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

[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, gurn said:

Salary cap in 2008 = $56,700,000 (US)

Salary cap 2021 = $81,500,000 (US).

a raise of 30.5% if my math is right.

Making Finger's  money the equivalent of $4,567,500 in todays dollars.

Now do the inverse, Poolman’s AAV by % of the cap metric would have been a gargantuan $1.739m back in 2008.  Totally comparable contract.

Edited by Millerdraft
Poor grammar ;)
  • Cheers 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Millerdraft said:

Now do the inverse, Poolman’s AAV by % of the cap metric would have been a gargantuan $1.739m back in 2008.  Totally comparable contract.

The comparison wasn't based around money.  It was based around their age and years of experience in the NHL relative to getting a multi-year UFA contract.

  • RoughGame 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AV. said:

The comparison wasn't based around money.  It was based around their age and years of experience in the NHL relative to getting a multi-year UFA contract.

I'd like to say that Poolman playing over his contract would make specific people in this thread eat their words, however, they'd just find their next target to complain about.

 

Benning has had an amazing offseason, time to cap it off with the two biggest signings for this franchise

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 2
  • Huggy Bear 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Except the comparison falls flat on its face. You tried to equate it to him getting a massive payday, when you've neglected a) the context, which is a humongous misstep when comparing players from two different time periods b) the ACTUAL percentage of cap on a player c) the comparable salaries made for a player doing the same types of jobs.

 

This wasn't talking about term/years of experience; the main point was CLEARLY about the responsible use of money.

Given how the thread was moderated, did you actually demonstrate a genuine interest in this player? Much has been posted the last day or so, and the toxicity disappeared because you didn't participate in it.

 

 

Makes me wonder.

The comparative salaries and their individual percentages on the cap structure aren't important.  The point still stands that money and term were committed to an inexperienced NHL player.  I referenced another signing, albeit a historical one, to show these signings (as in committing money and term to older players with not many NHL games) have potential to backfire. In any event, I hope our deal with Poolman works out, despite my reservations.

  • RoughGame 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps pertinent to discussion here as this seems to imply some (few or many) in the hockey world are also surprised at the contract itself.

It really does come down to how well/strategic Poolman is used in our team.  The correct role and deployment will be crucial.

  • RoughGame 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Except the comparison falls flat on its face. You tried to equate it to him getting a massive payday, when you've neglected a) the context, which is a humongous misstep when comparing players from two different time periods b) the ACTUAL percentage of cap on a player c) the comparable salaries made for a player doing the same types of jobs.

 

This wasn't talking about term/years of experience; the main point was CLEARLY about the responsible use of money.

Given how the thread was moderated, did you actually demonstrate a genuine interest in this player? Much has been posted the last day or so, and the toxicity disappeared because you didn't participate in it.

 

 

Makes me wonder.

led zeppelin GIF

  • Cheers 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, AV. said:

Perhaps pertinent to discussion here as this seems to imply some (few or many) in the hockey world are also surprised at the contract itself.

It really does come down to how well/strategic Poolman is used in our team.  The correct role and deployment will be crucial.

Sure, it's pertinent for a discussion in general, but as usual, you are still nitpicking at contracts, which in turn is a larger argument about the GM. :rolleyes:  You've admitted it as much in previous posts. The actual player discussion is lost. Look no further than the fact that you claimed to have reservations about the signing, and you used Jeff Finger as your example. :lol:

 

You have barely contributed to this thread in any kind of meaningful way, aside from the size of the contract, and management's previous offseason moves.

 

You had a chance to educate Chip Kelly about this player, but unfortunately, you simply claimed that the defense was a bottom 10 one, without any meaningful explanation for how you reached that conclusion. Equally, one could say that this defense is a top 10 one, so long as you don't have to elaborate on it.

 

image.thumb.png.0fd371af57a103f374c078095197be15.png

 

 

 

Then you approved this message by a guy that took a position that aligned with your views, as seen here. Of course, an unnecessary slag at the GM is mentioned, without really talking about the player.

 

Simply saying "At best he is a late bloomer" is pretty substandard analysis. I guess Tanev, who was once upon a time JUST a free prospect, was "at best a late bloomer". If you're just looking at the stats of him, you'd think he's just a plug. :rolleyes:

 

The point I'm making with this is: Chip Kelly has no clue about the player, and he has admitted as such. However, he's already disregarded the player that he doesn't actually know about. You approved that.

 

image.thumb.png.493ca4a089b091cdeb51dc679dec82fb.png

 

@AV. You don't really have a reason to be in this thread, aside from upvoting messages that slag at management, it seems. That is your MO. You claim to be fine with the player, but have this 'concern' about contracts.

 

Then without actually defending the player that you claim to know about, you support Chip Kelly's messages because it primarily slags the GM. Since he knows very little about the player, his position is essentially invalid, if we were to be fair.

 

Therefore, your purpose for being in this thread is to antagonize, or at the very least, you are re-hashing your arguments that have little to do with the actual player.



