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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

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. 

No, moving him is fine.  I am suggesting that they didn't have to move him if they didn't want to.  It was suggested to me that the Canucks had to do it because of impending cap problems.  That reasoning is incorrect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Who would’ve guess that Tucker Poolman would become the hot topic of Canucks fan discussion in the off-season of 2021? :lol:

 

But get used to it, Canucks fans, because I have a feeling we’re just getting started.

 

I think we can all agree that the contract took most of us by surprise, especially the 4 year term.

 

This is a player with a pretty limited NHL profile, in term of his games played. The sample size is hardly large enough to offer a really clear picture of his value as an NHL player (either by analytics or “eye test”), so it’s extremely difficult to project and evaluate his impact over a contract that runs the next four years into the future.

 

It’s a gamble by Vancouver. Not a particularly expensive one, at $2.5M AAV, but still, it has the potential to be another inefficient long term contract by this management group, and we all know how those types of deals have gone in the past. We’re just getting out from under a number of those deals, and it took some significant effort (and risk, in taking on OEL’s contract), to clear those deals last time around.

 

However, there is also the potential for reward, if Poolman proves to be the player the Canucks are gambling he will be in Vancouver.

 

There’s a pretty credible argument that the Canucks intend to pair Poolman with OEL next season, and if that pairing works, it may become a staple of the next four years. And if it indeed works, $2.5M for the guy playing alongside OEL, on a top-4 pairing, used in a matchup role at evens, and eating significant minutes, would be money well spent. That’s if it works, of course (notice that I’m repeating myself? ;)).

 

But with Hamonic almost certainly playing alongside Hughes, it’s either Myers or Poolman who draws in beside OEL. And if recent usage tells us anything about how the Canucks view Myers, they don’t like him in a matchup role, and they recognize that he’s not a “defensive” D or a player who provides “cover” on a pairing, especially in “tough” minutes or versus high quality competition. So I’d expect to see Myers kept in the same sheltered EV role as he played last season, partnering one of the young LHDs in Juolevi or Rathbone, at evens, and bumping up his total minutes with special teams play.

 

Which leaves Poolman as the heir apparent to the right side of the new OEL pairing.

 

And Benning has never been shy about being willing to “pay up” to ensure he gets the guys he wants in free agency, and being willing to compensate players according to the future role and value he sees in them, even if the history to-date, and the perceived player value outside of the Vancouver front office (especially when it comes to the analytics), don’t necessarily agree with him.

 

But in the case of Poolman, I’m not even sure the argument holds that this is Benning truly overpaying, based on what we’ve seen in free agency this year. The market for defencemen was overheated, with a lot of activity on day one, and plenty of Dmen getting more term and higher AAVs than expected. And Dmen who profile as more “throwback” types, with size, rugged/physical makeups, and on-ice value mainly focused in their own zone, saw an uptick on value, after a general decline trend in recent years. This is most likely due to the recent playoffs and the Canadiens effect, and the Habs’ success was largely credited to their defence, and teams always seek to emulate whatever worked recently. 
 

So while the analytics may point to Poolman being “replacement level,” he’s also a big man who’s perceived as solid in his own zone (and the suppression side analytics generally back this up), who doesn’t necessarily give you much offence, but offers dependable in-zone defence, can play a matchup role, and, unlike other similar profiling Dmen, actually skates rather well for a big man.

 

It’s easy to see what the Canucks like in this player, even though it is a bit of a gamble.

 

On the positive side, I do see a fair amount in the analytics that supports betting on Poolman. His early career profile is actually similar to what you often see in a good defensive D who’s been on either a bad team or a bad pairing, and you could make the case for both the Jets, and for Poolman’s most frequent partner, in Morrissey. 
 

While the overall metrics haven’t been great, there is evidence of solid suppression ability in Poolman, and his numbers fit a certain mode that I’ve seen in other players of this type. His differentials get better as you move from Corsi, to Fenwick, to shots for/against, and his goal f/a outperform his expected goals. Analytics often view this type of profile negatively, but when it comes to defensive Dmen, I’ve often seen these numbers in players during “down years” and then with improved team situations (either an overall team improvement or a new pairing with better “fit” and chemistry), the player seems to maintain their suppression side stats, and see an overall improvement in the areas where they were perceived to struggle, either from positive team effects or a positive change their D partner. And suddenly, a “replacement level” Dman can become an analytics darling, even though it could be argued that the player himself didn’t really change all that much.

