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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

Everyone just needs to calm down and see how things play out. No point in analyzing a player when he hasn't even put on a Canucks jersey yet. Some players succeed in different systems and different roles, I'd take Shaw's word than anyone else's on this forum. Yeah the term sucks but for all we know he could be the perfect fit on our team and our scouts and coaches may have seen something special that we haven't. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, AV. said:

Thing is, one could be optimistic and supportive without the need to stick it to a group they disagree with.

 

If somebody wants a Poolman jersey, awesome.  In this case, the person wanted to get one to "shut up the idiots" or something alone those lines.  Bit of a difference in intention there, IMO.

Love how you constantly twist things. YET AGAIN...it's not what you're doing, it's how you're doing it. Go read my original post today about the issues on here re: the negative agendas etc. What you are actually doing on here and what you perceive you are doing on here are 2 drastically different things. Do you think all of us are making it up or calling you out for s**** and giggles??? There's a reason even though you can't seem to see it. 

Edited by IRR
  • Wat 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, Shaw liked the idea of signing this specific big RHD that isn't very old and we locked him down for only 2.5 per over 4 years. This player was able to step up and hold down top 4 mins in playoff hockey. He is a defensive minded d-man. Knows some of our players and is willing to physically back up teams mates.

 

Like, exactly what the Nucks need?

 

 

This thread is 50 pages too long. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 i predict that Poolman will be worth his contract and quite likely out performs it.

 

 

Any doubters want to show integrity and make a prediction instead of wishy washy responses?

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

Thing is, one could be optimistic and supportive without the need to stick it to a group they disagree with.

 

If somebody wants a Poolman jersey, awesome.  In this case, the person wanted to get one to "shut up the idiots" or something alone those lines.  Bit of a difference in intention there, IMO.

That was me.  I just think defensive dmen are underappreciated, he'll be here for a while, and it would be unique.  If you're offended by how I said it, that's not my problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, AV. said:

Thing is, one could be optimistic and supportive without the need to stick it to a group they disagree with.

 

If somebody wants a Poolman jersey, awesome.  In this case, the person wanted to get one to "shut up the idiots" or something alone those lines.  Bit of a difference in intention there, IMO.

Oh really? You say this because your opinions are being countered by a majority. I've seen plenty of examples of gatekeeping with regards to praising Benning. It's really bad on twitter/Reddit there. Much less so here, but it's maybe due to the platform. Basically the moment you praise the GM, you'll be neg repped and essentially silenced by the majority 

 

You're definitely not innocent of playing this game, and hence the comments that accuse you of playing the victim. As you proudly suggest, the controversial stuff is the shtick you're known for. 

 

As for Benning, no one ever said he was ever perfect. But credit should be due when it is. It took a lot of teeth pulling from you to admit that making cap from trading Schmidt was a good thing.

 

Previously you kept reiterating that Schmidt was an unnecessary trade.

 

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

That was me.  I just think defensive dmen are underappreciated, he'll be here for a while, and it would be unique.  If you're offended by how I said it, that's not my problem.

I don't think anybody is offended, per se.  In regards to what I quoted, I believe MM highlighted that post because it was an example of a "positive" post meant to take a dig at users.  It was to demonstrate that a portion of the divisiveness in this thread wasn't just coming from those against the signing of Poolman like it's being suggested.

 

In any event, Poolman's here for four years.  He has more than enough time to play up to "jersey-worthy" standards lol.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

Oh really? You say this because your opinions are being countered by a majority. I've seen plenty of examples of gatekeeping with regards to praising Benning. It's really bad on twitter/Reddit there. Much less so here, but it's maybe due to the platform. Basically the moment you praise the GM, you'll be neg repped and essentially silenced by the majority 

 

You're definitely not innocent of playing this game, and hence the comments that accuse you of playing the victim. As you proudly suggest, the controversial stuff is the shtick you're known for. 

 

As for Benning, no one ever said he was ever perfect. But credit should be due when it is. It took a lot of teeth pulling from you to admit that making cap from trading Schmidt was a good thing.

 

Previously you kept reiterating that Schmidt was an unnecessary trade.

 

 

Ok but this is not Reddit or Twitter.  Maybe you should address those people and not me lol?

 

Actually, it didn't.  The only reason why we started talking about Schmidt is because we were talking about the feasibility of moving Poolman.  

 

And, yes, moving Schmidt was still optional.  It's not an issue that management decided to move him but they were under no obligation or necessary cap pressures (as you suggested) to do so.  They moved him because they wanted to, plain and simple.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, RWMc1 said:

Labelling optimistic posters is also divisive. Where are you when negative posters do that?

