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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, AV. said:

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.

How much have you actually talked about the Halak/Sutter signings? You've made summary compliments about these signings, though in the Poolman signing, you were more than quick to spend the bulk of your time on.
 

What gives? :lol:

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

9 minutes ago, AV. said:

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...

This is your problem: you look at extremes.

 

I didn't say that the situation was always the case - I'm just saying that the collusion factor seems to be apparent for CERTAIN GMs.

And you've already CONFIRMED in this post that Benning made a great trade to Vegas - got a 3rd/2023. Why is it that Benning got a 3rd back from Winnipeg, despite the poor year? Yes, you didn't answer that.

 

I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to Yakupov. :lol::lol: What does drafting Yakupov have to do with other teams being jealous? I never once said this at all. Your memory is flawed lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

How much have you actually talked about the Halak/Sutter signings? You've made summary compliments about these signings, though in the Poolman signing, you were more than quick to spend the bulk of your time on.
 

What gives? :lol:

Nobody cares to engage me on those signings.  I say positive things, it's met with crickets or the odd rep point.

 

Why, then, would I go on and on to discuss those signings?

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, Provost said:

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.

You went from making a dumb argument to lying.

 

1.  I didn’t ignore the “underlying factors” of him being more mobile… I literally typed it out in the post you made the nonsensical response to.  It was offset by the other guy being more physical of a player. 

 

2.  I also never said “we could have just signed the guy”.  You made that up.

 

3.  Basing a 4 year contract’s merit on an 8 game playoff run us a terrible piece of logic.

  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, AV. said:

Nobody cares to engage me on those signings.  I say positive things, it's met with crickets or the odd rep point.

 

Why, then, would I go on and on to discuss those signings?

So you're looking for attention then, is what you're saying? :mellow:

Edited by Dazzle
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

How much have you actually talked about the Halak/Sutter signings? You've made summary compliments about these signings, though in the Poolman signing, you were more than quick to spend the bulk of your time on.
 

What gives? :lol:

… you have spent more time and posts on this thread than anyone else, him included

 

What gives?

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

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

This is your problem: you look at extremes.

 

I didn't say that the situation was always the case - I'm just saying that the collusion factor seems to be apparent for CERTAIN GMs.

And you've already CONFIRMED in this post that Benning made a great trade to Vegas - got a 3rd/2023. Why is it that Benning got a 3rd back from Winnipeg, despite the poor year? Yes, you didn't answer that.

 

I have no clue what you're talking about with regards to Yakupov. :lol::lol: What does drafting Yakupov have to do with other teams being jealous? I never once said this at all. Your memory is flawed lol.

It was only a poor year by his standards.  If he hadn't wanted out, I'm sure the Canucks would have kept him.

 

As for the last part, I can't help you for a bad memory.  With that said, there's a status update where your proclaimed this as a "risk" to drafting prospects and specifically named Yakupov.  I have no reason to lie lol.  Besides, those who know you know that you live to make sensationalist claims about players.  We all remember when you proclaimed Karel Plasek as a slam-dunk pick for him simply signing his ELC.

 

Hope this helps.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

You went from making a dumb argument to lying.

 

1.  I didn’t ignore the “underlying factors” of him being more mobile… I literally typed it out in the post you made the nonsensical response to.  It was offset by the other guy being more physical of a player. 

 

2.  I also never said “we could have just signed the guy”.  You made that up.

 

3.  Basing a 4 year contract’s merit on an 8 game playoff run us a terrible piece of logic.

1. Yes you did. You ignored it. By mentioning a player's name, that implies you had a good reason to bring him up. Clearly you didn't. Now you're backtracking.

2. Sure you did. You mentioned a comparable player that was signed cheaper. Your words. In other words, you made the comparison of the two players there, thus implying that GM Benning made a bad choice.

3. Wasn't talking about a 4 year contract. Was talking about the 2.5 number. Are you changing shifting goal posts again? :rolleyes:

 

Upon reflection:

 

I don't know what person would bring up a player like Hankapaa like this, and refuse to say he was trying to make a comparison. :rolleyes:

 

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

So you're seeing attention then, is what you're saying? :mellow:

If somebody quotes me or replies to something I said, I am inclined to respond.

 

I am not going to talk to myself in a thread where I'm not being asked to talk about something.

 

This reeaaallly isn't complicated.

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

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

It was only a poor year by his standards.  If he hadn't wanted out, I'm sure the Canucks would have kept him.

 

As for the last part, I can't help you for a bad memory.  With that said, there's a status update where your proclaimed this as a "risk" to drafting prospects and specifically named Yakupov.  I have no reason to lie lol.  Besides, those who know you know that you live to make sensationalist claims about players.  We all remember when you proclaimed Karel Plasek as a slam-dunk pick for him simply signing his ELC.

 

Hope this helps.

There is a risk to drafting prospects. Just because you twist my post to insane extremes doesn't mean I said what you think I said. Oh wait, you called this PROJECTION, as in people projecting what they THINK they read, rather than what I actually intended to say. :lol: Wait, are the rules different for you?

 

Hope this helps. ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

Other teams were trying to squeeze vegas. We got him because we gave them the best value return. If we tried to get more, they would have traded him to someone else. We basically got a free year of his services.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes 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. 

 

Hope this helps…

  • Thanks 2
  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There is a risk to drafting prospects. Just because you twist my post to insane extremes doesn't mean I said what you think I said. Oh wait, you called this PROJECTION, as in people projecting what they THINK they read, rather than what I actually intended to say. :lol: Wait, are the rules different for you?

 

Hope this helps. ;)

True, there is risk to drafting prospects.  The "risk" that you suggested is non-sensical.  Find me examples for where teams were previously jealous and attempted to injure players on the basis of the team who drafted them.  That is my point**.

 

Again, everything I write is within reason.  Cannot say the same for you.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Provost said:

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.

AV=Provost by that logic. ;) pot meet kettle

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

1. Yes you did. You ignored it. By mentioning a player's name, that implies you had a good reason to bring him up. Clearly you didn't. Now you're backtracking.

2. Sure you did. You mentioned a comparable player that was signed cheaper. Your words. In other words, you made the comparison of the two players there, thus implying that GM Benning made a bad choice.

3. Wasn't talking about a 4 year contract. Was talking about the 2.5 number. Are you changing goal posts again? :rolleyes:

Go read the quote… me typing out the exact words you keep saying I ignored.

 

Now you are trying to IGNORE the term on a contract to make an argument because it goes against what you are saying? No one is changing any goalposts… that is the guy’s freaking contract, the entire thing that is being discussed.


Can you even read the stuff you type?

 

I give up… you are right.  If you ignore the term on his contract it is fine.  If you only look at his 8 game playoff appearance and ignore his entire (still small) body of NHL work… it is also fine.

 

Disregarding any objective reality that doesn’t jive with your worldview sure is a great way to keep yourself in your own echo chamber.

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...