[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

 

 

 

Repeating the same points shouldn't mean anything. It just solidifies the idea that you are a one-dimensional poster.

Quit derailing the thread about Poolman if you have nothing more to add. But by all means, if you do have something to add ABOUT THE PLAYER, I am all ears.

Evolving Hockey pegged Poolmans next deal at 2.4 AAV. I'm too cheap to spend the $5 to look at their salary tool, but maybe someone on here has a subscription. They are one of the more well respected fancy stats sites now, so you'd think that would end the argument with those trying to use stats to say he's not worth 2.5. Ah well. 

 

[RWMc1]

Poolman's base salary this season is $1,250,000.oo with a $500,000.oo signing bonus. It goes up to $2,250,000.oo the following year and is $3,000,000.oo for the final two years.

Obviously our management group saw something in him that they liked and see him progressing as a hockey player. But sure, idiots like jd burke know better.

[Dazzle]

8 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Evolving Hockey pegged Poolmans next deal at 2.4 AAV. I'm too cheap to spend the $5 to look at their salary tool, but maybe someone on here has a subscription. They are one of the more well respected fancy stats sites now, so you'd think that would end the argument with those trying to use stats to say he's not worth 2.5. Ah well. 

 

Something to add onto this, Poolman is now the 7th biggest hitter on the team. (This is of course moving the player's stats from another team onto this team)

 

IN FACT, look at what the new acquisitions could potentially bring.

 

 

Motte is well respected as a beast, and we have Schenn potentially producing a similar style of game on the backend. Ekman Larsson, Dickinson and Poolman are also no slouches. Even Giuseppe could potentially be a useful addition.

 

It should be noted that Motte generated that many hits with FEWER GAMES.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Dazzle

[-DLC-]

36 minutes ago, AV. said:

It is my opinion that we should be paying for what he is now rather than what he could be (or hope to be), therefore.

But how do we know what he is now?  He hasn't even played for us yet. 

 

Sometimes a change of scenery rejuvenates players and they are more inspired.  We cry over players who weren't showing much here who went on to contribute elsewhere...so there's a flip side to that.  I'd say we assess him when we have a legit sample size here and then we can determine things. 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

 

 

 

Repeating the same points shouldn't mean anything. It just solidifies the idea that you are a one-dimensional poster.

Quit derailing the thread about Poolman if you have nothing more to add. But by all means, if you do have something to add ABOUT THE PLAYER, I am all ears.

It's gone from "talk about the player" to "not about his contract" to "don't keep reiterating the same points about his play".  It seems you're looking for a specific type of discourse that satisfies what you want to read.  Maybe during the regular season I can come back here and make an observation about his play or his contract or whatever that's positive, but for now, I can really only discuss what's at hand: his contract, his previous experiences in the NHL, and how he potentially fits with this team.  Well, his contract isn't great and previously, he was a depth defenceman/bottom-pair guy that had some time in the top four but probably shouldn't have been there.  I think a bottom-pair role is probably where he fits best, but with Hamonic and Myers already on the team, and keeping in mind that I believe they are also suited to bottom-pairing roles, a few of Poolman or those guys will be playing the top 4 and I think that spells some potential trouble.

[AV.]

3 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

But how do we know what he is now?  He hasn't even played for us yet. 

 

Sometimes a change of scenery rejuvenates players and they are more inspired.  We cry over players who weren't showing much here who went on to contribute elsewhere...so there's a flip side to that.  I'd say we assess him when we have a legit sample size here and then we can determine things. 

We certainly have an idea from his experiences in Winnipeg.  I'm by no means writing him off, I've just seen this type of story play out before with other players.  Of course, every story is different.  Here's to hoping Poolman lives up to what management sees in him.

[-DLC-]

7 minutes ago, AV. said:

It's gone from "talk about the player" to "not about his contract" to "don't keep reiterating the same points about his play".  It seems you're looking for a specific type of discourse that satisfies what you want to read.  Maybe during the regular season I can come back here and make an observation about his play or his contract or whatever that's positive, but for now, I can really only discuss what's at hand: his contract, his previous experiences in the NHL, and how he potentially fits with this team.  Well, his contract isn't great and previously, he was a depth defenceman/bottom-pair guy that had some time in the top four but probably shouldn't have been there.  I think a bottom-pair role is probably where he fits best, but with Hamonic and Myers already on the team, and keeping in mind that I believe they are also suited to bottom-pairing roles, a few of Poolman or those guys will be playing the top 4 and I think that spells some potential trouble.

Contracts don't solely determine "worth/value".

 

Gas right now is through the roof but it doesn't mean I don't need gas...you pay according to needs and what the market dictates.  I pay $1.67/L because that's what they're asking and I need gas.  Doesn't make gas any less important to me because I may be paying more than I should or it's cheaper in another city.