If they cross the same line, I call them out when I see it.

 

For example, there were plenty of people saying they weren't going to watch the 2020 playoffs for one reason or another. I'd tell them to not watch. The rest of us can enjoy the Canucks playoff run, and we did.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

Ok but this is not Reddit or Twitter.  Maybe you should address those people and not me lol?

 

Actually, it didn't.  The only reason why we started talking about Schmidt is because we were talking about the feasibility of moving Poolman.  

 

And, yes, moving Schmidt was still optional.  It's not an issue that management decided to move him but they were under no obligation or necessary cap pressures (as you suggested) to do so.  They moved him because they wanted to, plain and simple.

If you're truly interested in reflecting why you get blasted for your behaviour, re-read this.

 

On 7/28/2021 at 9:03 AM, AV. said:

 

LOL

On 7/28/2021 at 9:05 AM, AV. said:

Some good work with Sutter and Halak quickly gets undone with this Poolman signing.

 

Life under Benning.  One step forward, one step back.

Somehow the signing of Sutter and Halak represents one step. And the Poolman signing represents one step. You can count, can't you?

 

You know what you're doing. You're antagonizing people here. Don't pretend that other people are wrong for reacting what you're inciting.

 

 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

If they cross the same line, I call them out when I see it.

 

For example, there were plenty of people saying they weren't going to watch the 2020 playoffs for one reason or another. I'd tell them to not watch. The rest of us can enjoy the Canucks playoff run, and we did.

I don't think so, bud. This is divisive language, and you approved it.

 

image.thumb.png.bdb0dbd4da4c3f40d3af651ecd679f4b.png

  • Cheers 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

If you're truly interested in reflecting why you get blasted for your behaviour, re-read this.

 

Somehow the signing of Sutter and Halak represents one step. And the Poolman signing represents one step. You can count, can't you?

 

You know what you're doing. You're antagonizing people here. Don't pretend that other people are wrong for reacting what you're inciting.

 

 

I'm not concerned with how others view me lol.  I have a legion of followers who "paperbag" or "wat" anything I post and it's just comical.

 

Also, I'm really curious to see who I'm antagonizing, seeing as my posts are not in response to anybody and I'm not mentioning any users by name.  Spell that one out for me.  Am I just supposed to stop posting because you and others don't exercise your abilities to ignore my posts and move along?  We have an ignore function, perhaps that's the logical thing for you and some others to use here?  

 

In any event, I'm allowed to share my opinion on signings.  And, to be quite honest, my thoughts on Wednesday are still true today.  The Halak and Sutter deals were fiscally responsible with our cap.  The Poolman deal parallels a lot of other deals that have gotten us in trouble in the past.  There's nothing negative in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

I'm not concerned with how others view me lol.  I have a legion of followers who "paperbag" or "wat" anything I post and it's just comical.

 

Also, I'm really curious to see who I'm antagonizing, seeing as my posts are not in response to anybody and I'm not mentioning any users by name.  Spell that one out for me.  Am I just supposed to stop posting because you and others don't exercise your abilities to ignore my posts and move along?  We have an ignore function, perhaps that's the logical thing for you and some others to use here?  

 

In any event, I'm allowed to share my opinion on signings.  And, to be quite honest, my thoughts on Wednesday are still true today.  The Halak and Sutter deals were fiscally responsible with our cap.  The Poolman deal parallels a lot of other deals that have gotten us in trouble in the past.  There's nothing negative in that.

4 hours 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.

You're slipping, AV.

NO ONE has ever said you're not allowed to share your opinion. We'd just prefer that you drop your shtick because it's just really annoying for others. Someone like @Squamfan pops in to jeer about the signings, but makes no attempt to generate any kind of discussion on the positive signings (same as above).

 

And instances like this where you lump people in posts like these (and many other ones before it) is why you attract even more negative reactions.

 

As I said in another post, it took a LOT of teeth pulling for you to talk about how JB exercised better cap management this FA. Given your first two posts above, your interest is not to discuss. It's to annoy/antagonize.

 

 

  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Master Mind said:

If they cross the same line, I call them out when I see it.

 

For example, there were plenty of people saying they weren't going to watch the 2020 playoffs for one reason or another. I'd tell them to not watch. The rest of us can enjoy the Canucks playoff run, and we did.

Were they using divisive language?

 

 

Here's a clue, your partner did that a few pages back and you didn't say a word. Did you see that. If not go back a few pages and read av's posts. I'll wait for you to call that poster out.

  • Cheers 2
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...