[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[Dazzle]

5 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a situation, and having concerns, especially based on the past.

 

However, I find it hilarious that you say the bolded, given how you've spent ALMOST ALL OF THE FA PERIOD in the poolman signing, which you have previously admitted was something you "didn't mind".

 

HMMM.

 

The fact that you said that "if the other side were to understand this", implies your 'side' is superior. At the same time, you've grouped everyone who disagrees with you as being in a category that supports Benning

 

I think your post has unintentionally detangled your twisted logic. You've JUST admitted that you're against the GM, which thus contradicts what you said in the middle. Congrats. We all knew this already. Thanks for confirming it. This isn't about discussing Canucks then. This is about you venting.

[Sell.the.team]

[Dazzle]

2 minutes ago, IRR said:

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! 

And this is really funny because I was, at one point, a Gillis supporter. Most of us were at one point or another. I am sure many of us appreciate his contributions to the teams he had helped construct.

 

I will be a fan of the next GM who comes in, provided they make positive contributions to the team I'm cheering. I am not necessarily latched onto Benning, unlike some people who think Gillis was a "Good GM", which I now reflect on in a more negative light.

Opinions change over time.

[canuck73_3]

29 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.

Naive to suggest it is a failure and not trade able imo

[J-Dizzle]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

No one suggested it was going to cripple our crap… that is the nonsense people threw out in response to folks who weren’t convinced it was a good value signing for the guy’s resume.  It is a lot easier for them to wail and gnash their teeth about straw man arguments they invent rather than actually respond to reasonable posts.

Where are said reasonable posts????? 

 

I think there have been a number of ‘wait and see’ signings and trades in Benning’s tenure. A number of them haven’t turned out well.

 

I don’t see how this falls under that category. Even if Poolman craps the bed completely, that contract is fair value, if not excellent value. 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

And this is really funny because I was, at one point, a Gillis supporter. Most of us were at one point or another. I am sure many of us appreciate his contributions to the teams he had helped construct.

 

I will be a fan of the next GM who comes in, provided they make positive contributions to the team I'm cheering. I am not necessarily latched onto Benning, unlike some people who think Gillis was a "Good GM", which I now reflect on in a more negative light.

Opinions change over time.

For sure! A little bit of both as it should be because no gm is perfect and there is good and bad. 

 

Funny, he wants to apply the past mistakes to current things, but i guarentee he won't apply past good moves to current things...funny how that works!  

[Dr. Crossbar]

36 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:

 

 

Some people are finally pushing back against the negativity that exists on this forum. Frankly, it's nice to see. 

 

There are far too many people online who simply want to justify their negative mindset and double down on that justification rather than pausing to see, acknowledge, and understand the value of the other side.

 

There's a huge difference between negative opinion and chronic negativity. The latter in most cases is cancer to the health of online forums like this. Checks and balances are needed and necessary.

 

The reactions you're pointing out fall into a check and balance, imo, which is actually good for the community.

 

What I see ... a lot of people are saying, hey, pause the reactionary negativity for a second and take a look at the positives. Maybe, just maybe, there really is too much whinging around here. 

 

Just because some people are seeing the positives with Poolman and the contract doesn't mean they don't see the negatives. 

 

Hell, I could very easily look at Poolman and be down on the guy. Sure, there are reasons for me to go there. But there are other things to consider.

 

With the influence of Brad Shaw - a proven developer of elite defensive talent - there's a positive dynamic at play that we're not seeing and has yet to play out ... and - imo - reason for more optimism rather than pessimism when it comes to our D.

 

And quite frankly, I'll be shocked if Shaw doesn't have a positive impact on our D. I'll be even more shocked if things stay as equally negative with our D as they have been with a guy like Shaw on our staff. 

 

Also, I see more positives in Poolman's style of play in relation to what we need and I trust Shaw can help Poolman succeed. I also see his connection to Boeser as a former teammate, which - imo - should be a positive. I also see Poolman getting the right opportunity at the right time to take his game to the next level. 

 

To me, what's obvious and apparent is that there's a portion of the fanbase and media saying the exact same negative things year after year no matter what changes are made.

 

We just turned over seven roster players, took care of the bad contracts, have Podz coming in, got a dynamo in Garland, a great defensive forward in Dickinson, got OEL out of a bad situation, have legit stability in our Top 9, now have solid depth a C, got a quality backup in Halak, have Poolman and Hamonic ... we re-signed Clark and brought in Shaw ... you really have to put a lot of effort in to maintain the same level of negativity about the team as last year. 

 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, IRR said:

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! 

