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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

 

 

There are a lot of teams that have fallen into this trap, so this is hardly a 'Vancouver' thing'. The other points that you make will make it clear why I take this angle.

 

The so-called 'trend' of 1 million too much has been applied to practically every single signing, INCLUDING the Pearson one, which ISN'T an overpayment (even though many people will say it is).

 

What I am pointing out is that just because someone says it is overpaid, it doesn't mean it is ACTUALLY the case.. Often, it is fueled by bias.

 

Now I'm going back to the 'national media' part. It's interesting you say they are "saying the same thing" - but they're not. Sportsnet is the only network that rated the Canucks the lowest. Other media outlets are saying Vancouver did a good job.

 

The so-called 'opinion'  that you're talking about is contentious, and just because you have one doesn't necessarily mean it's the right one either.

 

You're also conflating Hankanpaa as being equal to Poolman, which is not the case. If so, he wouldn't be signed for the same thing in Dallas. (And that in itself is a complicated matter because of the tax situation in Texas).

 

In summary, your post that was meant to clarify things is actually a conflation of multiple issues. This is not limited to Vancouver fans, but they are often vulnerable to making these fallacious conclusions.

 

You've also proven the point that posters are BIASED based on past events. We can call this skeptical, but that in itself is a bias.

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

 

 

I don’t really care about past signings, why is there any discussion about being able to trade a player that hasn’t even suited up for one game yet? It’s just odd to me, that’s all. Don’t really have any interest in discussing the trade possibilities of a new player lol. 

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

I don’t really care about past signings, why is there any discussion about being able to trade a player that hasn’t even suited up for one game yet? It’s just odd to me, that’s all. Don’t really have any interest in discussing the trade possibilities of a new player lol. 

Because this signing parallels those ones.

Because people don't have short memories.

 

[The thing goes here]

  • RoughGame 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Listening said:

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.

I can't stand the just pointless bashing and insulting back and forth on here. I believe in civil debate of different ideas and opinions. I try to do it without getting personal. I'll give facts to support my opinions and I'll look at and research facts people give me to support their opinions and I'm willing to change my opinion if given compelling evidence. 

  • Hydration 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

12 teams were interested and he is not overpaid by much if at all. Not a concern to move him down the road. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Olympic swimmers would be jealous of how synchronized canuck73_3 and Dazzle are when it comes to giving out rep.

 

:bigblush:

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AV. said:

Because this signing parallels those ones.

Because people don't have short memories.

 

[The thing goes here]

Still odd to discuss trading a brand new signing. Unless of course you’re looking to argue with people on this forum, which when I think about it, makes a lot of sense. 
 

Hope this helps. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 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.

I think it's less that you have a different opinion and more how it's worded or you go about it. There are a ton of posters who are maybe more on the negative side, but people can have a discussion with them and see it from their point of view, maybe even change their original opinion. Then there are posters who immediately jump on the sky is falling freakout with every move that is made( not saying this is you here exactly, but you're definitely more on this side). And of course there are posters who are very overly optimistic and nothing is ever wrong. 

Right now you are definitely playing the victim and instead of trying to articulate your views or see it in a different way, you're dead set on just playing the victim card and hiding behind it. You do come off as a bit passive aggressive too, whether or not that's meant I'm not sure, but there's a reason why another poster is calling you out for this.

 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

12 teams were interested and he is not overpaid by much if at all. Not a concern to move him down the road. 

There's an old saying that goes "If everybody you knew jumped off a bridge, would you also jump off that bridge?"  Were 12 teams wrong to be interested in Poolman?  No, not necessarily.  But if the price and term get into a region for which you've been burned before, you should probably have some buyer beware and pull yourself from these bidding wars.  That's the core of Poolman criticisms, from me anyway.

 

The last part is hopeful.  It's certainly possible but too naïve to suggest in this moment.

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

Still odd to discuss trading a brand new signing. Unless of course you’re looking to argue with people on this forum, which when I think about it, makes a lot of sense. 
 

Hope this helps. 

Your words, not mine.

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

Some Olympic swimmers would be jealous of how synchronized canuck73_3 and Dazzle are when it comes to giving out rep.

 

:bigblush:

Just think cookies and fires.  Then it’s all good.  

image.jpeg.bbad03c0f95fa5f2452cec760da2a733.jpeg

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

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. 

I have the right to be skeptical based on history.

 

What has this management team done exactly to warrant blind support/trust for their transactions?

 

Because as far as I'm aware *double-checks notes* we are still Cup-less.

