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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You think it's valid to compare the contract of the greatest goal scorer of all time to a depth player that most casual fans have never even heard of?

 

Resumes are a tad different.

I see you fail at comprehension as well. It’s ok. 

  • Cheers 2
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

no, that is not what I'm looking for. I enjoy a good argument. I don't need anyone to 'fall in line' at all. I like it when people have different takes, I usually learn something. 

 

What I find tiresome is the near instantaneous firehose of negativity from some corners about anything Benning does. You can set your watch to it. But the worst part is you learn nothing from it, its just spew.

Bingo!! Unfortunately no matter what you say and no matter how logical / correct it is, it gets twisted / justified as something else. 

  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pearson, dick and podz flanked by oel and poolie. Sounds like that could be our our matchup lin which could be great. As a 5 man unit there’s potential to tread water and it frees up 2 leathal scoring lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Amebushi said:

I read the last three pages and I still know almost nothing about Tucker Poolman. A month ago we were all talking about the need for a bigger right handed D man with strong defensive tendencies. I have personally suggested several times that an Adam Larsson type would fit great. He got signed to Seattle along with Oleksiak before we could even chat with them. I really don’t know much about Poolman except that he is over 200 pounds, somewhere between 6’2 and 6’4 and whoever he plays with seems to have better numbers than without him. Time will tell if he is a bottom pair guy or if he can move up a bit. Someone has to play on the PK and I would prefer if it wasn’t Hughes. Argue the term, argue the money that’s what we are all here for apparently...oh wait I come here to talk about hockey too. Money and cap are quite interesting and play a huge role on the team, but Hamonic and Poolman fill a real need on this team. I would have preferred other players or a smaller contract for Poolman but I am glad he is here. At least management went out and got something done. 

its a really interesting bet Jim and crew have made on this guy. 

 

Are we better off swapping Nate's salary for two stay at home right side d? certainly seems plausible given the puck movers on the left side. 

 

I was listening to John Garrett about the trades, and his take was everyone has a better defined role on this team now compared to last year, which makes a lot of sense. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

its a really interesting bet Jim and crew have made on this guy. 

 

Are we better off swapping Nate's salary for two stay at home right side d? certainly seems plausible given the puck movers on the left side. 

 

I was listening to John Garrett about the trades, and his take was everyone has a better defined role on this team now compared to last year, which makes a lot of sense. 

Yes!  This is exactly what I mean. Nate is a player I was excited to have here and he did not work out well at all. I expect him to succeed in Winnipeg because the role he fills is needed there. He is a good skater and a puck mover. He needs time on the PP to do what he does best. We have Hughes that is younger and already better at that role so he got fewer prime offensive minutes. 
 

What we did sorely lack was right handed D, and PK, defensive minded guys in general. This is why imho that despite a talented group of guys we were a tire fire in our own end. Expecting Myers to cover for a pinching partner is a bad plan. By bringing back Hamonic and signing Poolman a lot of that has been addressed. Schenn is kind of icing on the cake. None of these three are going to light up the scoreboard or hopefully even get noticed (if Poolman can play 20 minutes and we don’t notice him then Benning is a genius ) it will be a big improvement. Haters will hate and there are absolutely better players woth smaller contracts. Poolman is a Canuck now so I will cheer and hope it works out better than any of us expected. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Amebushi said:

Yes!  This is exactly what I mean. Nate is a player I was excited to have here and he did not work out well at all. I expect him to succeed in Winnipeg because the role he fills is needed there. He is a good skater and a puck mover. He needs time on the PP to do what he does best. We have Hughes that is younger and already better at that role so he got fewer prime offensive minutes. 
 

What we did sorely lack was right handed D, and PK, defensive minded guys in general. This is why imho that despite a talented group of guys we were a tire fire in our own end. Expecting Myers to cover for a pinching partner is a bad plan. By bringing back Hamonic and signing Poolman a lot of that has been addressed. Schenn is kind of icing on the cake. None of these three are going to light up the scoreboard or hopefully even get noticed (if Poolman can play 20 minutes and we don’t notice him then Benning is a genius ) it will be a big improvement. Haters will hate and there are absolutely better players woth smaller contracts. Poolman is a Canuck now so I will cheer and hope it works out better than any of us expected. 

the one thing I wish we could have done in this draft is get a potential top pairing RHD into the system.... but that just wasn't in the cards, even if we had kept the pick. So maybe next draft.

 

In the meantime, we get to see if this approach of left side puck movers, right side lunch bucket guys will work out. Its certainly not the worst idea I've seen. 

 

There really isn't a long term bet on the right side either - I do think we can get two more years out of Myers. His last year is very movable, he has a 5 mil signing bonus and 1 mil actual salary. Very tradable. Hamonic is only a two year deal.

 

Poolman at 4 years is a longer term bet, but at 2.5 not really that big of a risk imo if he falls off a cliff for some reason. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At absolute worst, Poolman is a maximum of $1.5 mill of dead space.

I mean he breaks a leg, and never plays another game or even practices for the team. Scratch that, that would be ok, as he'd go on ltir.

So instead he plays a few games and stinks up the place so badly people start yelling" Dress Baumer".

 

Still $1.5 mill in dead space.

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

This "debate" seems pretty easy for me to parse:

 

Did we pay more for Poolman? Yes.

 

Why? Because we weren't the only team interested in his services and he was a free agent.