No, actually, if mistakes are made, the consequences are beyond one's control, no matter how fair or unjust they might feel they are.  That's how it works.  It isn't on somebody who makes the mistake to decide what comes of it.  Just the other day I was punished with a 1 day ban because I entertained a discussion with you and some other guy about my "negativity".  I didn't think it was fair since I didn't instigate it nor did I really say anything inflammatory but I understood that my participation in that discussion is what got me sent to the sidelines and it's on me to do better and to avoid those confrontations. 

 

INow, on topic, this is a results-based business.  The Vancouver fanbase has allowed Jim Benning nearly 8 seasons to reward them.  Some decided early they didn't like him, others like myself gave him a few years and decided we might be better moving in a different direction.  I don't wish bad on Benning but I have every reason to have an opinion on him and apply it to discussions.  My criticisms are Benning are rooted in facts about his tenure.  He has minimal playoff appearances, he has been horrendous with trades and signings, has been comparatively better with drafting.  None of this is wrong, no matter how much you might complain or invalidate it.

 

Hope this helps.

[TheRussianRocket1994]

1 minute ago, Dr. Crossbar said:

Some people are finally pushing back against the negativity that exists on this forum. Frankly, it's nice to see. 

 

There are far too many people online who simply want to justify their negative mindset and double down on that justification rather than pausing to see, acknowledge, and understand the value of the other side.

 

There's a huge difference between negative opinion and chronic negativity. The latter in most cases is cancer to the health of online forums like this. Checks and balances are needed and necessary.

 

The reactions you're pointing out fall into a check and balance, imo, which is actually good for the community.

 

What I see ... a lot of people are saying, hey, pause the reactionary negativity for a second and take a look at the positives. Maybe, just maybe, there really is too much whinging around here. 

 

Just because some people are seeing the positives with Poolman and the contract doesn't mean they don't see the negatives. 

 

Hell, I could very easily look at Poolman and be down on the guy. Sure, there are reasons for me to go there. But there are other things to consider.

 

With the influence of Brad Shaw - a proven developer of elite defensive talent - there's a positive dynamic at play that we're not seeing and has yet to play out ... and - imo - reason for more optimism rather than pessimism when it comes to our D.

 

And quite frankly, I'll be shocked if Shaw doesn't have a positive impact on our D. I'll be even more shocked if things stay as equally negative with our D as they have been with a guy like Shaw on our staff. 

 

Also, I see more positives in Poolman's style of play in relation to what we need and I trust Shaw can help Poolman succeed. I also see his connection to Boeser as a former teammate, which - imo - should be a positive. I also see Poolman getting the right opportunity at the right time to take his game to the next level. 

 

To me, what's obvious and apparent is that there's a portion of the fanbase and media saying the exact same negative things year after year no matter what changes are made.

 

We just turned over seven roster players, took care of the bad contracts, have Podz coming in, got a dynamo in Garland, a great defensive forward in Dickinson, got OEL out of a bad situation, have legit stability in our Top 9, now have solid depth a C, got a quality backup in Halak, have Poolman and Hamonic ... we re-signed Clark and brought in Shaw ... you really have to put a lot of effort in to maintain the same level of negativity about the team as last year. 

 

Thank you for this post!! Spot on!! 

[oldnews]

Posted this in the Schenn thread - in response to the question whether DeMelo is/would have been a more attractive option than Poolman - probably more fitting in this thread....clearly DeMelo is more 'proven' - but let's look at where they were/are in the present (only having a pair of seasons of Poolman sample)

 

Their 5 on 5 defensive outcomes this past season:

 

Poolman

39 games

18:18 ice time/game

69 hits

49 blocks

47.6% ozone starts

47.0% corsi

8 takeaways, 34 giveaways

.932 on ice sv%

1.9 on ice goals against per 60 5on5

1:19/game penalty killing (3.4 on ice goals against per 60)

 

DeMelo

52 games

16:58 ice time/game

76 hits

58 blocks

49.8% ozone starts

48.8% corsi

9 takeaways, 48 giveaways

.925 on ice sv%

2.0 on ice goals against per 60 5on5

2:35/game penalty killing (5.3 on ice goals against per 60) * I'd mitigate this goal metric by saying he was a top unit killer, so higher ga may not be 'meaningful'.

 

Both of these defensemen played primarily with Morrissey and Stanley - with very similar 5on5 context and outcomes - so we actually have decent conditions for considering them 'comparables'.

 

There is clearly very little that separates them above.

 

Poolman played 16:54 / game 5on5

DeMelo played 14:20 / game 5on5.

Poolman with slight edges where on ice goals against and sv% are concerned.

