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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

It also doesn't mean he will not be easy to 'get rid of'.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AV. said:

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.

Lol... it is just as lazy, naive, and irresponsible to say, definitively, that it IS crippling. :lol: You're one of the last ones on the board qualified to talk about this.

 

That's the point. A lot of the arguments, especially in this thread, have been rehearsed dribble from the same crowd of people who have little interest in discussing the overall pros/cons of a GM, but focussing on the negative ones. That is blatantly a one-sided argument.

 

 

  • Hydration 2
  • Wat 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 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:

 

 

It has absolutely NOTHING to do with pom-pom waving at all, just balance from all and that is NOT happening from some. 

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

It also doesn't mean he will not be easy to 'get rid of'.

Again, you need to have a taker for this to be true.  Even then, some need to be enticed.

 

These are fair factors to consider.

  • RoughGame 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AV. said:

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.

Given the available options, who would you have preferred they sign?  I don’t think it’s debatable that we needed an NHL player on the right side D. I’m definitely making an assumption now but I think we can also agree that we lacked defensive awareness last year. So the contract was a year longer and a half to a million more than we all think is right but what could actually be done differently?  Larson is gone, Hankanpaa was the only guy that fits the bill and he is making even more $$. No team in the NHL is without an overplayed player or 4. I guess I’m just so happy to see Eriksson gone that this looks kinda meh to me. 

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

Lol... it is just as lazy, naive, and irresponsible to say, definitively, that it IS crippling. :lol: You're one of the last ones on the board qualified to talk about this.

 

That's the point. A lot of the arguments, especially in this thread, have been rehearsed dribble from the same crowd of people who have little interest in discussing the overall pros/cons of a GM, but focussing on the negative ones. That is blatantly a one-sided argument.

 

 

You see, I love posts like these because they project what they think they're reading vs what I'm actually saying.

 

I have not, at any point, said this is crippling.  I have argued it's potential to be crippling but I'm not saying it is in this moment.  I argue it's potential because I've seen it play out quite a few times with multiple players.  There's a distinction.

 

Hope this helps.

  • RoughGame 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Again, you need to have a taker for this to be true.  Even then, some need to be enticed.

 

These are fair factors to consider.

Considering that Tampa is getting a pretty jammy treatment from other teams, it's obvious that enticement is not necessary. There is a blatant collusion going on with some GMs.

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

GMs hand out trade protection. There was no expectation from anyone. 

 

You make passive aggressive posts like this, but then whine about people not being civil in the online world. It's obvious that you enjoy trolling others on these boards, but lack the actual spine to admit it. I see this contrived superiority complex in each one of your posts. 

 

Thing is you're just as "civil" as anyone else here, yet you choose, hilariously, to take some sort of moral high road, all the while make these mealy mouth statements. 

11 words regarding the actual player/discussion.

 

The rest a personal attack.

 

Kudos.

  • Haha 1
  • RoughGame 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AV. said:

Again, you need to have a taker for this to be true.  Even then, some need to be enticed.

 

These are fair factors to consider.

Then you need to wait till,  after the Canucks try to move him, if they ever do; to say that it wasn't easy.

 

Speculation is just that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AV. said:

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

Certainly, anywhere and anytime is a bit of a stretch on my part. Let's say his contract wouldn't be that hard to move, and avoid hyperbole. 

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

The first two shouldn't have had their clauses, in my humble opinion. Their AAV was more than ample for what they brought. They were hard to move due to their age and injury history. Schmidt's was hard to move because he exercised his clause, which is his right.

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

I see you're still concentrating on the fact that I said anywhere and anytime. Keep focusing on that myopic detail. His contract is less than anyone else that you mentioned.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sergei Shirokov said:

Are Hamonic and Poolman considered a downgrade from Tanev and Stecher? 

