[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[AV.]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

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/

 

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.

 

 

 

Hunwick, Nemeth, and Gudas all have way more experience than Poolman.  At the same time, I don't think any of them have ever signed 4 year deals (could be wrong on Gudas because I forget when he signed his deal with Florida).  Regardless, they had to play in the league and sustain their value.

 

On this topic, look at what the Leafs gave Jeff Finger back in 2008.  If memory serves correct, 4 years at 3.5M AAV.  Finger had a similar amount of games and was around the same age (also a late bloomer).  See for yourself how well that contract aged.

 

In any event, even if we agree that he's a solid #5, do we not already have that exact profile in Myers and Hamonic?  2.5 + 3 + 6 is 11.5M in #5 d-men.  Hardly a responsible use of money.

[oldnews]

should probably do everyone a favour...

 

and lock and flush this garbage thread.

 

 

 

Just when the Dickinson thread looked as though this forum/market may have turned a corner.....

 

 

 

 

would not be denied.

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

Hunwick, Nemeth, and Gudas all have way more experience than Poolman.  At the same time, I don't think any of them have ever signed 4 year deals (could be wrong on Gudas because I forget when he signed his deal with Florida).  Regardless, they had to play in the league and sustain their value.

 

On this topic, look at what the Leafs gave Jeff Finger back in 2008.  If memory serves correct, 4 years at 3.5M AAV.  Finger had a similar amount of games and was around the same age (also a late bloomer).  See for yourself how well that contract aged.

 

In any event, even if we agree that he's a solid #5, do we not already have that exact profile in Myers and Hamonic?  2.5 + 3 + 6 is 11.5M in #5 d-men.  Hardly a responsible use of money.

Hamonic and Myers are not #5 d-men and saying they are repeatedly does not make it true. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

Hamonic and Myers are not #5 d-men and saying they are repeatedly does not make it true. 

Meh.  Opinions.

 

I've seen a few comparisons that Poolman is akin Chris Tanev.  Will you also be calling out those opinions for their obvious hyperbole, or just the ones you don't agree with? 

[canuck73_3]

Just now, AV. said:

Meh.  Opinions.

 

I've seen a few comparisons that Poolman is akin Chris Tanev.  Will you also be calling out those opinions for their obvious hyperbole, or just the ones you don't agree with? 

I don’t agree that Poolman is like Tanev either. Nor have I said that myself. But keep playing the victim. 

[BigTramFan]

Last season Poolman played 52 mins on the penalty kill. Equivalent to 26 complete power plays. Guess how many goals were scored while he was on the ice for that time? 3 goals. That's a PP% of 11.5% for the opposition while he's on the ice. I think the lad can defend. I think that's why JB signed him. I don't think stats showing his poor offense are relevant. Esp charts from JD Burke that talk about Poolman's powerplay success - complete waste of time because he's played 12 mins total of powerplay time in 3 seasons.

[Dazzle]

19 minutes ago, AV. said:

Hunwick, Nemeth, and Gudas all have way more experience than Poolman.  At the same time, I don't think any of them have ever signed 4 year deals (could be wrong on Gudas because I forget when he signed his deal with Florida).  Regardless, they had to play in the league and sustain their value.

 

On this topic, look at what the Leafs gave Jeff Finger back in 2008.  If memory serves correct, 4 years at 3.5M AAV.  Finger had a similar amount of games and was around the same age (also a late bloomer).  See for yourself how well that contract aged.

 

In any event, even if we agree that he's a solid #5, do we not already have that exact profile in Myers and Hamonic?  2.5 + 3 + 6 is 11.5M in #5 d-men.  Hardly a responsible use of money.

Nice. A comparable to a random contract 12 years ago (13 really) and then going back to the original premise of "responsible use of money".
 

Clearly you didn't even look at the link that I provided, which would've assisted you on this.

 

 

 

Hunwick is 36.

Gudas is 31

Nemeth 29

 

 

I just verified the above numbers. Meanwhile Poolman is 28, but has fewer games, thus potentially having more mileage.  So these are active players that are being paid around where Poolman's salary is. All of them are not known for offense. They are strictly defensive defenseman. Poolman is therefore NOT an overpayment.

