But he got fired for it when the results on the ice started to show decline.

 

As for him working in the NHL, Gillis often alluded to wanting to work in a higher up role more than a hands-on GM role.  I would suspect that as a reason for why never stepped foot in an NHL office as GM rather than teams avoiding him.

Ugh... here's this Gillis love fest, involving the downplaying of his flaws.

 

His drafting was more than just horrible. He wrecked the pool. Nonis' drafting was horrible, but at least he didn't screw the pooch as much as Gillis did. AT minimum, he hit SOME picks.

 

Gillis had no goaltending prospects at all, at any round. That is unacceptable. The only goaltenders he had control over were inherited - Luongo and Schneider. He messed up that handling too, leaving Vancouver with an aging Luongo. Yes, he got Horvat out of it. What about Luongo's replacement?

 

No defensive prospects. Gillis couldn't find one useful defenceman besides Hutton during his 6 years of GMing?

 

He only hit on first rounds - Hodgson and Horvat. And then look at his absolute misses during the Horvat year... Gillis sucked at a critical part of his job, maintenance of the team, including its futures.

 

 

2014 and 2016 were Benning's arguably worst years for drafting. It seemed like every year was a bad year for Gillis...

 

Here's the rest of GIllis' drafting years.... the excuses you make for his drafting is so hilarious. "HE WAS TRYING TO WINNN!!!" - and yet absolutely flopped on every single round between his first and last years.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Dazzle

[Me_]

10 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

Watch the interview with Benning. When asked about Poolman he said that was what Shaw wanted.

As well as Clark wanting Halak.

[ShawnAntoski]

46 minutes ago, vancan2233 said:

Poolman was signed because Shaw wanted him.

Good chance, Poolman was a Shaw target,   

[Devron]

2 hours ago, -DLC- said:

OK I'm officially confused.  That's quite a difference.

Ok I figured it out Deb he’s listed as 6’4 in NHL21 game. So that’s gotta be the correct one right? LOL

[ShawnAntoski]

52 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Ugh... here's this Gillis love fest, involving the downplaying of his flaws.

 

His drafting was more than just horrible. He wrecked the pool. Nonis' drafting was horrible, but at least he didn't screw the pooch as much as Gillis did. AT minimum, he hit SOME picks.

 

Gillis had no goaltending prospects at all, at any round. That is unacceptable. The only goaltenders he had control over were inherited - Luongo and Schneider. He messed up that handling too, leaving Vancouver with an aging Luongo. Yes, he got Horvat out of it. What about Luongo's replacement?

 

No defensive prospects. Gillis couldn't find one useful defenceman besides Hutton during his 6 years of GMing?

 

He only hit on first rounds - Hodgson and Horvat. And then look at his absolute misses during the Horvat year... Gillis sucked at a critical part of his job, maintenance of the team, including its futures.

 

 

2014 and 2016 were Benning's arguably worst years for drafting. It seemed like every year was a bad year for Gillis...

 

Here's the rest of GIllis' drafting years.... the excuses you make for his drafting is so hilarious. "HE WAS TRYING TO WINNN!!!" - and yet absolutely flopped on every single round between his first and last years.

 

 

I missed this back & forth 

 

Ditto; and imo, MGs' greatest mistake was that he did not surround himself with a second AGM that understands drafting & player development: JB or vice versa (were JB is the GM and two AGM's: Gillman & Gillis). 

 

I remember those years under Gillis were the drafts was just an after thought cause there is a good chance the players drafted are going to bust out but when FA opens then the fun begins cause that was Gillis' preferred method of building the roster.  Alot of wasted years when it comes to player development; anyways, time to focus on what should matter to the fanbased - this following season after this very aggressive offseason.  

Edited July 29, 2021 by ShawnAntoski

[Me_]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Ugh... here's this Gillis love fest, involving the downplaying of his flaws.

 

His drafting was more than just horrible. He wrecked the pool. Nonis' drafting was horrible, but at least he didn't screw the pooch as much as Gillis did. AT minimum, he hit SOME picks.

 

Gillis had no goaltending prospects at all, at any round. That is unacceptable. The only goaltenders he had control over were inherited - Luongo and Schneider. He messed up that handling too, leaving Vancouver with an aging Luongo. Yes, he got Horvat out of it. What about Luongo's replacement?

 

No defensive prospects. Gillis couldn't find one useful defenceman besides Hutton during his 6 years of GMing?

 

He only hit on first rounds - Hodgson and Horvat. And then look at his absolute misses during the Horvat year... Gillis sucked at a critical part of his job, maintenance of the team, including its futures.

 

 

2014 and 2016 were Benning's arguably worst years for drafting. It seemed like every year was a bad year for Gillis...

 

Here's the rest of GIllis' drafting years.... the excuses you make for his drafting is so hilarious. "HE WAS TRYING TO WINNN!!!" - and yet absolutely flopped on every single round between his first and last years.

 

 

 But man could he play golf.