 

Again, as I said in my original post, I'm willing to watch how it plays out and reserve judgement on the player. But I don't see why some consider it mandatory that we give them the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the track record so far when it comes to D-men specifically.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, AV. said:

Because this signing parallels those ones.

Because people don't have short memories.

 

[The thing goes here]

So if you make a mistake, that mistake should be applied to / held against everything single thing you do moving forward, even more so things that haven't even played out yet?! Really! Guarentee you'd 100% have an issue if people did that to you, but yeah, go ahead and apply that to what Benning does. The hypocrisy on here sometimes is unreal! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, kanucks25 said:

I have the right to be skeptical based on history.

 

What has this management team done exactly to warrant blind support/trust for their transactions?

 

Because as far as I'm aware *double-checks notes* we are still Cup-less.

 

Again, as I said in my original post, I'm willing to watch how it plays out and reserve judgement on the player. But I don't see why some consider it mandatory that we give them the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the track record so far when it comes to D-men specifically.

This is an important point.

 

There is nothing inherently negative with having suspicions and ill-feelings towards this signing based on previous signings made by this management group.

Many posters, almost all of them who support Benning, interpret this as an attack on the GM, when it really has nothing to do with the GM so much as it has to do with the overall state of the team and their ability to win games and achieve success (in a sustainable fashion) going forward.

 

If *that* side were to understand this, there would be far less conflict and division among this fanbase.

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

I have the right to be skeptical based on history.

 

What has this management team done exactly to warrant blind support/trust for their transactions?

 

Because as far as I'm aware *double-checks notes* we are still Cup-less.

 

Again, as I said in my original post, I'm willing to watch how it plays out and reserve judgement on the player. But I don't see why some consider it mandatory that we give them the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the track record so far when it comes to D-men specifically.

I give up!!! Points missed yet again!! NO ONE is talking about blind support / trust! 

 

I'll leave it at that and move on. 

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

So if you make a mistake, that mistake should be applied to / held against everything single thing you do moving forward, even more so things that haven't even played out yet?! Really! Guarentee you'd 100% have an issue if people did that to you, but yeah, go ahead and apply that to what Benning does. The hypocrisy on here sometimes is unreal! 

That's generally how consequences of mistakes work, yes.  

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

There's an old saying that goes "If everybody you knew jumped off a bridge, would you also jump off that bridge?"  Were 12 teams wrong to be interested in Poolman?  No, not necessarily.  But if the price and term get into a region for which you've been burned before, you should probably have some buyer beware and pull yourself from these bidding wars.  That's the core of Poolman criticisms, from me anyway.

 

The last part is hopeful.  It's certainly possible but too naïve to suggest in this moment.

Cool, so you're so scarred by previous incidents that you feel justified that you won't jump back into the pool. Not to invalidate PTSD, but that's why people have the gall to be a GM. But one thing that's applicable to you: it's easier to criticize than to produce anything of substance.

You've admitted your bias. People have called you biased. You call them naive. :lol::rolleyes:

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

I give up!!! Points missed yet again!! NO ONE is talking about blind support / trust! 

 

I'll leave it at that and move on. 

Here's my post in the Garland extension thread:

 

On 7/27/2021 at 9:44 AM, kanucks25 said:

Really like the player and the contract.

 

Great work.

IIRC, 1 reaction and no replies.

 

The bat signal is programmed to only go off if a post isn't 100% kool-aid drinking.

 

  • Wat 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

Cool, so you're so scarred by previous incidents that you feel justified that you won't jump back into the pool. Not to invalidate PTSD, but that's why people have the gall to be a GM. But one thing that's applicable to you: it's easier to criticize than to produce anything of substance.

You've admitted your bias. People have called you biased. You call them naive. :lol::rolleyes:

Huh?  I'm not asking Benning to never make a UFA signing again.  The ask is to be more responsible for where he spends his money and where he gives out term.

 

Again, you're just interpreting things, either by mistake or willfully, and coming to your own conclusions.

  • Haha 1
  • RoughGame 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AV. said:

That's generally how consequences of mistakes work, yes.  

Then you are a hypocrite! Guarantee if it was applied to you, you'd 100% have an issue with it!   

 

And you still don't seem to understand the difference between opinion etc (and the rest) and the constant / consistent hate / negativity that so many are calling out! 

 

And by the way, just because a lot of us are calling it out, doesn't mean we're Benning supporters etc.....we're just able to find balance and see the positive and negatives. 

 

By the way, don't bother responding because i'm done with this conversation...you've proven you're incapable of looking in the mirror, taking responsibility and changing. Just the same stuff over and over! 

  • Hydration 2
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...