Add to the fact that Shaw SPECIFICALLY asked for him, we may have someone that's quietly good.

 

 

 

Edited August 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[AV.]

Just now, canuck73_3 said:

I don’t agree that Poolman is like Tanev either. Nor have I said that myself. But keep playing the victim. 

First off, there's no victim here and nobody, certainly not me, is acting like one.  I asked a question since you've made it clear that you will "address the bs" when you see it.  That's why I brought it up.  Personally, I think comparing a guy with just over 100 GP to one of the game's better shutdown guys is a bit of a reach.  I was just curious to see if you classified that as 'bs" since this was a positive, but pretty exaggerated, compliment.

[Dazzle]

12 minutes ago, AV. said:

Meh.  Opinions.

 

I've seen a few comparisons that Poolman is akin Chris Tanev.  Will you also be calling out those opinions for their obvious hyperbole, or just the ones you don't agree with? 

They didn't say Poolman IS Chris Tanev. They said Poolman could be Chris Tanev, or a cheaper version of it. That's not hyperbole. That's called hope.

 

Also:

 

 

PREDICTING.

You're such a troll, @AV.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, AV. said:

First off, there's no victim here and nobody, certainly not me, is acting like one.  I asked a question since you've made it clear that you will "address the bs" when you see it.  That's why I brought it up.  Personally, I think comparing a guy with just over 100 GP to one of the game's better shutdown guys is a bit of a reach.  I was just curious to see if you classified that as 'bs" since this was a positive, but pretty exaggerated, compliment.

 

11 minutes ago, AV. said:

Meh.  Opinions.

 

I've seen a few comparisons that Poolman is akin Chris Tanev.  Will you also be calling out those opinions for their obvious hyperbole, or just the ones you don't agree with? 

Not being a victim at all, just as Provost is never projecting. 

[canuck73_3]

4 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

They didn't say Poolman IS Chris Tanev. They said Poolman could be Chris Tanev, or a cheaper version of it. That's not hyperbole. That's called hope.

That is how I perceived it although it is quite the reach imo. 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, canuck73_3 said:

That is how I perceived it although it is quite the reach imo. 

Sure, it is quite the reach, but it's a bigger reach to SUGGEST (on the part of AV) that Canucks fans were EQUATING Poolman to Tanev as of right now. That's exactly what AV said in his post.

 

I just want to make a special mention that AV has stopped talking about hockey players. It's almost like he's interested in bashing this signing and player than to actually do the homework.

 

It's really strange how this apparent Canuck fan would be so obsessed with a guy making 2.5 mill x 4.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Dazzle

[canuck73_3]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Sure, it is quite the reach, but it's a bigger reach to SUGGEST (on the part of AV) that Canucks fans were EQUATING Poolman to Tanev as of right now. That's exactly what AV said in his post.

 

I just want to make a special mention that AV has stopped talking about hockey players. It's almost like he's interested in bashing this signing and player than to actually do the homework.

 

It's really strange how this apparent Canuck fan would be so obsessed with a guy making 2.5 mill x 4.

It is crippling to our cap having a third pair dman making third pair dman money. 

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Nice. A comparable to a random contract 12 years ago (13 really) and then going back to the original premise of "responsible use of money".
 

Clearly you didn't even look at the link that I provided, which would've assisted you on this.

 

 

 

Hunwick is 36.

Gudas is 31

Nemeth 29

 

 

I just verified the above numbers. Meanwhile Poolman is 28, but has fewer games, thus potentially having more mileage.  So these are active players that are being paid around where Poolman's salary is. All of them are not known for offense. They are strictly defensive defense. Poolman is therefore NOT an overpayment.

Add to the fact that Shaw SPECIFICALLY asked for him, we may have someone that's quietly good.

 

 

Their age is not significant, or not as important as you suggest.  Those guys you listed each played many seasons in the NHL prior to becoming UFAs unlike Poolman.  They spent years building up their NHL resume to get those numbers in UFA.  That's why I brought up Finger (or, we could even use Hakanpaa since he's a similar age and has a similar amount of GP to Poolman).  We effectively took a gamble.

