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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

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.

Right and chances are that other teams were pressing Vancouver and Winnipeg won out because they were willing to pay the 3rd.  This would render his argument that Winnipeg could have stuck it to Vancouver as wrong.

 

Edited by AV.
  • RoughGame 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.

:picard:

 

We're not just talking about less depth. We were clearly MISSING an extra piece for RD depth.

 

If you even bothered to pay attention to what I said, I basically said it was baffling that some GMs get better treatment than others. I didn't say it was right across the board. I'm just saying that Winnipeg really could've pushed Vancouver to get a 4th (essentially emphasizing the loss), but they didn't do that. I am citing the fact that GMs want to establish good relations with others.

 

Something that apparently *cough* Gillis couldn't seem to do without getting royally bent over in trades. :ph34r:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Right and chances are that other teams were pressing Vancouver and Winnipeg won out because they were willing to pay the 3rd.  This would render the his argument that Winnipeg could have stuck it to Vancouver as wrong.

 

Schmidt had a bad season, so it's possible that his value dropped.

  • Hydration 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

:picard:

 

We're not just talking about less depth. We were clearly MISSING an extra piece for RD depth.

 

If you even bothered to pay attention to what I said, I basically said it was baffling that some GMs get better treatment than others. I didn't say it was right across the board. I'm just saying that Winnipeg really could've pushed Vancouver to get a 4th (essentially emphasizing the loss), but they didn't do that. I am citing the fact that GMs want to establish good relations with others.

 

Something that apparently *cough* Gillis couldn't seem to do without getting royally bent over in trades. :ph34r:

Schenn?  Bringing back Chatfield or Rafferty?  Not saying the Canucks wanted these guys back (they didn't) but in terms of cap and options available, they existed.

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

Right and chances are that other teams were pressing Vancouver and Winnipeg won out because they were willing to pay the 3rd.  This would render the his argument that Winnipeg could have stuck it to Vancouver as wrong.

 

Of course they did, why else did Schmidt have to waive his NTC to facilitate this trade?

It just so happens that the teams that could offer the third (that weren't on his NTC) were ignored, so Vancouver chose one of the teams on his list? Man, you need to think your posts through.

It's obvious the market for Schmidt wasn't great, and Winnipeg couldn't have known the EXTENT of Vancouver's struggles, and really could've just offered Vancouver a 4th. Why didn't they? Answer it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Schmidt had a bad season, so it's possible that his value dropped.

No doubt it did. AV can't explain why WInnipeg still offered their 3rd when Schmidt probably dropped in value in all likelihood. There's something called GM relations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

Of course they did, why else did Schmidt have to waive his NTC to facilitate this trade?

It just so happens that the teams that could offer the third (that weren't on his NTC) were ignored, so Vancouver chose one of the teams on his list? Man, you need to think your posts through.

It's obvious the market for Schmidt wasn't great, and Winnipeg couldn't have known the EXTENT of Vancouver's struggles, and really could've just offered Vancouver a 4th. Why didn't they? Answer it.

 

 

Because Vancouver didn't have to deal Schmidt if they didn't want to.  That's the point.

 

They wanted to move on and did but if Winnipeg was low-balling, they wouldn't have moved him.  This is not that hard.

  • RoughGame 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Schenn?  Bringing back Chatfield or Rafferty?  Not saying the Canucks wanted these guys back (they didn't) but in terms of cap and options available, they existed.

 

But an actually useful defensemen was considered preferable to Chatfield and Rafferty. I exist, but I'm not a good option on D for the Canucks.

 

Hope this helps.

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

9 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Pssst......

 

 

I was over this thread and ready to get out so thanks for getting me back in it....

 

 

First of all: get over yourself.  You get on your high horse like you some sort of supreme intellectual on these boards.  I have read many of your posts over the years and you are nothing special.  You are pompous and often mean spirited.  These smaller, long term contracts are crippling when cap space is tight and players need raises.  They are especially crippling in aggregate.  How much dead weight did we have last year?  $15M?  Quantity does not exceed quality in the NHL.... yet quantity seems to be this team's MO since JB got here.  In the flat cap last year we could have been primed to bring in some elite veteran to support our youngsters.  Instead, we had the disaster season that was 2021.... that needs no explanation.

 

Look at the history...... all these $2-3.5M long term signings add up and there have been a LOT of them.  They have precluded us from making runs at bringing in elite talent (when Hughes and Petto were playing amazing hockey on ELCs....)

 

Our July 1 history has been abhorrent since JB got here.  We constantly enter into smaller AAV, multi year deals with players whose contracts are immoveable very soon after.  If you think Poolman is an exception: FINE...... but I have scoured the web for all the info I can find on him, read all the media reports, tried to be as objective as I can.  I (and others) are willing to give him a chance.  But we have every right to question the signing.

 

Do you really need a reminder/run down of all similar contracts over the years that have not worked out since JB got here?

 

-Loui - 6 years x 6M -  needs no explanation - crippling on its own right and by far the worst signing

- Myers - jury still out but many think this will be a huge burden into the future

- Sutter - 5 years x 4.375M - "foundational piece" ...ya....OK....

