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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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. 

You can play amateur e-psychologist all you want but this is a Canucks discussion board and I'm here to discuss the Canucks. That's all.

 

No idea what part of this:

 

27 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

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.

Warranted this:

 

20 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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. 

But you do you.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

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.

Mhmm, not quite.

 

The Canucks didn't have to move Schmidt.  There was mutual interest from the player and team to move on, but it's not like he was threatening to sit out nor not report.  With this in mind, Canucks had a bit of leverage to command a certain price.  In this case, they were happy to recoup what they paid and maybe they would've held on to him if Winnipeg tried low-balling.

 

At the same time, Winnipeg obviously wanted to improve it's defence.  They had no trouble paying two 2nds for Dillon.  I don't think they would have suddenly decided to cheap out on Schmidt.  We have even more reason to believe this as Winnipeg tried hard to get him from VGK just last year (Schmidt wouldn't waive at that time).

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

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

You can play amateur e-psychologist all you want but this is a Canucks discussion board and I'm here to discuss the Canucks. That's all.

Well, there you go. More passive aggressive behavior. Plain as day.

 

I often have discourse with people I don't agree with on these boards. It usually remains civil, and sometimes I actually learn from the other poster something I didn't know or understand prior to the discussion.

1 minute ago, kanucks25 said:

No idea what part of this:

 

Warranted this:

 

But you do you.

Of course you have no idea. The complete lack of humility prevents that. 

  • Cheers 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

You can play amateur e-psychologist all you want but this is a Canucks discussion board and I'm here to discuss the Canucks. That's all.

You 100% are not!!! The day you want to have a balanced, unbiased, constructive discussion, i'm sure people would be happy to, until then, you will get the responses you get! Period!! 

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

9 minutes ago, AV. said:

Mhmm, not quite.

 

The Canucks didn't have to move Schmidt.  There was mutual interest from the player and team to move on, but it's not like he was threatening to sit out nor not report.  With this in mind, Canucks had a bit of leverage to command a certain price.  In this case, they were happy to recoup what they paid and maybe they would've held on to him if Winnipeg tried low-balling.

 

At the same time, Winnipeg obviously wanted to improve it's defence.  They had no trouble paying two 2nds for Dillon.  I don't think they would have suddenly decided to cheap out on Schmidt.  We have even more reason to believe this as Winnipeg tried hard to get him from VGK just last year (Schmidt wouldn't waive at that time).

This is most likely to be false. Benning had a cap problem. Given that Garland had been signed, having Schmidt was not necessarily the wisest decision. Other GMs knew this and COULD HAVE asked for a king's ransom. The Canucks still had to sign Petterson, Hughes, and Dickinson (Juolevi too). It wouldn't have been wise for the GM to pigeon hole himself with the space. This arguably shows that Benning has positioned himself for future moves (moves that we saw recently, for example), as well as any potential risks of offersheets.

 

Instead, the Canucks passed on the savings they got from the LV deal to Winnipeg, which arguably could be seen as a loss at the same time - Canucks only got a year of Schmidt for free. But at least WIN's GM didn't want to embarrass Benning. Yet this 'saving face' policy is applicable the other GMs around the league as well. Chicago and Fleury, for instance. LV NEEDED that cap space.

 

I'm not saying that GMs are doing favours that would screw themselves selflessly; there has to be a mutual benefit to it. Often it is to get good players at huge discounts. Some GMs don't get much respect though around the league - one of those was our past GM Gillis, but arguably GMs who had to bend themselves over to clear cap spaces (NYI/PHI, for example - Toronto too.)

 

Cap space is a luxury. And teams that had it COULD have screwed teams over, yet that is not always the case.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Westcoastcanucks777 said:

There’s Soo much anticipation for this dude I think he will wear the A!

I can envision some people saying that as management's decision to 'justify' the signing. :P

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Vanisleryan said:

Guy hasn’t played a game for us yet and people already talking about whether he will be easy to move. 

Being one of the people who brought it up, I'll explain my rationale. 

 

I have no issue with the Poolman signing. Initially I was wondering who this guy was and why he was getting 4 years to Hamonic's 2 years. 

 

Anyways, I brought up the lack of clauses to display how the signing isn't as binding to the same degree as previous ones were. Not as a footnote to moving the player out sooner than later. I wish Poolman nothing but success here.

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

3 minutes ago, IRR said:

You 100% are not!!! The day you want to have a balanced, unbiased, constructive discussion, i'm sure people would be happy to, until then, you will get the responses you get! Period!! 

This was my original post in this thread:

 

On 7/28/2021 at 3:28 PM, kanucks25 said:

Not sure why Benning is so in love with giving depth players term in free agency but it is what it is.

 

Don't love this deal but willing to reserve judgement. If he and Rathbone can find chemistry on the 3rd pair it'll look good.

You tell me. Does the above warrant the below?

 

36 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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

26 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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. 

Elmo Shrug GIFs | Tenor

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

This was my original post in this thread:

 

You tell me. Does the above warrant the below?

 

Elmo Shrug GIFs | Tenor

 

 

Because it's not just about the one post...there's many others and condradictions left, right and center, plus an overall neg approach. Look, i'm trying to approach things / people differently and this is just feedback, nothing less, nothing more. There's a reason you're getting these reactions. I'm taking time to reflect / change my approach and i suggest you may want to think about it as well. 