 

Edited by Dazzle
  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Sure, it's pertinent for a discussion in general, but as usual, you are still nitpicking at contracts, which in turn is a larger argument about the GM. :rolleyes:  You've admitted it as much in previous posts. The actual player discussion is lost. Look no further than the fact that you claimed to have reservations about the signing, and you used Jeff Finger as your example. :lol:

 

You have barely contributed to this thread in any kind of meaningful way, aside from the size of the contract, and management's previous offseason moves.

 

You had a chance to educate Chip Kelly about this player, but unfortunately, you simply claimed that the defense was a bottom 10 one, without any meaningful explanation for how you reached that conclusion. Equally, one could say that this defense is a top 10 one, so long as you don't have to elaborate on it.

 

image.thumb.png.0fd371af57a103f374c078095197be15.png

 

 

 

Then you approved this message by a guy that took a position that aligned with your views, as seen here. Of course, an unnecessary slag at the GM is mentioned, without really talking about the player.

 

Simply saying "At best he is a late bloomer" is pretty substandard analysis. I guess Tanev, who was once upon a time JUST a free prospect, was "at best a late bloomer". If you're just looking at the stats of him, you'd think he's just a plug. :rolleyes:

 

The point I'm making with this is: Chip Kelly has no clue about the player, and he has admitted as such. However, he's already disregarded the player that he doesn't actually know about. You approved that.

 

image.thumb.png.493ca4a089b091cdeb51dc679dec82fb.png

 

@AV. You don't really have a reason to be in this thread, aside from upvoting messages that slag at management, it seems. That is your MO. You claim to be fine with the player, but have this 'concern' about contracts.

 

Then without actually defending the player that you claim to know about, you support Chip Kelly's messages because it primarily slags the GM. Since he knows very little about the player, his position is essentially invalid, if we were to be fair.

 

Therefore, your purpose for being in this thread is to antagonize, or at the very least, you are re-hashing your arguments that have little to do with the actual player.



 

I agreed with the sentiment that Poolman getting a guaranteed 10M over 4 years is risky because I also feel that way about the signing.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, AV. said:

The correct role and deployment will be crucial.

You are right, the correct role and deployment will be crucial, just like with every other player.

No point in letting Demko be a defenseman, so I suggest he plays the role of goaltender, and so on.

Edited by gurn
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AV. said:

I agreed with the sentiment that Poolman getting a guaranteed 10M over 4 years is risky because I also feel that way about the signing.

So please elaborate on how the player has played in Winnipeg. Please describe how he was utilized by the coaches. And describe what you think the player can contribute to THIS team.

Simply hearing that you are concerned about the signing doesn't cut it anymore because you have always stopped short of elaborating on the player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

So please elaborate on how the player has played in Winnipeg. Please describe how he was utilized by the coaches. And describe what you think the player can contribute to THIS team.

Simply hearing that you are concerned about the signing doesn't cut it anymore because you have always stopped short of elaborating on the player.

I already did that a few pages back and I compared him to Aaron Rome.  Funny enough, when Rome left Vancouver and signed 3x1.5M in Dallas, he was out of the league pretty quickly.  Maybe another warning sign that committing money and term to these types of players aren't always wise...

  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AV. said:

I already did that a few pages back and I compared him to Aaron Rome.  Funny enough, when Rome left Vancouver and signed 3x1.5M in Dallas, he was out of the league pretty quickly.  Maybe another warning sign that committing money and term to these types of players aren't always wise...

What types of players are these then? Defensive defenseman?

 

You also left out a super juicy detail, @AV.

 

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/report-former-nhler-rome-sued-league-insurance-company-over-injury-benefits

 

Defenseman Aaron Rome hasn’t played in the NHL since 2014 due to injury and he’s reportedly sued the NHL and his insurance company for compensation because of it.

The Dallas Morning Newsreported Rome, 32, made a claim for disability payments after suffering a career-ending left hip injury in a 2014 game at American Airlines Center. Rome was playing for the Stars when the injury occurred.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Might as well not sign any player more than 2 mill because they could get career injuries.

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

8 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

What types of players are these then? Defensive defenseman?

 

You also left out a super juicy detail, @AV.

 

https://www.si.com/hockey/news/report-former-nhler-rome-sued-league-insurance-company-over-injury-benefits

 

Defenseman Aaron Rome hasn’t played in the NHL since 2014 due to injury and he’s reportedly sued the NHL and his insurance company for compensation because of it.

The Dallas Morning Newsreported Rome, 32, made a claim for disability payments after suffering a career-ending left hip injury in a 2014 game at American Airlines Center. Rome was playing for the Stars when the injury occurred.

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Might as well not sign any player more than 2 mill because they could get career injuries.

The injuries were something that impacted him later on.  He ended up accepting a try-out for Detroit after he was bought out from his deal in 2014, so clearly he still believed playing in the NHL was possible.

 

The point here is that bottom-pairing/depth defenceman on deals with term and money can backfire, especially if they're being asked to play in deployment above their talent levels.  Could say the same for some forwards.  It's not that deep.

 

The Friedman quote suggests that management sees something in him.  Let's hope that's the case.

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...