- Baertschi - 3 years 3.36M - had a tough shake in Vancouver but this was not a good signing and hindered our ability to bring in better talent over the last few years....dead cap for most of this contract

- Gudbranson - 3 years x 4M.  Underwhelming signing, was lucky to recoup Pearson out of it.  I still remember the analysis of his playoff performance with Florida when we got him..... much ado about nothing.... ring any bells????  Could have utilized McCann / other high picks as a much better trade chips to boot.

-Beagle - 4 years x 3M - absolutely brutal signing - negative trade value by end of term

-Roussel - see above

-Ferland - 4 years x 3.5M - unfortunate with concussion problems and hasn't cost us cap wise due to LTIR - but another example of an overpayment with term which would have been better reserved for elite talent

-Gagner - 3 years 3.15M - lackluster to say the least.... negative value as he was traded for Spooner who was promptly bought out and was dead cap for multiple years....

-Schaller - brutal signing - was a cap dump in Toffoli trade where we had to send a 2nd and Tyler Madden - hard to quantify the extent of his value but it was certainly negative.... 

- Dorsett - 4 years $2.65 - similar to Ferland with injuries but was overpaid based on his character. Won't slag JB for this but just another example of us prioritizing quantity over quality.

- Virtanen - 2 years $2.55M - negative trade value and now costing us cap space next year....

- Holtby - 2 years $4.3M - see above

 

 

If you take any one , or a few, of the of the above deals - its not worth sweating over.  GM's make mistakes, no one expects perfection.  JB inherited a crappy situation when he got here.... no prospects.... no one wanted to play here... ownership pressuring him to expedite rebuild.... it wasn't easy for him and stuff happens..... but spare me your sanctimonious snark.  Many of us have been on these boards for a long time and seen the same old story time and time again.

 

We finally clawed our way out of cap hell..... time will tell with good ole Poolman - I hope he knocks it out of the park.  But right now, based on what I have read from lots of different sources.... I wouldn't be shocked if we get 2-3 months into the season and its apparent early on that his trade value is and will remain negative.  If so, that contract will be crippling when it comes to extending Boeser, Miller, Horvat, especially if the cap remains flat.

 

  • Hydration 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

No doubt it did. AV can't explain why WInnipeg still offered their 3rd when Schmidt probably dropped in value in all likelihood. There's something called GM relations.

It goes against the never ending narrative, but Benning is well respected by his fellow GMs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Schenn?  Bringing back Chatfield or Rafferty?  Not saying the Canucks wanted these guys back (they didn't) but in terms of cap and options available, they existed.

 

Instead of Poolman?  

image.gif.7edd591f91b33b79afdb64f9f4ffa331.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AV. said:

Because Vancouver didn't have to deal Schmidt if they didn't want to.  That's the point.

 

They wanted to move on and did but if Winnipeg was low-balling, they wouldn't have moved him.  This is not that hard.

No, Vancouver was cutting its losses. Losing Schmidt gave Vancouver the flexibility to add depth - something you already confirmed to be the case. Would it really be insane if you brought back Rafferty and Chatfield? :picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

No doubt it did. AV can't explain why WInnipeg still offered their 3rd when Schmidt probably dropped in value in all likelihood. There's something called GM relations.

Actually, I agree GM relations exist.  I'm just also clarifying that GMs need to *want* a player.  Winnipeg wanted Schmidt since his VGK's days hence the eagerness to get a deal done.  Vancouver didn't have to beg Winnipeg here.

 

This whole discussion started with the feasibility on moving Poolman down the line.  I said that moving Poolman would depend on a team being interested in taking him on, either because they're interested in him as a player or because they're being enticed to take him on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AV. said:

Because Vancouver didn't have to deal Schmidt if they didn't want to.  That's the point.

 

They wanted to move on and did but if Winnipeg was low-balling, they wouldn't have moved him.  This is not that hard.

So it makes better sense to keep a player on the roster who wants to be traded? How would that be a good idea? Do you honestly think Nate would have been happy and amicable coming to training camp in Vancouver this October?

 

Schmidt wanted to move on. He made that clear to the team, who told the public something different. In the end, if a player isn't happy in the situation they're in and makes it known during an exit interview, it's up to the team to move the player, while ensuring that they receive something in return. 

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

7 minutes ago, The.Burrowers said:

I was over this thread and ready to get out so thanks for getting me back in it....

 

 

First of all: get over yourself.  You get on your high horse like you some sort of supreme intellectual on these boards.  I have read many of your posts over the years and you are nothing special.  You are pompous and often mean spirited.  These smaller, long term contracts are crippling when cap space is tight and players need raises.  They are especially crippling in aggregate.  How much dead weight did we have last year?  $15M?  Quantity does not exceed quality in the NHL.... yet quantity seems to be this team's MO since JB got here.  In the flat cap last year we could have been primed to bring in some elite veteran to support our youngsters.  Instead, we had the disaster season that was 2021.... that needs no explanation.

