[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[Provost]

1 minute ago, Master Mind said:

 

Similarly it seems many of the critics on this signing are skeptical of the term and aav, not Poolman himself.

That is certainly what the issue was from quite a few folks as well as others outside the market.  It wasn’t just a couple negative whiners like it was being portrayed as.  It was a common opinion.

 

The really short resume didn’t seem to warrant the term especially to many folks… me included.  
 

He could be a perfectly fine 3rd pairing D.  He could be a downgrade on Benn/Stecher.  He could end up being a Norris candidate by the end of this contract or be bought out or traded with sweetener to take his contract off the books.
 

 No one should be insulted on their opinion of the signing as none of those things have happened yet.

[Master Mind]

Just now, Dazzle said:

These were DIFFERENT perspectives on the player in different situafions. You seem to have missed the boat on this, badly. Furthermore, I don't see you engaging about the player, but instead defending your fantasy hockey pool friend.

Why is another hockey forum being used as evidence? Means little to nothing as far as I'm concerned. People can watch the games themselves to come to their own conclusions.

 

I've made several posts about the player, and how I don't mind him, just that I don't like the contract. It appears you missed those.

[Putgolzin]

18 minutes ago, Provost said:

 

We all know the numbers…

So six on the roster already… two likely to be on the roster next season… a bunch of others who we have no idea about that make up one of the weakest prospect pools in the league.

 

Fewer than when Benning started… fewer than most teams.  How is that proof of a successful rebuild?

My answer would to that would be that only about 4 years ago we were all wondering where we were going to find six Top 6 players.

We had Bo and maaaybe Boeser.

Now we've got a Top 6 full of our past-prospects and Hughes on the back end. They weren't just nuts n bolts filling in the lower lines like in the past - they're quality stars.

I won't argue that our non-graduated prospect pool currently looks super thin however.

[Ur a Towel]

35 minutes ago, Provost said:

Who said it was… stop lying and making things up.

 

Someone quoted me and was denigrating me by using pretend facts that were objectively false.  I responded that those were false (they are… go do some work and look it up).

 

We have fewer of our own prospects on our roster now that when Benning started we don’t have more that graduated to the NHL than we lost.
 

We have a thin pipeline after them graduating due to so many picks being traded away.  

We have fewer of our own draft picks on our roster than most teams.

How is that evidence that we were trying to rebuild for the last seven years.. or even more importantly that we successfully rebuilt over there time like the contention is?
 

 

We had 9 players drafted by the team on our 2013-2014 roster by my quick count.  Not sure where you're getting your numbers from.  Also those were drafted by 3 different GMs over many more years. Some of those were borderline players, others close to retirement (Sedins and Bieksa)

Edited August 1, 2021 by Ur a Towel

[rekker]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Im just really curious what the pro scouts and coaches saw in TP. It could turn out to be a steal. 

 

Exactly. If he's just average, it's a little overpay. But if the talking heads got together and think that there is room for growth, the last two or three years will be a bargain. You gotta take some risks here and there to get a pay off. Good skater and worth the gamble imho.

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, Ur a Towel said:

We had 9 players drafted by the team on our 2013-2014 roster by my quick count.  Not sure where you're getting your numbers from.  Also those were drafted by 3 different GMs.

Gillis gets credit for Burke and Nonis’ picks but Benning has to have more on his own while ignoring the younger players brought in. Very clear bias in his takes. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, gurn said:

I'd like to get in to  just how you are qualified, and why you think you can join in with the 'other experts'.

Do you have some sort of accreditation, a diploma or some such paperwork?

Years of experience working in the league, with the "other experts"?

 

Do tell.

 

Well, for starters, I didn't intend to communicate that my opinion was on the same level as those other opinions I linked.

 

What I said, or tried to say, is that from my own opinion is not invalidated by a few fan recollections.  The same thing with "expert" opinions vs the Winnipeg fan comments.

 

I watch hockey, play fantasy sports, and I've seen the Jets play multiple times.  The vibe I always received from Poolman is that he was guy that played higher up in the pairings due to a lack of depth and injuries, not because of talent or skill.  I actually remember thinking that he reminded me a bit of Aaron Rome when he was here - A reliable option but probably not somebody you'd want in an important role in a long-term basis.  This is why I questioned and criticized the signing.  The player is fine but at the term and money, I wonder if we could have done better.