 

Were there other RHD options for the same cap or cheaper on the market? Maybe Hakanpaa, but maybe he didnt want to sign with us.

 

Will Poolman's cap cripple us? No.

 

Could his cap look good long-term? Yes. 

 

In the end, did we fill a need of a defensively-minded RHD? Sure did. 

 

Am I missing something? Oh, yeah, Benning is both the worst and best GM in the league. 

 

I think that covers everything in this thread hitherto.

Very few seem to mention that he has zero trade clauses. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

But the worst part is you learn nothing from it, its just spew.

On the contrary - despite all the garbage in this thread, it's allowed for a lot of back-and-forth and discussion regarding the merits of the signing and player. Anyone following this thread has probably lost a ton of brain cells but has probably also learned a lot about a player they knew little about beforehand.

 

Which wouldn't happen if it was just full out pom-pom waving.

 

Just would look more like a discussion than a poop-throwing contest if people were able to be more civil, but that's a tough ask for the online world these days:

 

On 7/28/2021 at 3:43 PM, oldnews said:

wouldn't have been right in Vancouver if there weren't a single player for the polarizing whinge crew to dwell and derp upon.

On 7/28/2021 at 3:46 PM, Dr. Crossbar said:

36 pages and counting. Looks like whinge crew found their whipping boy.

On 7/28/2021 at 3:56 PM, PhillipBlunt said:

Certain folks are conditioned to be bitter about such things. They'll take their cues from idiots on Twitter who wear their bias as a badge of honor. Please don't define the entire fanbase based on the embittered few. 

On 7/28/2021 at 4:19 PM, RWMc1 said:

Blatant lie. If you were willing to reserve judgment, you wouldn't have prefaced your post with that snivelling whine.

On 7/28/2021 at 5:26 PM, RWMc1 said:

How cute. The whiners are up voting each other.

 

Media clowns supporting one another?

On 7/28/2021 at 5:44 PM, RWMc1 said:

You are a liar and a hypocrite..

 

I'm guessing that you saw the term and amount of the contract went to a basic stats page and based your opinion on that. That seems like what all the other whiners in this thread did as well.

 

I don't expect an honest answer from you as seem unable to comprehend points being made.

On 7/28/2021 at 11:19 PM, canuck73_3 said:

Maybe try dropping this garbage, and you’ll be received better, no? 

On 7/29/2021 at 8:55 AM, RWMc1 said:

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

On 7/29/2021 at 9:53 AM, tas said:

you would make a miserable teammate. 

On 7/29/2021 at 10:02 AM, RWMc1 said:

The usual suspects crying as always.

Cry Baby GIFs | Tenor

 

  • Cheers 1
  • RoughGame 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Very few seem to mention that he has zero trade clauses. 

Why would anyone expect a 2.5M 28 YO depth D-man with 120 NHL games to have any trade protection? It goes without saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

This "debate" seems pretty easy for me to parse:

 

Did we pay more for Poolman? Yes.

 

Why? Because we weren't the only team interested in his services and he was a free agent.

 

Were there other RHD options for the same cap or cheaper on the market? Maybe Hakanpaa, but maybe he didnt want to sign with us.

 

Will Poolman's cap cripple us? No.

 

Could his cap look good long-term? Yes. 

 

In the end, did we fill a need of a defensively-minded RHD? Sure did. 

 

Am I missing something? Oh, yeah, Benning is both the worst and best GM in the league. 

 

I think that covers everything in this thread hitherto.

You see, the "why" doesn't make it good justification, though, especially since we've been burned with giving term and money to these types of players in the past under this management.  Hard to say one is "learning from his mistakes" as is often suggested here when they go out and give similar contracts out to these same players.

 

As for if his contract will be crippling, it really depends on the makeup of the team going forward and who management decides to bring in or re-sign.  It is impossible, in addition to being lazy, naïve, and irresponsible, to say, definitively, it won't be crippling.  With that said, no forms of movement protection + the cap (potentially) going up will significantly reduce the dangers of this contract.  At this time, those are just variables, however.

  • RoughGame 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

On the contrary - despite all the garbage in this thread, it's allowed for a lot of back-and-forth and discussion regarding the merits of the signing and player. Anyone following this thread has probably lost a ton of brain cells but has probably also learned a lot about a player they knew little about beforehand.

 

Which wouldn't happen if it was just full out pom-pom waving.

 

Just would look more like a discussion than a poop-throwing contest if people were able to be more civil, but that's a tough ask for the online world these days:

 

 

that's true, but I've never wanted pom pom waiving. Well, not from a bunch of dudes anyway. 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Poolman has zero trade clauses, so moving him wouldn't be difficult, should a fit not happen. 

This is true, but this also implies that 31 teams might hold equal interest to even bring in this player.

 

Beagle and Roussel had small lists.  Schmidt had a 5 team list.  Yet, there was trouble moving all three, of course for different reasons, but trouble nevertheless.

 

Simply saying that 2.5M is small and the lack of movement protections doesn't restrict us =/= being able to get rid of him easily.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Poolman has zero trade clauses, so moving him wouldn't be difficult, should a fit not happen. 

thats true, we did pay for a bit of flexibility there. 

 

The more I think about it, maybe they see him as a dependable, un-flashy right side guy they can rely on in the event there's other movement. E.g., if we trade Myers, you'd want to make sure we don't gut the PK before a new guy gets acclimated. 

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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