 

Look at the history...... all these $2-3.5M long term signings add up and there have been a LOT of them.  They have precluded us from making runs at bringing in elite talent (when Hughes and Petto were playing amazing hockey on ELCs....)

 

Our July 1 history has been abhorrent since JB got here.  We constantly enter into smaller AAV, multi year deals with players whose contracts are immoveable very soon after.  If you think Poolman is an exception: FINE...... but I have scoured the web for all the info I can find on him, read all the media reports, tried to be as objective as I can.  I (and others) are willing to give him a chance.  But we have every right to question the signing.

 

Do you really need a reminder/run down of all similar contracts over the years that have not worked out since JB got here?

 

-Loui - 6 years x 6M -  needs no explanation - crippling on its own right and by far the worst signing

- Myers - jury still out but many think this will be a huge burden into the future

- Sutter - 5 years x 4.375M - "foundational piece" ...ya....OK....

- Baertschi - 3 years 3.36M - had a tough shake in Vancouver but this was not a good signing and hindered our ability to bring in better talent over the last few years....dead cap for most of this contract

- Gudbranson - 3 years x 4M.  Underwhelming signing, was lucky to recoup Pearson out of it.  I still remember the analysis of his playoff performance with Florida when we got him..... much ado about nothing.... ring any bells????  Could have utilized McCann / other high picks as a much better trade chips to boot.

-Beagle - 4 years x 3M - absolutely brutal signing - negative trade value by end of term

-Roussel - see above

-Ferland - 4 years x 3.5M - unfortunate with concussion problems and hasn't cost us cap wise due to LTIR - but another example of an overpayment with term which would have been better reserved for elite talent

-Gagner - 3 years 3.15M - lackluster to say the least.... negative value as he was traded for Spooner who was promptly bought out and was dead cap for multiple years....

-Schaller - brutal signing - was a cap dump in Toffoli trade where we had to send a 2nd and Tyler Madden - hard to quantify the extent of his value but it was certainly negative.... 

- Dorsett - 4 years $2.65 - similar to Ferland with injuries but was overpaid based on his character. Won't slag JB for this but just another example of us prioritizing quantity over quality.

- Virtanen - 2 years $2.55M - negative trade value and now costing us cap space next year....

- Holtby - 2 years $4.3M - see above

 

 

If you take any one , or a few, of the of the above deals - its not worth sweating over.  GM's make mistakes, no one expects perfection.  JB inherited a crappy situation when he got here.... no prospects.... no one wanted to play here... ownership pressuring him to expedite rebuild.... it wasn't easy for him and stuff happens..... but spare me your sanctimonious snark.  Many of us have been on these boards for a long time and seen the same old story time and time again.

 

We finally clawed our way out of cap hell..... time will tell with good ole Poolman - I hope he knocks it out of the park.  But right now, based on what I have read from lots of different sources.... I wouldn't be shocked if we get 2-3 months into the season and its apparent early on that his trade value is and will remain negative.  If so, that contract will be crippling when it comes to extending Boeser, Miller, Horvat, especially if the cap remains flat.

 

That's totally fair. The only problem is there's no 'wait and see' with these people, the people bashing the GM relentlessly. Then there's the group who according to AV, "support Benning", implying that he doesn't. The criticism is just automatic regardless of what he does.

 

I think it's hilarious that AV out of all people suggested bringing back Rafferty and Chatfield. So no changes? Both are unproven RD players. Cheap, sure. But why?

 

Benning hasn't been great with his FA, but he's clearly taken a different approach. We've seen cheaper contracts - with Poolman being an exception to that. Still, it's only 2.5 annually.

There's nothing wrong with criticism, but all the reasons that you described, including what JB inherited, should ALL be considered when making an argument. Meanwhile, some posters here have been re-iterating JB's problems without trying to understand (or refusing to do so in many cases) the circumstances of why things happened the way they did.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

But an actually useful defensemen was considered preferable to Chatfield and Rafferty. I exist, but I'm not a good option on D for the Canucks.

 

Hope this helps.

 

2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

It goes against the never ending narrative, but Benning is well respected by his fellow GMs.

 

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Instead of Poolman?  

image.gif.7edd591f91b33b79afdb64f9f4ffa331.gif

 

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

No, Vancouver was cutting its losses. Losing Schmidt gave Vancouver the flexibility to add depth - something you already confirmed to be the case. Would it really be insane if you brought back Rafferty and Chatfield? :picard:

I see the brigade is here and ready to fire.

 

Anyways, the facts are as follows:

 

1.  Vancouver didn't have to necessarily move Schmidt.  They wanted to and they did.  As I said, keeping Schmidt just meant less depth, it does not mean additional cap problems (this was suggested to me by Dazzle as the reason they moved Schmidt.  This reasoning is wrong)

2.  This was originally brought up because of discussion around moving Poolman down the line.  There were some claims that it would be easy.  I am providing the clarification that it's only "easy" if we have a team willing to make a deal with.  Duh.

  • RoughGame 3
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...