 

I think the assessment that less GP = more mileage is also quite bizarre.  Up until this point, he's still been playing hockey, it just hasn't been at the highest level.  The body will age as the body ages.  A 32 year old rookie, for example, wouldn't offer more mileage than a 30 year old veteran of 10 years in the NHL. 

 

Yes, evidently management and the coaching staff sees something in him.  For their sake, I hope their intuition is rewarded with good results.  At the end of the day, however, I'm allowed to have an opinion, anyways.  Management thought Beagle, Roussel, Ferland, Myers, etc were great uses of money and term.  I didn't think those contracts were smart to give out.  Arguably, it was smart of me, as a fan of hockey and a fan of the team, to keep my opinion rather than discard it simply because management felt differently.  We don't need to be drones and simply support everything this management does.  We have the agency to challenge it and be proven right or be proven wrong.

[TheRussianRocket1994]

[AV.]

14 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

 

Not being a victim at all, just as Provost is never projecting. 

Again, just an honest question.  I don't feel I'm being targeted by you.  I was just curious to see how large of scope your "bs addressor" would cover.

[4petesake]

1 hour ago, canuck73_3 said:

The point of prospects is that they make the NHL. It is not a bad thing we have players graduating to he NHL and using that as a knock on our prospect pool shows how little you care about anything beyond being “right” in your myopic view of Benning. 

 

I’m not so sure that we do all know the numbers (as stated) so here’s a little information on draft picks on active rosters: 4 (1 team)  5 (1 team) 6 (6)  7 (2)  8 (7)  9 (3)  10 (4)  11 (4)  12 (3)

 

Vancouver has 8 picks on the active roster so more than or equal to 17 teams, and less than 14 teams.
We have more than LV, Ariz, Chi, Colo, Minny, Car, Wash, Det, Florida, Mont.

We have the same as Nash, NYR, Pitts, Buff, Ott, Tor.

We have less than Ana, Cal, Edm, LA, SJ, Dal, St L, Win, Columbus, NJD, NYI, Phil, Bos, TB.

[Dazzle]

9 minutes ago, AV. said:

Their age is not significant, or not as important as you suggest.  Those guys you listed each played many seasons in the NHL prior to becoming UFAs unlike Poolman.  They spent years building up their NHL resume to get those numbers in UFA.  That's why I brought up Finger (or, we could even use Hakanpaa since he's a similar age and has a similar amount of GP to Poolman).  We effectively took a gamble.

 

I think the assessment that less GP = more mileage is also quite bizarre.  Up until this point, he's still been playing hockey, it just hasn't been at the highest level.  The body will age as the body ages.  A 32 year old rookie, for example, wouldn't offer more mileage than a 30 year old veteran of 10 years in the NHL. 

 

Yes, evidently management and the coaching staff sees something in him.  For their sake, I hope their intuition is rewarded with good results.  At the end of the day, however, I'm allowed to have an opinion, anyways.  Management thought Beagle, Roussel, Ferland, Myers, etc were great uses of money and term.  I didn't think those contracts were smart to give out.  Arguably, it was smart of me, as a fan of hockey and a fan of the team, to keep my opinion rather than discard it simply because management felt differently.  We don't need to be drones and simply support everything this management does.  We have the agency to challenge it and be proven right or be proven wrong.

This literally has nothing to do with this thread, yet this ALWAYS comes up for some reason.

 

I haven't said a freaking word about management, and SOMEHOW it always keeps coming up.

 

He's only 28. He has a lot of room to grow potentially, so 2.5 is NOT an unreasonable amount.

[Dazzle]

Off topic, this is actually pretty hilarious..

 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

This literally has nothing to do with this thread, yet this ALWAYS comes up for some reason.

 

I haven't said a freaking word about management, and SOMEHOW it always keeps coming up.

 

He's only 28. He has a lot of room to grow potentially, so 2.5 is NOT an unreasonable amount.

It's pertinent to bring up since your insinuation is that my opinion is invalid because management thinks otherwise on this particular player.

 

If you're really concerned about this thread and discussion of this player, have a look at this very response I just quoted, and examine how you don't bother to address the discourse on the player and instead focus on my anecdote about why opinions are important.

 

If you feel he has tons of untapped potential and is worth paying 2.5M annually over 4 years, all power to you.  I believe that we should compensate proof over potential with our cap-space.