 

Even within Poolman’s last two seasons, if you merely combined his defensive value last year, with his offensive value the previous year, you’d probably end up with about a 9 GAR player, and suddenly you’d see those JFresh charts showing a whole lot of green.

 

Of course, there’s just not really enough data available on him right now to try to predict what the next four years will bring. But if Poolman can play solid in his own end, and provide above average suppression rates, while having the mobility to at least “tag along” with the offence, and maybe pickup some points along the way, and possibly also enjoy better overall “possession” metrics, just by virtue of team play, then it really wouldn’t take much for him to suddenly chart as a 1.5-2 WAR defenceman (one and a half to two wins above replacement), which fancy stats tend to value as $6-8M AAV players, just for what it’s worth. ;) 

 

Not saying this is what he’ll become, but more just trying to show the volatility in the numbers, and how quickly a “bad player,” by the analytics, can become a “good player.” 
 

Hockey is a messy game to try to explain through analytics. So much randomness, and just the nature of this game doesn’t lend itself well to using numbers to evaluate current individual player on-ice value. And it’s even worse when you attempt to predict future performance. 
 

The Poolman signing is a gamble, and it’s largely a pro scouting call (and I won’t get into my level of confidence in the Canucks pro scouts here ;)), as the analytics really don’t offer much help here. But if the scouts are right, and we get four years out of Poolman, as a rugged, defensive/suppression, matchup, Top-4 D, then his $2.5M AAV will be a bargain for this team. And if that happens, the analytics will likely turn around dramatically, and all those fancy charts might very well turn into seas of green. 
 

Look, it’s not necessarily the gamble I’d make if I were sitting in the GM’s chair, but I don’t hate it either, and I’m very interested to watch how it works out, and willing to just “wait and see,” when it comes to Poolman.

 

I have a feeling we’ll be talking about him a lot, either way, but hopefully it will be a positive conversation. :) 

TLDR.

 

Gave you kudos cuz it looked like you put in alot of effort.

 

:P

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

 

 

 

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.

They needed to move Schmidt because he was awful last year, and if he repeated that performance he'd have significant negative value.  He simply doesn't fit into our group, and getting rid of him was addition by subtraction.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BPA said:

TLDR.

 

Gave you kudos cuz it looked like you put in alot of effort.

 

:P

Haha, not really much effort. Jotted that thing out rather quickly, since I already had the thoughts rattling around in my head.

 

No worries about not reading it, though. It’s pretty long.

 

But at least the quote replies shrink things down now. ;) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AV. said:

 

 

 

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.

Why did you quote me for this simplistic "clarification"

 

I stated that Benning is well respected by his peers. Do you dispute that?

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

They needed to move Schmidt because he was awful last year, and if he repeated that performance he'd have significant negative value.  He simply doesn't fit into our group, and getting rid of him was addition by subtraction.

Well, you acknowledged the "if".  Now, what happens if he rebounded - do they still *need* to move him?  This is why I said necessarily.

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

 

 

 

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.

 

You're just ignoring aspects of arguments, which is part of the reason why you get a ton of heat on here.

 

Think of it. What can you do with 500,000 in Vancouver? Renting is your most likely option (barring options like living with family etc), unless you move AWAY from the city. So clearly you can't spend some of the money to buy a Lamborghini (roughly 200-300 k).

 

You COULD rent and drive a Lamborghini, but that would be wasteful. Why not break up that 200,000 and spend it on something else? Maybe put it in investments?

The point is: Schmidt as a single entity is wasteful and not necessarily a good thing to keep in the lineup. If the rumours are true, he wants out, so why keep him if he doesn't want to be there? If there's an offer available, just take it and cut your losses as much as possible. Fortunately WIN came in and got a deal done. Both teams basically win. I would argue that Winnipeg won more than Vancouver, but that is a minor point.

 

The depth is going to be far more important than having Schmidt face an injury later in the season and we have no replacement.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RWMc1 said:

Why did you quote me for this simplistic "clarification"

 

I stated that Benning is well respected by his peers. Do you dispute that?

My point didn't really have anything to do with Benning.  I can't dispute it as I don't know how he gets along with other GMs.

