Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

-Vintage Canuck-
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recommended

Posted by Roger Neilsons Towel,

In thread warning from the mods. There have been lots of reports generated from this thread for name calling. Both sides, for and against, are guilty of this. Let’s dial down the insults and discuss the team in a civil manner. We should all be able to disagree without having to resort to name calling. Let’s try to do this ourselves without having to get warning points involved. Thanks everybody. Cheers

In thread warning from the mods

Recommended by Roger Neilsons Towel

  • Vintage
  • Huggy Bear
  • Upvote
  • Cheers
  • Thanks
  • Like

19 reactions

Go to this post
Provost Canucks Franchise Player

Provost

Posted
Posted
18 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

Shea Weber… Tucker Poolman… same same.  Nothing to distinguish between them.

 

Excellent point!!

  • Wat 2
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
stawns Canucks Hall-of-Famer

stawns

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

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. 

After the last week, that's the last straw for them to grasp at.  Their little world has come crumbling down around them and they're scrambling for anything they can

  • Cheers 3
  • Wat 3
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maniwaki Canuck Canucks Third-Line

Maniwaki Canuck

Posted
Posted
2 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 suggestion, and this is what I've got:  He's mobile, pretty big but not super-physical, positionally aware, does some shot blocking, and is defense-first maybe with some as yet untapped offensive upside because of his skating.  Tanev-lite is how some put it.  So he looks like a bottom-pair complement to Rathbone/Juolevi but moving him up to play with Hughes might be asking him to cover for too much.  He was pretty solid on Winnipeg's 3rd pairing and was bumped up to play with Morrissey, which didn't work out as well.  I didn't watch them enough to get a read on whether that was on Morrissey or him, but this could be a preview of what would happen with him and Hughes.  In any case, stabilizing Hughes is looking like Hamonic's role.  But none of Juolevi, Rathbone or OEL are exactly rovers, and I could see him getting time with all of them to varying degrees, primarily as a defensive support to their offensive instincts. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillipBlunt Canucks Hall-of-Famer

PhillipBlunt

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

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. 

And his contract comes with zero trade clauses. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sell.the.team Abbotsford Regular

Sell.the.team

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 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.

What are you on about?  Why do these boards have to be so polarizing.  If Poolman is good I dont see why people won't just admit they were wrong and give credit where it is due: to JB, the player, Shaw, Green, management...etc.  I have been wrong about tons of things before.  I was not a big fan of the Miller trade and could not have been more wrong in my life.... Not looking for some reason to diminish JB for that shrewd move just to slag him.... 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
King Heffy Canucks Hall-of-Famer

King Heffy

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, 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.

This really minimizes the risk of a poor fit, such as what happened with Schmidt.  I'd rather have a solid guy who fits our system instead of a slightly better player who doesn't.

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FaninMex Canucks Regular

FaninMex

Posted
Posted
25 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? 

Highlights I saw and read was that he was mostly on the 3rd pairing with Stanley in the playoffs. I heard he played with Morrisey in the regular season. Some were saying that he liked to skate the puck in a bit so I think OJ would be a better pair for him than Rathbone. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhillipBlunt Canucks Hall-of-Famer

PhillipBlunt

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

Good suggestion, and this is what I've got:  He's mobile, pretty big but not super-physical, positionally aware, does some shot blocking, and is defense-first maybe with some as yet untapped offensive upside because of his skating.  Tanev-lite is how some put it.  So he looks like a bottom-pair complement to Rathbone/Juolevi but moving him up to play with Hughes might be asking him to cover for too much.  He was pretty solid on Winnipeg's 3rd pairing and was bumped up to play with Morrissey, which didn't work out as well.  I didn't watch them enough to get a read on whether that was on Morrissey or him, but this could be a preview of what would happen with him and Hughes.  In any case, stabilizing Hughes is looking like Hamonic's role.  But none of Juolevi, Rathbone or OEL are exactly rovers, and I could see him getting time with all of them to varying degrees, primarily as a defensive support to their offensive instincts. 

Some said that Morrisey fared worse away from Poolman than he did paired with him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FaninMex Canucks Regular

FaninMex

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Some said that Morrisey fared worse away from Poolman than he did paired with him. 

I went back to some of the highlights of the playoffs and he was third line. I posted a link to the sportsnet interview of someone from the Jet's org. He said that during the regular season a number of people were surprised when Poolman played his way onto the line with Morrisey.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TmanVan Abbotsford Star

TmanVan

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

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. 

It depends on how you look at it I guess. Most people don't expect Poolman to ever be a top 4 defenceman. So with that said, is 2.5 million ever considered value for a #6 guy on your team? 

 

Back to the point of if this guy is just a depth 6th/7th defenceman, why wouldn't you just reserve that space for an up and coming defenceman who is only going to cost you 900 grand. You all of a sudden have an extra 1.6 million that you could use to throw at a real impact signing. 

 

Anyways, I really do hope Poolman can prove us wrong, it just might be hard to do for 4 full years. 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maniwaki Canuck Canucks Third-Line

Maniwaki Canuck

Posted
Posted
Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Some said that Morrisey fared worse away from Poolman than he did paired with him. 

Yeah, I've seen that too and it bodes well for us.  Morrissey can be an even bigger river boat gambler than Quinn.  Even Tanev would struggle sometimes to cover for that guy.  So I'm thinking Poolman was a good shot at the kind of player we need to support our LD. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...