DeMelo was relied upon more to kill penalties...

If you want to dig into the (imo less relevent offensive production - but worth noting) - DeMelo with 9 and 10 pt seasons, Poolman with 1pt and 16 pt seasons....

 

DeMelo got a 4 yr deal worth $3 million per prior to last season - reupping in Winnipeg.

Poolman just got 4 x $2.5 (obviously - so highly contested on these boards).

 

[Provost]

42 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.

 

I had spent some time tracking a few accounts that happened to only give out reputation responses exactly in line with another account by supporting their posts and giving out bad rep to all the exact same posts.

 

Imagine being so fragile and needy that you create fake accounts to give yourself an ego boost.

[Bertuzzipunch]

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Posted this in the Schenn thread - in response to the question whether DeMelo is/would have been a more attractive option than Poolman - probably more fitting in this thread....clearly DeMelo is more 'proven' - but let's look at where they were/are in the present (only having a pair of seasons of Poolman sample)

 

Their 5 on 5 defensive outcomes this past season:

 

Poolman

39 games

18:18 ice time/game

69 hits

49 blocks

47.6% ozone starts

47.0% corsi

8 takeaways, 34 giveaways

.932 on ice sv%

1.9 on ice goals against per 60 5on5

1:19/game penalty killing (3.4 on ice goals against per 60)

 

DeMelo

52 games

16:58 ice time/game

76 hits

58 blocks

49.8% ozone starts

48.8% corsi

9 takeaways, 48 giveaways

.925 on ice sv%

2.0 on ice goals against per 60 5on5

2:35/game penalty killing (5.3 on ice goals against per 60) * I'd mitigate this goal metric by saying he was a top unit killer, so higher ga may not be 'meaningful'.

 

Both of these defensemen played primarily with Morrissey and Stanley - with very similar 5on5 context and outcomes - so we actually have decent conditions for considering them 'comparables'.

 

There is clearly very little that separates them above.

 

Poolman played 16:54 / game 5on5

DeMelo played 14:20 / game 5on5.

Poolman with slight edges where on ice goals against and sv% are concerned.

DeMelo was relied upon more to kill penalties...

If you want to dig into the (imo less relevent offensive production - but worth noting) - DeMelo with 9 and 10 pt seasons, Poolman with 1pt and 16 pt seasons....

 

DeMelo got a 4 yr deal worth $3 million per prior to last season - reupping in Winnipeg.

Poolman just got 4 x $2.5 (obviously - so highly contested on these boards).

 

Interesting thanks for that

[AV.]

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There is nothing wrong with being critical about a situation, and having concerns, especially based on the past.

 

However, I find it hilarious that you say the bolded, given how you've spent ALMOST ALL OF THE FA PERIOD in the poolman signing, which you have previously admitted was something you "didn't mind".

 

HMMM.

 

The fact that you said that "if the other side were to understand this", implies your 'side' is superior. At the same time, you've grouped everyone who disagrees with you as being in a category that supports Benning

 

I think your post has unintentionally detangled your twisted logic. You've JUST admitted that you're against the GM, which thus contradicts what you said in the middle. Congrats. We all knew this already. Thanks for confirming it. This isn't about discussing Canucks then. This is about you venting.

Again, a lot of conclusions being made with no regard to what's being said.  

 

Most of my discussion is here because this is where I've been criticized.  Nobody cares to press me about why I like the Halak or Sutter signings.  They only care when I have a criticism.  I'm not choosing to be "negative" or whatever.

[RUPERTKBD]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

No one suggested it was going to cripple our crap… that is the nonsense people threw out in response to folks who weren’t convinced it was a good value signing for the guy’s resume.  It is a lot easier for them to wail and gnash their teeth about straw man arguments they invent rather than actually respond to reasonable posts.

Pssst......

 

On 7/29/2021 at 9:35 AM, The.Burrowers said:

I don't really know what Poolman has to do with any of the other moves...  His signing was independent of everything else and a case could have been made that a 1 year filler could have been brought in to be the bottom pairing (or, you know, one of Schenn or Bowey). I think most people could live with the AAV on a 1-2 year deal but it's really the term that is crippling for the complainerd and reminiscent of other term deals in this salary range signed in the last few years that have been immoveable and a major cap hinderence.  People say $2.5M is nothing but that is false and the contract could be annoying in the coming years with multiple big extensions (Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Highlander, Rathbone/Juolevi....) needed, especially if the cap is flat. Hopefully we get some cap inflation soon and Poolman is serviceable, or better.  Maybe he exceeds the very low expectations most seem to have and allows us to be competitive into our prime years. I certainly haven't ruled that out and will give him a fair shake. Time will tell.  Suffice to say, my elation of our position on Tuesday night took a big hit after the Poolman deal and I would like nothing more than have my concerns proven wrong.  I don't know much about advanced stats but one common theme I have seen is that we didn't have a very good defensive system last year and the hope is Shaw comes in and cleans things up.  Sounds like he wanted Poolman and maybe he has a master plan to build a good system.  Defense is clearly the biggest question mark on this team and if they can exceed expectations I think we are a cup contender.