 

From all accounts, Benning comes across as a really friendly man.  Don't imagine he would have too many enemies (for better or worse).

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

No, moving him is fine.  I am suggesting that they didn't have to move him if they didn't want to. 

Certainly, in a factual sense, they didn't have to move him. They could have been stubborn and told him that he agreed to the trade and that's it. Suck it up, Schmidtcup!

 

That's not realistic though. Keeping a player who wants to be traded has the potential to create friction more than it doesn't. It has the potential to affect chemistry and on ice performance. I'm thinking they saw a player who wasn't happy and didn't want that to continue to fester.

1 minute ago, AV. said:

It was suggested to me that the Canucks had to do it because of impending cap problems.  That reasoning is incorrect.

I think it was primarily to move on from a less than desirable situation. The cap that Schmidt took up, has now been transferred over to Hamonic, Poolman, and Schenn. 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dazzle said:

 

You're just ignoring aspects of arguments, which is part of the reason why you get a ton of heat on here.

 

Think of it. What can you do with 500,000 in Vancouver? Renting is your most likely option (barring options like living with family etc), unless you move AWAY from the city. So clearly you can't spend some of the money to buy a Lamborghini (roughly 200-300 k).

 

You COULD rent and drive a Lamborghini, but that would be wasteful. Why not break up that 200,000 and spend it on something else? Maybe put it in investments?

The point is: Schmidt as a single entity is wasteful and not necessarily a good thing to keep in the lineup. If the rumours are true, he wants out, so why keep him if he doesn't want to be there? If there's an offer available, just take it and cut your losses as much as possible. Fortunately WIN came in and got a deal done. Both teams basically win. I would argue that Winnipeg won more than Vancouver, but that is a minor point.

 

The depth is going to be far more important than having Schmidt face an injury later in the season and we have no replacement.

Again, moving him was the correct decision.  I am not disputing that.

 

I am disputing the notion that it was absolutely necessary to move him because of cap problems.  The Canucks moved him to gain cap flexibility, not to alleviate themselves of cap issues.

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

Well, you acknowledged the "if".  Now, what happens if he rebounded - do they still *need* to move him?  This is why I said necessarily.

So what if these signings turn out to be good? It seems like you're finding reasons for these signings to criticize, and excusing ones that didn't work out before (i.e. Schmidt)

 

Makes me wonder why he takes this approach for Schmidt 'rebounding', but not taking this approach for other signings..

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

Again, moving him was the correct decision.  I am not disputing that.

 

I am disputing the notion that it was absolutely necessary to move him because of cap problems.  The Canucks moved him to gain cap flexibility, not to alleviate themselves of cap issues.

So in other words, Benning actually made some sensible, responsible GM decisions? oh my god, is it true? AV praising Benning? :ph34r:

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

So in other words, Benning actually made some sensible, responsible GM decisions? oh my god, is it true? AV praising Benning? :ph34r:

To open up cap relief --> yes.

 

To spend that money on Poolman and Hamonic --> eh.  I hope it works out, past signings have suggested otherwise to me.

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

 

 

 

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.

Also, you just characterized posters yet when it's done to you, you play the victim.

  • Hydration 2
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sergei Shirokov said:

Are Hamonic and Poolman considered a downgrade from Tanev and Stecher? 

Hamonic and Pool > Tan and Stecher

Especially in the playoffs. 

Hamonic could beat them both up at the same time. 

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

Well, you acknowledged the "if".  Now, what happens if he rebounded - do they still *need* to move him?  This is why I said necessarily.

Yes, they did.  He was absolutely awful, and didn't play the style they needed.  Poolman was better than him last year and you think he's overpaid.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Also, you just characterized posters yet when it's done to you, you play the victim.

???

Not really lol.  I say things on here that have a controversial nature since they border on criticism and many don't take kindly to that criticism since it isn't, as some say, pom-pom waving that people want to see.  I accept that.  I don't think I'm a victim at all.

  • Hydration 1
  • RoughGame 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

 

Nice bass line, lyrics were good till he got to LOUD and soft.

Iirc the opposite of LOUD is quiet?

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

Yes, they did.  He was absolutely awful, and didn't play the style they needed.  Poolman was better than him last year and you think he's overpaid.

Ok, well, thanks for sharing your opinion.

  • RoughGame 1
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...