[canuck73_3]

5 minutes ago, Provost said:

That is certainly what the issue was from quite a few folks as well as others outside the market.  It wasn’t just a couple negative whiners like it was being portrayed as.  It was a common opinion.

 

The really short resume didn’t seem to warrant the term especially to many folks… me included.  
 

He could be a perfectly fine 3rd pairing D.  He could be a downgrade on Benn/Stecher.  He could end up being a Norris candidate by the end of this contract or be bought out or traded with sweetener to take his contract off the books.
 

 No one should be insulted on their opinion of the signing as none of those things have happened yet.

The ones getting called out are the ones presenting it as a fact that it was a bad signing. If some in here would stop acting as things are a failure 5 minutes after the deal is made there would be less people here calling them on their bs. 

[Provost]

2 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Quality>>>Quantity also you ignore the players brought in as rebuilds are not linear draft only moves. 

You also said nothing in the pipeline which is laughably false. 
 

Just admit it was a rebuild and not the way you agree with already. 
 

I don’t agree with tank rebuilds like Edmonton and Buffalo but they are still rebuilds. It is not that hard to grasp. 

So moving the goalposts again.  I was told I was wrong exactly becuse of the number of our own draft picks on the roster was proof of a rebuild.

 

Now since that wasn’t actually true… we shouldn’t care about the numbers and it is really the quality instead!  Ignore the numbers now because they go against your bias!

 

If you redefine “rebuild” as any moves a GM makes including giving up futures and young players to win in the short term by getting older veterans players in their stead… sure we had a rebuild.   If you change the meaning to include everything possible… it loses any meaning and is not how the term is understood by virtually everyone.
 

 

 

 

[hammertime]

Did anyone every manage to confirm how big he is?

[AV.]

1 minute ago, hammertime said:

Did anyone every manage to confirm how big he is?

I believe 6'2.

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Provost said:

So moving the goalposts again.  I was told I was wrong exactly becuse of the number of our own draft picks on the roster was proof of a rebuild.

 

Now since that wasn’t actually true… we shouldn’t care about the numbers and it is really the quality instead!  Ignore the numbers now because they go against your bias!

 

If you redefine “rebuild” as any moves a GM makes including giving up futures and young players to win in the short term by getting older veterans players in their stead… sure we had a rebuild.   If you change the meaning to include everything possible… it loses any meaning and is not how the term is understood by virtually everyone.
 

 

 

 

You move goal posts more than anyone in this thread get real. Benning has less picks than the previous GM ignoring that previous GM had picks from the two before him. So with your logic we have 7 on the roster with Horvat. 

[Ur a Towel]

2 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Did anyone every manage to confirm how big he is?

I don't think the people in here care anymore. Can't you see we're back to management convos and not Poolman? I think if we want actual convos about the player we should just head to his player page on the forums. 

(Haven't heard anything on his height to actually answer your question, although guess this isn't really an answer either)

[oldnews]

39 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Pettersson

Boeser

Hughes

Demko

Juolevi

Hoglander

 

on the cusp

Rathbone
Brisebois

Gadjovich

Podkolzin

Lockwood

 

In the pipeline

DiPietro

Jurmo

Costmar

Silovs

Woo

Klimovich

Jasek

 

etc etc 

C'mon 73

 

you know that's inferior to what 'we' had when Benning took over.

 

Sedin

Sedin

Kesler

Bieksa

Edler

Hansen

.....

(you know - the bumbs/stale declinind core that took us to a SCF...a low bar to match imo).

 

not to mention the next gen core of....

Jensen

Schroeder

Corrado!!

 

who were cumulatively drafted over a mere 14 year period from 1999 to 2013....

 

the 7 years of drafting prior to Benning yielding.....Horvat.

(my apologies to Gaunce, Corrado, Schroeder, Hodgson...for underplaying their importance to the franchise....)

 

To be fair though - Benning did inherit Horvat.  Oops, I almost forgot Ben Hutton....

 

This team did draft better before Benning....

[canuck73_3]

Just now, Ur a Towel said:

I don't think the people in here care anymore. Can't you see we're back to management convos and not Poolman? I think if we want actual convos about the player we should just head to his player page on the forums. 

