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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

8 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.

There's also $2.4m of dead money for 22-23. That has impact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris12345 said:

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

 

Realistically that's extreme.

what 4 other players are you imagining?

 

here's a way to look at it: if troy stecher was 4" taller and 20lbs heavier, do you think he'd be worth $2.5m x 4?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris12345 said:

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

 

Realistically that's extreme.

The way things have been going in Phoenix, LE may be on their top 2 lines this year. 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tas said:

what 4 other players are you imagining?

 

here's a way to look at it: if troy stecher was 4" taller and 20lbs heavier, do you think he'd be worth $2.5m x 4?

I get you but ifs are terrible. If I looked like Brad Pitt I'd be a movie star.

 

I have no clue which other 4 players.

 

Just based on previous years I think some fans are cautious about term with older players- whether right or wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris12345 said:

I get you but ifs are terrible. If I looked like Brad Pitt I'd be a movie star.

 

I have no clue which other 4 players.

 

Just based on previous years I think some fans are cautious about term with older players- whether right or wrong.

alright, well, I guess I'm not content just accepting that people can't evaluate different situations on their own merit rather than trying to equate them to completely unrelated and dissimilar events from the past. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stawns said:

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

 

2 minutes ago, stawns said:

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

 

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

Garland was what cost a first.

Agree with all that.  It was a hockey trade and Garland was the bigger asset and therefore represents most of the value of the first we gave up.  Elsewhere on this board I argued that OEL's term and our "cap dumps" were partial equivalents in this deal.  So yeah, you're right.  But would the deal have gone down if we take Garland and our first out of it?  Then it would be OEL for our second, a seventh and the cap dumps.  I don't think so.  In that limited way, then, the first unlocked the whole deal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chris12345 said:

I get you but ifs are terrible. If I looked like Brad Pitt I'd be a movie star.

 

I have no clue which other 4 players.

 

Just based on previous years I think some fans are cautious about term with older players- whether right or wrong.

Do they have to project negative results and preemptively complain about imagined outcomes though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canucks have to be careful who they are giving term too, or we will end up in a similiar position as before. Demko and Garland are the only members of the core moving forward locked in long term. Maybe OEL too depending on longevity.   

 

Right now the only players signed for the 2023-24 season are

 

Myers 6 mil       will be over 30 years old    

OEL 7.26 mil      will be over 30 years old

Pearson 3.25 mil    will be over 30 years old

Garland 4.95 mil    

Poolman 2.5 mil    will be over 30 years old

Demko 5 mil 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

 

 

Agree with all that.  It was a hockey trade and Garland was the bigger asset and therefore represents most of the value of the first we gave up.  Elsewhere on this board I argued that OEL's term and our "cap dumps" were partial equivalents in this deal.  So yeah, you're right.  But would the deal have gone down if we take Garland and our first out of it?  Then it would be OEL for our second, a seventh and the cap dumps.  I don't think so.  In that limited way, then, the first unlocked the whole deal. 

I don't think JB would have done the deal if he didn't think OEL wasn't still a top 15-20 damn in the league.  People are acting like he was taking on a pure cap dump, when, really, OEL is still a star calibre player

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Do they have to project negative results and preemptively complain about imagined outcomes though.

Optimistic vs pessimistic 

I like to pretend I am in the middle which is ridiculous.

 

I know 1 thing....the team will be entertaining as heck!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Chris12345 said:

Optimistic vs pessimistic 

I like to pretend I am in the middle which is ridiculous.

 

I know 1 thing....the team will be entertaining as heck!

I'm very much looking forward to the upcoming season. The competition at camp will be interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bure_Pavel said:

Canucks have to be careful who they are giving term too, or we will end up in a similiar position as before. Demko and Garland are the only members of the core moving forward locked in long term. Maybe OEL too depending on longevity.   

 

Right now the only players signed for the 2023-24 season are

 

Myers 6 mil       will be over 30 years old    

OEL 7.26 mil      will be over 30 years old

Pearson 3.25 mil    will be over 30 years old

Garland 4.95 mil    

Poolman 2.5 mil    will be over 30 years old

Demko 5 mil 

The next couple of years will be very interesting to see. Depending on how the RFAs are signed, it's quite likely that we see a few cap casualties along the way. We will definitely be losing Motte next year if he plays as well as I think he can over a healthy season, with Miller the following year and Pearson the year after. With that said, I feel as if I'm one of a few people who actually likes the Poolman contract, so time will tell.

