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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, TmanVan said:

Lol. Great input, thanks. 

 

The point is Benning more than anyone should know that overpaying bottom pairing defencemen and 4th line depth guys usually ends up being a bad move. 

 

What would you rather of had a few years ago, and what is more impactful for a team:  Panarin as a free agent, while letting Macewan, Motte, etc do there thing on the 4th line for cheap or: No Panarin, and overpayed 4th line guys, who take up money for true impact signings. 

 

Sure, Poolman may be fine and play 4 full years for the Canucks. But at the same time that means he's.peobanly going to take the spot of someone like Jet Woo who could grow into the same role or better, for half the price. 

Woo will likely replace Hamonic.  If he's ready sooner, making room has never been an issue.

Edited by King Heffy
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

That's certainly how Jim's public statements go, and I don't doubt that he believes it.  But it can't have been the party line in negotiations with Arizona or we'd have ended up paying quite a lot more.  It wouldn't surprise me if this part is the difference between last year's failure to reach a deal and this year's success. 

This will age badly after OEL's Norris acceptance speech next summer

  • Like 1
  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TmanVan said:

2.5.... meh not that bad! 3 million each for Beagle and Roussel? Meh not that bad!! 

 

It's definitely easy to see how this signing could go horribly wrong in a fee years for sure.

Lmaoo horribly wrong? That’s more than a little bit dramatic. It’s 2.5 mil, this contract is being blown way out of proportion. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Provost said:

That is way too simplistic.

 

We paid a huge premium to get out from under bad contracts handed out to below replacement level players.  Woohoo!  Painful but necessary.

 

With all the context and history, it is absolutely fair for some folks to worry “here we go again” seeing  a bunch of term handed out to a guy that has a less than 1.5 seasons worth of NHL games at 28 years old as mostly a 3rd pairing guy with poor stats.

 

Other context is that Stecher beats this guy by every metric offensively and defensively with t he only exception being the metric of height.  How was he not worth a contract offer at half the salary of Poolman and half the term?

 

Folks can question moves, this is literally a discussion forum not a cheerleading only one.  Maybe the minority of posters who decry otherwise could maybe lobby for a sub forum that only allows gushing about the team.

Simple answer: The Canucks don't need any more smallish defenders, especially at #5 and #6.

 

People can absolutely question moves, (that's what these boards are for) and people can absolutely disagree with their "questions" as I am doing.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

Lmaoo horribly wrong? That’s more than a little bit dramatic. It’s 2.5 mil, this contract is being blown way out of proportion. 

We wouldn't of had to trade a first round pick away if Benning was more savvy with his signings. I would say that qualifies as going horribly wrong.

 

It's about the big picture my friend, not just Poolman individually. 

  • Like 1
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we stop talking about the minor overpayment and discuss how this guy fits on the team. I know nothing about him. Can anyone take this discussion to a better direction? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Googlie said:

This will age badly after OEL's Norris acceptance speech next summer

I'll be thrilled if that happens.  And for the record, I think OEL is going to be good for us.  My point was just that there had to be some pretty tough negotiations to get down to the price we paid for him, and that some of the negatives people raise about OEL were likely to have been a part of them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Provost said:

That is way too simplistic.

 

We paid a huge premium to get out from under bad contracts handed out to below replacement level players.  Woohoo!  Painful but necessary.

 

With all the context and history, it is absolutely fair for some folks to worry “here we go again” seeing  a bunch of term handed out to a guy that has a less than 1.5 seasons worth of NHL games at 28 years old as mostly a 3rd pairing guy with poor stats.

 

Other context is that Stecher beats this guy by every metric offensively and defensively with t he only exception being the metric of height.  How was he not worth a contract offer at half the salary of Poolman and half the term?

 

Folks can question moves, this is literally a discussion forum not a cheerleading only one.  Maybe the minority of posters who decry otherwise could maybe lobby for a sub forum that only allows gushing about the team.

Montreal’s ample sized D basically carried them to the cup file.  Size doesn’t matter is a myth

  • Hydration 3
  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 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.

Partially agree.

I was not too worried about the cap as I was watching our core build. I was not expecting wins. I figured when they were ready to take that step that Benning would trade it. Other GM's have done it and there are always teams looking to reach the floor etc... I think bubble playoffs showed we were close and got everyone (management) to want to speed up the process.

Cap was never a problem. Media and fans made it a problem. It is a lesson that many in this fanbase will never learn. In business there are always solutions.

 

The people that complain as much as Squam and some others cannot be fans. There is a difference between critiquing and constantly finding something negative to always say, Look at the OEL trade thread once a complaint has run its course and they cannot proceed they find something else until it becomes a giant headache.

Edited by FaninMex
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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.

Gossip Girl here, your one and only source into the scandalous lives of Manhattan's Vancouver's elite"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

How about we stop talking about the minor overpayment and discuss how this guy fits on the team. I know nothing about him. Can anyone take this discussion to a better direction? 

Training camp will be the indicator of that, I'm thinking. The additions of OEL, Schenn, and Poolman will obviously have an effect on the pairings going forward. Shaw and Green have probably already started looking at the personnel and have probably envisioned the pairings that make sense to them. How that plays out in reality will have to do with how has chemistry with who. 

 

I'm more than happy to look past the financials. You'd think this was an accounting forum sometimes based on how much some folks get caught up in cost. 

  • Haha 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

   I predict that Poolman will play better than expected at which point the whiners will switch up and give all the credit for the signing to Shaw.

 

Shaw is the one who wanted Poolman. Benning went out and got him.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, flat land fish said:

Montreal’s ample sized D basically carried them to the cup file.  Size doesn’t matter is a myth

And it's not like Tampa didn't also rely on size on defense as well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

That's certainly how Jim's public statements go, and I don't doubt that he believes it.  But it can't have been the party line in negotiations with Arizona or we'd have ended up paying quite a lot more.  It wouldn't surprise me if this part is the difference between last year's failure to reach a deal and this year's success. 

It was a cap dump for AZ, no doubt about that and, like Van and Kesler, they had only 1-2 options.  JB made out like a bandit in that deal

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RWMc1 said:

 

   I predict that Poolman will play better than expected at which point the whiners will switch up and give all the credit for the signing to Shaw.

 

Shaw is the one who wanted Poolman. Benning went out and got him.

When a coach with Shaw's credentials and experience makes a suggestion, it's best to listen, I'm thinking. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TmanVan said:

We wouldn't of had to trade a first round pick away if Benning was more savvy with his signings. I would say that qualifies as going horribly wrong.

 

It's about the big picture my friend, not just Poolman individually. 

This thread is about the Poolman signing, no? I understand Benning has had plenty of blunders, no one is denying that, but this isn’t a Loui 6 x 6 we’re talking about here. It’s a 2.5 million dollar contract. This isn’t a signing that’s gonna put us in a hole, and we’re not gonna have to potentially pay a 1st to get rid of it. I think most people are just tired of the negative always being the first thought. What if Tucker ends up being a bargain down the road? Well worth his contract? I just don’t get why that can’t be the perspective of lots of folks around here. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, grandmaster said:

How about we stop talking about the minor overpayment and discuss how this guy fits on the team. I know nothing about him. Can anyone take this discussion to a better direction? 

Good reliable bottom pairing guy.  Very disciplined but will still use his size.  Should be an excellent partner for either OJ or Rathbone.

  • Thanks 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...