[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[stawns]

13 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said:

Myers will be th golden goose of whipping boy targets. 

 

Poolman is a target too with that extra term 4 year deal.

 

If it's only 2 years nobody is really concerned.

People are acting like it's a 10 year deal.  There's nothing wrong with term or salary on Poolman, at all 

[Chris12345]

6 hours ago, FaninMex said:

The way I look at it is we traded Schmidt for Poolman and a 3rd.

 

I like it. I will have to see more but the highlights that I have seen have been good. I might go back and watch the Winn series on NHL.com in the next few days 

I think it's almost Schmidt for Poolman, Hamonic, Schenn, and a 3rd!

 

At least these guys want to play in Van!!!!!

 

Still think Poolman is too much money but it's not a 6x6.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Chris12345

[tas]

28 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said:

Looking like Myers and Hamonic.

 

Didn't really make any significant upgrade from last year other than maybe OEL over Edler.

 

Was hoping for a bigger piece on d.

 

they maybe didn't get the namebrand upgrade we were hoping for on right d, but the balance throughout the top 8 guys now is much, much better. the team d should be much improved because of it, not to mention having brad shaw coming in to tighten things up. 

[FaninMex]

5 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I think it's almost Schmidt for Poolman, Hamonic, Schenn, and a 3rd!

 

At least these guys want to play in Van!!!!!

 

Still think Poolman is too much money but it's not a 6x6.

I am not paying so who cares. 

[Chris12345]

31 minutes ago, Chip Kelly said:

Looking like Myers and Hamonic.

 

Didn't really make any significant upgrade from last year other than maybe OEL over Edler.

 

Was hoping for a bigger piece on d.

 

Yep talent upgrade isn't big. Way more depth though.

[tas]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

People are acting like it's a 10 year deal.  There's nothing wrong with term or salary on Poolman, at all 

seriously. $2.5m will always be fair for a bottom pairing right d. the team will always have a need for a bottom pairing right d. poolman should not become worse than a bottom pairing right d in the next 4 years. 

 

where's the problem?

[Chris12345]

1 minute ago, FaninMex said:

I am not paying so who cares. 

We all cared when we saw Loui in the pressbox and the Canucks missed the playoffs again....

 

Gotta manage the cap and as fans and gossip girls we watch it closely.

[stawns]

1 minute ago, tas said:

seriously. $2.5m will always be fair for a bottom pairing right d. the team will always have a need for a bottom pairing right d. poolman should not become worse than a bottom pairing right d in the next 4 years. 

 

where's the problem?

If that's the only spot the usual suspects are able to focus their rage on, then JB hit it out of the park.  I'll bet Demko is pretty happy today

[Chris12345]

4 minutes ago, tas said:

seriously. $2.5m will always be fair for a bottom pairing right d. the team will always have a need for a bottom pairing right d. poolman should not become worse than a bottom pairing right d in the next 4 years. 

 

where's the problem?

I think people have witnessed a few contracts go sour over the years so there is valid concern based on previous signings.

 

It could go either way really time will tell. 

[stawns]

Just now, Chris12345 said:

We all cared when we saw Loui in the pressbox and the Canucks missed the playoffs again....

 

Gotta manage the cap and as fans and gossip girls we watch it closely.

And that contract had no consequence in the big picture.  Those players were always going to be filler until the core was developed and ready.  Now that they are, JB made the moves to get rid of them all.  

[stawns]

Just now, Chris12345 said:

I think people have witnessed a few contracts go sour over the years so there is valid concern based on previous signings.

 

It could go either way really time will tell. 

Not really, no.  As I said, those players were placeholders and had zero impact on the team moving forward.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, stawns said:

People are acting like it's a 10 year deal.  There's nothing wrong with term or salary on Poolman, at all 

 

2 minutes ago, tas said:

seriously. $2.5m will always be fair for a bottom pairing right d. the team will always have a need for a bottom pairing right d. poolman should not become worse than a bottom pairing right d in the next 4 years. 

 

where's the problem?

I mean in an absolutely ideal world, where the GM gets exactly what he wants and isn't competing against a dozen other teams, you'd probably prefer to be paying him $2-$2.2m'ish and only three years to minimize risk etc but I mean come on... That's awfully nitty to pick at.

 

 

[Chris12345]

Just now, stawns said:

And that contract had no consequence in the big picture.  Those players were always going to be filler until the core was developed and ready.  Now that they are, JB made the moves to get rid of them all.  

Big picture 100% correct. 7 years it doesn't matter. Would have been nice though to have a $6m player against Vegas on ice.

[Chris12345]

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

Not really, no.  As I said, those players were placeholders and had zero impact on the team moving forward.

Fair enough but where's his place the pressbox? 6 year placeholder? 

 

Anyways Poolman isn't Loui bad but it might be 1 year too long. We will see!

[JM_]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

I mean in an absolutely ideal world, where the GM gets exactly what he wants and isn't competing against a dozen other teams, you'd probably prefer to be paying him $2-$2.2m'ish and only three years to minimize risk etc but I mean come on... That's awfully nitty to pick at.

 

 

no terms, all salary after this year, 2.5 aav that could turn out to be a bargain if he can still play18-20 mins with us. 

 

I get it though, people have fatigue on Jim giving out term, if it was 3 years no one would care. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Jimmy McGill

[Maniwaki Canuck]

3 minutes ago, stawns said:

Not really, no.  As I said, those players were placeholders and had zero impact on the team moving forward.

I basically agree, but zero impact is an exaggeration.  It cost a first to make them go away.  Was it worth it?  I think so.  Was it zero?  No.

[tas]

7 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I think people have witnessed a few contracts go sour over the years so there is valid concern based on previous signings.

 

It could go either way really time will tell. 

what bad way could it go? what are people imagining as a worst case scenario?

[stawns]

1 minute ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

I basically agree, but zero impact is an exaggeration.  It cost a first to make them go away.  Was it worth it?  I think so.  Was it zero?  No.

Except they got two stars for those picks.  Players who are immediately part of the core as their window opens.  That's not a "cost", that's a hockey trade.

 

Further to that JB obviously knew that none of the players he wanted were going to be there at #9

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

I basically agree, but zero impact is an exaggeration.  It cost a first to make them go away.  Was it worth it?  I think so.  Was it zero?  No.

Garland was what cost a first.

[Chris12345]

2 minutes ago, tas said:

what bad way could it go? what are people imagining as a worst case scenario?

Worst case is he's in the pressbox with 4 other players totalling $12M+.

 

Realistically that's extreme.