Edited by therodigy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although on the face of it the deal looks too long and too much money, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since it appears it was Shaw who targeted him. Shaw has done an impressive job with the D for the Blues and BJs, he may see Poolman as a particularly good fit for his system and having untapped potential. 

Edited by AK_19
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't think JB would have done the deal if he didn't think OEL wasn't still a top 15-20 damn in the league.  People are acting like he was taking on a pure cap dump, when, really, OEL is still a star calibre player

 

Looking at his past few years, OEL is still a 40pt D man.  Hopefully this means we can have 2 potent PP units.  His point totals will probably drop as I suspect QH will be on PP1.

 

Like QH, he needs to be paired up with a more defensive D man to bring out the best of his ability while covering for his shortcomings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly think some people are looking at this the wrong way....

 

Essentially, Schmidt has been replaced by OEL. Both 30 years old, OEL makes a bit more money after the partial retention by the 'Yotes. Edler, at 35 years old has been replaced by Poolman and Schenn, for slightly less money.

 

In addition, we acquired a forward who will be top 9 at absolute worst, but more likely slots in as a top 6. (We also acquired a 3C, which cost us nothing in assets.....)

 

Yes, this allt cost us a 13th overall pick which certainly stings, but it also allowed us to move some bad contracts and (hopefully) free up enough money to re-sign two franchise RFAs.....

 

Concerns about what some of these deals will look like down the road is valid, but nobody actually knows what will happen....The bottom line, IMHO, is that this team looks significantly better than it did a year ago and I believe that JB and co examined the risk / reward aspect of these moves and arrived at the conclusion that it was the right thing to do.

 

As did I....

Edited by RUPERTKBD
  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think we have to try and answer why he received such a large raise? Hearing that multiple teams were trying to land him says that he's a great risk-reward signing. Since many teams were calling, we overpaid. But, what's the worse that can happen, he doesn't play very well and we waive or trade him? We got him for nothing, so getting anything back or simply clearing his space seems like a very good low risk situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AK_19 said:

Although on the face of it the deal looks too long and too much money, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt since it appears it was Shaw who targeted him. Shaw has done an impressive job with the D for the Blues and BJs, he may see Poolman as a particularly good fit for his system and having untapped potential. 

I think that's just it - on its face it's a strange deal in terms of $ and term since Poolman's not at all a household name.

 

Having watched a few Jets games, I have seen Poolman play and the "good" news is that he's not super "noticeable" in game.  He plays a steady, safe, defensive style and skates pretty well.  He's a fairly big guy so he can handle larger opposing forwards and has more strength to win board battles.  He needs to be paired with a D who can skate the puck out or connect passes with the forwards more effectively, but overall he's a pretty run of the mill defensive RHD who has played relatively effective top-6 D minutes over the 100+ NHL games he's been in.  I'm not expecting much more than that, and while $2.5M per year for 4-years does seem a bit much for a bit long, considering other top-6 D signings yesterday, his contract wasn't over the top. 

 

Would I have preferred Hakanpaa?  Yes, but who knows what he would have wanted from the Canucks or if he was even interested in coming here.  Considering Hakanpaa signed with DAL at $1.5M per year for 3-years, there are various factors that might contribute to him agreeing to less money (e.g. potential opportunity to play with Heiskanen).

 

Personally I think the "fancy stats" are helpful with evaluating players but there are also examples of players who have bad fancy stats who end up improving due to different usage or even just different linemates/systems.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jester13 said:

I really think we have to try and answer why he received such a large raise? Hearing that multiple teams were trying to land him says that he's a great risk-reward signing. Since many teams were calling, we overpaid. But, what's the worse that can happen, he doesn't play very well and we waive or trade him? We got him for nothing, so getting anything back or simply clearing his space seems like a very good low risk situation. 

He's had some setbacks. Shoulder surgery coming out of University, took a puck to the face at the end of the 2020 season, and then got Covid.

 

He could very well become a bargain for us.

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...