Edited by IRR
  • Cheers 2
  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IRR said:

Because it's not just about the one post...there's many others and condradictions left, right and center, plus an overall neg approach. Look, i'm trying to approach things / people differently and this is just feedback, nothing less, nothing more. There's a reason you're getting these reactions. I'm taking time to reflect / change my approach and i suggest you may want to think about it as well. 

I have no problem with the way people react to my posts here.

 

I know what to expect, I have no problem with it. It's a discussion board for a sports team, it's not that serious, I don't feel victimized.

 

The thing with a lot of people here is that if you disagree with them, it's not that you have a different opinion (which ought to be okay - shocker, I know), it's that you're a negative troll. But that's society these days, I guess.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kenny Blankenship said:

It’s absolutely bonkers. Only in Vancouver will the first thought about a new signing be whether or not he’s tradeable lol

Well it is pretty understandable to consider that angle based on very recent history.

 

We have had several years in a row where we signed guys who were immediately untradeable because of those contracts.  We also just gave up a lot to get rid of those players and correct those errors.

 

it isn’t one awful contract that had handcuffed us, it was a trend of $1 million too much and 1 year too much term to a bunch of guys.  More than the rest of the market was willing to pay…

 

Folks brought up Hankanpaa as a comparable (not as quick, but much more physical).  He got $1 million less per year and 1 year less term.

 

It is also hard to rationally blame the Vancouver market or this forum when the national media are saying the same thing.

 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, 204CanucksFan said:

 

As someone who lives in MB and has watched Poolman play live over a dozen times and probably almost 80 times on TV, I can easily say that he is almost exactly the same player as Hamonic, in fact, according to the advanced stats Poolman was much better than Hamonic last season. 

 

Stat lines over the last 2 seasons:

Hamonic - 88GP 6G 16A 22P  -6  191 blocks, 87 hits

Poolman - 96GP 4G 13A 17P  -3  108 blocks, 127 hits

 

Advanced stats for last season:

Hamonic - 38GP, 19:20 TOI/G, 40.9 CF %, 41.0 Fen F%, 23 OiGF, 40 OiGA, 90.5 OiS% 98.5 PDO, 45.3 O zone start % 54.7 D zone start %

 

Poolman - 39GP, 18:30 TOI/G, 44.2 CF%, 43.6 Fen F%, 20 OiGF, 24 OiGA, 93.5 OiS%, 100.3 PDO, 45.4 O zone start %, 54.6 D zone start %

 

Not to mention that Poolman is the better PKer, in 1:55 shorthanded ice time per game Hamonic was on the ice for 16 goals against, in 1:30 shorthanded ice time per game Poolman was on the ice for just 3 goals against.

I appreciate you giving me real stats to look at and not just bashing my opinion without any backup like most people on this thread. I feel like most posters here are just bandwagoners who don't even actually watch the Canucks.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

This is most likely to be false. Benning had a cap problem. Given that Garland had been signed, having Schmidt was not necessarily the wisest decision. Other GMs knew this and COULD HAVE asked for a king's ransom.

 

Instead, the Canucks passed on the savings they got from the LV deal to Winnipeg, which arguably could be seen as a loss at the same time - Canucks only got a year of Schmidt for free. But at least WIN's GM didn't want to embarrass Benning. Yet this 'saving face' policy is applicable the other GMs around the league as well. Chicago and Fleury, for instance. LV NEEDED that cap space.

 

I'm not saying that GMs are doing favours that would screw themselves selflessly; there has to be a mutual benefit to it. Often it is to get good players at huge discounts. Some GMs don't get much respect though around the league - one of those was our past GM Gillis, but arguably GMs who had to bend themselves over to clear cap spaces (NYI/PHI, for example - Toronto too.)

 

Cap space is a luxury. And teams that had it COULD have screwed teams over, yet that is not always the case.

 

 

 

 

I have to be honest, I'm not sure where you're going with this.

 

I agree, we might have desired the space from moving Schmidt, but it wouldn't have put us into cap trouble by keeping him.  Poolman + Hamonic is 5.5 so that's basically the cost of keeping Schmidt, less 400K.  Less depth, but no additional cap problems posed.

 

In any event, even if they knew Vancouver had cap problems, why didn't they then, you know, exercise that option and squeeze them?  The answer --> they actually valued the player being moved.  Same with thing with Schmidt last year.  VGK was over the cap already and were pressing for Pietrangelo.  Why didn't Vancouver press VGK and bring down the price on Schmidt?  Chances are they liked the player and didn't mind paying the ask of a 3rd.  Actually, for all we know, the price may have been even higher and bringing it down to a 3rd was happened.  Same here this year when trying to move Schmidt.

 

The point is - and we've ventured off on a long tangent - that it's only easy to move players when teams value them.  If we need to move Poolman, it'll only be easy if there are teams willing to bring him in.

  • RoughGame 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I have no problem with the way people react to my posts here.

 

I know what to expect, I have no problem with it. It's a discussion board for a sports team, it's not that serious, I don't feel victimized.

 

The thing with a lot of people here is that if you disagree with them, it's not that you have a different opinion (which ought to be okay - shocker, I know), it's that you're a negative troll. But that's society these days, I guess.

Because there is a big diff between opinion (other things) and constant & consistent hate / negativity and people are done with it / calling it out. There's the cofusion...no one has an issue with the rest. Check out my post a few pages back...that is exactly what myself / others are referring to. 

Edited by IRR
  • Cheers 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...