Time will tell, that’s a tough comparison. I think Poolman and Tanev play a similar style game except Poolman is bigger and Tanev is a little more aware. (Personal opinion, curious what others think). I think Hamonic brings more to this team than Stecher but again this depends largely on if he can keep finding chemistry with Hughes or Rathbone. It’s a different team now than it was. I would say it’s pretty close and give a slight edge to Hamonic/Poolman but until we see them on the ice it’s kind of a crapshoot

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AV. said:

You see, I love posts like these because they project what they think they're reading vs what I'm actually saying.

 

I have not, at any point, said this is crippling.  I have argued it's potential to be crippling but I'm not saying it is in this moment.  I argue it's potential because I've seen it play out quite a few times with multiple players.  There's a distinction.

 

Hope this helps.

Lol. I have read your posts with little discrimination. I have agreed with you on things - sometimes completely. But mostly I'm in disagreement with your stuff, especially with how you approach things. Look no further that you've spent the bulk of your time debating in the Poolman thread, often with little relevance to the player himself, but to the GM.

 

To me, it's obvious to me that you've got a slant against the GM, so much so that it bleeds into your posts.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

11 words regarding the actual player/discussion.

 

The rest a personal attack.

 

Kudos.

And you prove my point. You lack the actual spine to address how it is that you write your posts. If you don't like the observations, that's your choice. They're still true and you'll continue to post in the passive aggressive way, and fecklessly state that your the victim of a personal attack. It's clear as day. One could set their watch to how predictably you choose to communicate with others here. 

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Amebushi said:

Given the available options, who would you have preferred they sign?  I don’t think it’s debatable that we needed an NHL player on the right side D. I’m definitely making an assumption now but I think we can also agree that we lacked defensive awareness last year. So the contract was a year longer and a half to a million more than we all think is right but what could actually be done differently?  Larson is gone, Hankanpaa was the only guy that fits the bill and he is making even more $$. No team in the NHL is without an overplayed player or 4. I guess I’m just so happy to see Eriksson gone that this looks kinda meh to me. 

This is a good question.

 

I want to start by saying that I don't mind the Poolman signing itself, I just think they gave too much term and money to make it happen.  I understand the market bidding may have pushed it there and that's where I would have hoped somebody in the war room would have said "hold on a minute".  Regardless, it didn't happen and now we're here.

 

As for alternatives, I'm not sure since it's possible, if not evident, that the Canucks wanted a certain profile on the right side (in this case, somebody steady and defensive-minded).  Nevertheless, any combination of Vatanen, Carrick, Djoos could have been cheaper options to consider and I don' think there would be massive gap in quality between them and Poolman.  There might have been other options for trades, also, although, I'm not comfortable speculating at this time.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

Considering that Tampa is getting a pretty jammy treatment from other teams, it's obvious that enticement is not necessary. There is a blatant collusion going on with some GMs.

Ok, well, let's hope Benning has a network of people ready to help him, if it gets to that point.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sergei Shirokov said:

Are Hamonic and Poolman considered a downgrade from Tanev and Stecher? 

I don't think so. Tanev has been good in Calgary, and owns a very sizeable hockey mind, but his body isn't a durable one. Hamonic, while injured before, has shown far more endurance over the years. Both are intelligent defenders. Hamonic is a far more physical defenseman.

 

Poolman has size over Stecher, who while having a ton of heart, was somewhat overwhelmed at time by larger forwards. One instance comes to mind. When playing Calgary, Stecher had to defend against Milan Lucic. With one hand, Lucic essentially swept Stecher aside and made it impossible for the young defenseman to stop him from scoring on Markstrom. Stech was literally clinging onto the forward, until the dirty SOB clipped Stech in the face with a stick. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't called at all. 

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

Ok, well, let's hope Benning has a network of people ready to help him, if it gets to that point.

Why else would Schmidt get a 3rd after having an OBVIOUSLY bad year from Winnipeg? Winnipeg could've offered a 4th and made a statement. (This is in reference to the fact that Benning got a 3rd for Schmidt originally)

Edited by Dazzle
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...