(Haven't heard anything on his height to actually answer your question, although guess this isn't really an answer either)

We can meet in the middle at 6’3 

[AV.]

4 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

The ones getting called out are the ones presenting it as a fact that it was a bad signing. If some in here would stop acting as things are a failure 5 minutes after the deal is made there would be less people here calling them on their bs. 

That's not "BS".  Those are simply their opinions, no matter how well-backed or ill-stated they are.

 

Again, it isn't your job to go around fighting people on behalf of management, the player, or this team.   Just let people get proven wrong if you feel they're so off the course.  For example, there's tons of people on this board who think OEL will rebound after five mediocre seasons (ironically, this same group tends to think Schmidt after one mediocre season was doomed and couldn't possibly rebound).  Rather than attacking them and telling them they're wrong, myself (and presumably others who feel the same way I do), just let these people be and they can see for themselves that he's no longer the same player.  Their opinions aren't BS or trolling or anything like that.

 

Once you and some others here learn to just ignore and remove the emotion from your posting, threads like this one won't get derailed so easily.

[Dazzle]

14 minutes ago, AV. said:

Well, for starters, I didn't intend to communicate that my opinion was on the same level as those other opinions I linked.

 

What I said, or tried to say, is that from my own opinion is not invalidated by a few fan recollections.  The same thing with "expert" opinions vs the Winnipeg fan comments.

 

I watch hockey, play fantasy sports, and I've seen the Jets play multiple times.  The vibe I always received from Poolman is that he was guy that played higher up in the pairings due to a lack of depth and injuries, not because of talent or skill.  I actually remember thinking that he reminded me a bit of Aaron Rome when he was here - A reliable option but probably not somebody you'd want in an important role in a long-term basis.  This is why I questioned and criticized the signing.  The player is fine but at the term and money, I wonder if we could have done better.

 

So you'll confirm that the HFBoard posts about Winnipeg are pretty accurate. I feel the same way about Poolman, yet if that's the case, why is 2.5 "bad" then?

 

Patrick Nemeth, Radko Gudas, and Matt Hunwick are in this same ballpark

 

https://www.spotrac.com/nhl/contracts/sort-value/defenseman/limit-440/

 

Answer: It's not. You've just arbitrarily applied the judgement to this signing. This is the going rate for defenseman, especially those with limited offensive numbers. In all those signings, they are signed for this rate for about the same number of years, and they're about the same age. In other words, they are comparables.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[canuck73_3]

Just now, AV. said:

That's not "BS".  Those are simply their opinions, no matter how well-backed or ill-stated they are.

 

Again, it isn't your job to go around fighting people on behalf of management, the player, or this team.   Just let people get proven wrong if you feel they're so off the course.  For example, there's tons of people on this board who think OEL will rebound after five mediocre seasons (ironically, this same group tends to think Schmidt after one mediocre season was doomed and couldn't possibly rebound).  Rather than attacking them and telling them they're wrong, myself (and presumably others who feel the same way I do), just let these people be and they can see for themselves that he's no longer the same player.  Their opinions aren't BS or trolling or anything like that.

 

Once you and some others here learn to just ignore and remove the emotion from your posting, threads like this one won't get derailed so easily.

No it is bs when you deem the move a failure without even seeing him play. 
 

 

 

[Jester13]

41 minutes ago, Provost said:

I see crickets from you and Dazzle when taking smack in a post using made up nonsense and getting called out on it.  

Still don’t want to answer the question I see.  How is it a “bad take”.  It is demonstrably and verifiably true.  Refute it with facts rather than being snarky and deflecting…

 

I was away from the thread for a long time and came back to a couple dozen notifications and posts from you guys that had nothing to do with Poolman… so stop trying to suggest you are trying to have discussions about the topic and are some sort of victims of people trying to derail the thread… it is literally you two derailing the thread repeatedly and then crying when someone responds to you quoting and downvoting them dozens of times.

 

40 minutes ago, Provost said:

Are you going to answer the question regarding your “non-Poolman” related post insulting me using lies?

 

Presumably not…

Saying others are acting like the victim and then acting like you're the victim ... that's the epitome of projection. Keep it up while I watch this fantastic psychological thriller

 

 

 

[oldnews]

13 minutes ago, hammertime said:

Did anyone every manage to confirm how big he is?

can you try to stay on topic please.  this is not the Tucker Poolman thread.