 

[Gurn]

9 minutes ago, Provost said:

Imagine being so fragile and needy that you create fake accounts to give yourself an ego boost.

Funny, imagine actually tracking posts to try and give your self the ego boos of proving yourself right, in your own opinion.

[Provost]

54 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

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.

Wow.. you literally just used the logic that two similar level players can’t be comparable because Benning paid more for one of them and another GM paid less for the other.

 

……

 

That is the level of crazy that I have gotten used to.  
 

The only possible explanation is that we have finally discovered what Weisbrod’s role on the team is… it is to hang around trolling this forum with random nonsensical circular arguments to defend his own work…

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, gurn said:

Funny, imagine actually tracking posts to try and give your self the ego boos of proving yourself right, in your own opinion.

yes - that's pretty sad - as is the bizarre 'fake account' claim - as if those two are the same poster (they actually have very distinct, easily identifiable - and considerable - differences)

imagine your ego being dependent upon CDC rep points.

now that's sad as well.

and probably a bonafide case of projection

Edited July 30, 2021 by oldnews

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

Wow.. you literally just used the logic that two similar level players can’t be comparable because Benning paid more for one of them and another GM paid less for the other.

 

……

 

That is the level of crazy that I have gotten used to.  
 

The only possible explanation is that we have finally discovered what Weisbrod’s role on the team is… it is to hang around trolling this forum with random nonsensical circular arguments to defend his own work…

It's funny.  Earlier to me, it was suggested that Winnipeg *could* have really stuck it to Vancouver and low-balled them for Schmidt because of impending cap problems on Vancouver's end.  Later, when I suggested why Vancouver didn't do the same to Vegas therefore, it was met with crickets.  He also once suggested to me that drafting Yakupov was a risk because...other teams might have been jealous and attempted to injure him.

 

For somebody who goes on and on about fallacies in other people's logic, argumentation, and discussion, he really doesn't do a great job of covering his own tracks.

 

Makes me wonder...

[Mike Vanderhoek]

I personally like the signing of Tucker Poolman. A right handed defenseman with speed and skill who can play defensively responsible hockey and also provide offense with a pretty good skill set. He has decent size and is right in the age range where he isn't " long in the tooth " or inexperienced.

 

I have read a lot about him, not on these types of boards I mean scouting reports, video and I personally think its the kind of deal where he has been building experience at the NHL level and now this is his big opportunity, I like the Canucks approach to lock him up as there is potential there for a reliable, mobile, durable defenseman who can put up 20 ? + ? points or so a year and not hurt the team defensively, he can transition the puck well which will be big for the team and getting the puck to the skilled forward group.

 

Obviously the jury is out and just taking a glance at the stats people tend to value most in goals and assists there is a question mark, but the tools are there, he can provide offense ( previous seasons being the defensive partner with no PP time or little offensive starts 5 on 5 ) if put in that position.

 

I just like the deal, it is a relatively cheap caphit for an NHL defenseman or at least I see it that way ( everyone gripes about non ELC numbers it seems these days lol ) and I just have a feeling this will be an under the radar signing if people can stop drawing negative attention to it. Frustrating as OEL's agent said the negativity in this market is a known flaw, whether media/fan driven it exists and its really tiring.

 

Tucker Poolman is a Canuck, I will be cheering him on with the rest of the team game in and game out. 

[Dazzle]

10 minutes ago, Provost said:

Wow.. you literally just used the logic that two similar level players can’t be comparable because Benning paid more for one of them and another GM paid less for the other.

 

……

 

That is the level of crazy that I have gotten used to.  
 

The only possible explanation is that we have finally discovered what Weisbrod’s role on the team is… it is to hang around trolling this forum with random nonsensical circular arguments to defend his own work…

You've actually missed my point - the point being that there are more things than just a simple 1 to 1 comparison. YOUR logic was that "we could've signed this guy", but you're ignoring the underlying factors, namely that Poolman is said to be a better skater/more mobile.

And given the fact that Poolman actually had a good playoff with WIN, you're just nitpicking.