Many contracts aren't solely in line with production and performance (numbers) but that doesn't mean a player can't be useful to a team that's identified needs.  Which is why I take the "wait and see" approach before determining if he's "worth it" or not.

 

Here is some information about him that I dug out (unsure of the source but, until proven incorrect, good enough for me):

Quote

A deep dive on Tucker Poolman

 

DISCUSSION

Tucker Poolman was lambasted for his 2.5x4 contract, even though Evolving Hockey's projections had him at $2.4M on a 4 year deal. By the online crowd, Poolman was painted as a league minimum defensemen, that arguably should not even be in the league. Those are ridiculous and dumbfounded claims. If you look at the video and data, it is clear that Poolman is a very good Top 4/6 defensemen. He is also 6'2", 199 lbs and a RD, which also does play a big role. Size and strength are very important in the playoffs.

On 5v5, Tucker Poolman was on the ice for 22 goals, including the regular season and playoffs, in 47 games played. I looked at every single goal against and labeled every goal into 4 categories, 1A: Poolman was directly responsible for the goal. 1B: Poolman was partly responsible for the goal. 2A: Poolman was not responsible for the goal, but could have done more to prevent it. 2B: Poolman could not do anything about the goal (video did not work)

5v5 Goals Against

In total, Poolman was on the ice for 3 1A goals, 4 1B goals, 7 2A goals and 8 2B goals. Only 3/22 or 14% of goals could be said he was to blame for. While another 18% where he had a role to play. But in the other 68% of goals, Poolman did just fine defensively. If you take into account the context and consider that Poolman played a lot of hard minutes on the top pairing, those are very solid numbers for a shutdown defensemen.

I also looked at giveaways, I don't have an NHL Live subscription so I had to find illegal streams and pre-recorded Jets games on the internet. I was able to find a few games where Poolman recorded a "giveaway" on 5v5, or at least according to NHL.com. In total, I have 12 out of his 34 giveaways on video, or 35%, which I think is a solid sample size. (video did not work)

5v5 Giveaways

The large majority of these "giveaways" are board plays where he is not doing much wrong defensively. Poolman has a lot of work to do on his puck management. But he is not a bad defensemen at all. If you look at other shutdown D we have had like Chris Tanev or Kevin Bieksa, they would also make these type of "errors" all the time. Also Brad Shaw is one of the coaches that values puck management a lot. In his time in Columbus, he had his Assistants track puck touches, negative and positive, and would work with his defensemen to limit those opportunities. Brad Shaw will be able to fix a lot of these mistakes.

https://imgur.com/a/gZs1kWx

If you look at Tucker Poolman's linemates, he played 76.3% of his ice time with Josh Morrissey on 5v5. The next best was Logan Stanley with 8.9%. It was clear Paul Maurice really liked the tools he saw in Poolman to be a solid shutdown pairing defensemen, that he can trust in all situations. Poolman also played 44.6% of his ice time against elite competition, which ranks 18th league wide and 4th among Jets defensemen. Maurice runs a tight ship defensively, it is not easy to get that type of responsibility without having earned it. Paul Maurice is as hard-nosed as a coach gets

	%TOI vs Elite
Josh Morrissey	46.9
Derek Forbort	46.1
Neal Pionk	46.0
Tucker Poolman	44.6
Nathan Beaulieu	34.2
Dylan DeMelo	28.8
Logan Stanley	20.5

If you also analyze Poolman's ice time with Josh Morrissey, you start to get a better sense as to why Paul Maurice trusted him in that role. Poolman clearly had a big effect on the Jets defensive performance. When Poolman was on the ice, Jets gave up fewer goals and conceded less shots.

Elite Competition	CA/60	GA/60	DFA/60	SA/60
without Josh Morrissey	49.75	1.31	32.33	24.87
with Josh Morrissey	56.99	1.03	52.14	30.55
Josh Morrissey without him	67.37	3.18	50.85	34.96
Both off	56.34	2.94	47.28	30.42

Among elite competition, Poolman carried Josh Morrissey defensively. Poolman put up great numbers with and without him. While Morrissey was a huge liability defensively without having Poolman to cover for him. The Morrissey-Poolman pairing also did a great job, especially compared to the rest of the Winnipeg defense against elite competition.

Middle Competition	CA/60	GA/60	DFA/60	SA/60
without Josh Morrissey	48.50	1.56	35.67	20.34
with Josh Morrissey	55.69	0.91	45.24	27.39
Josh Morrissey without him	76.58	1.72	57.39	43.02
Both off	51.30	2.79	38.15	26.75

Among middle competition, Poolman again carried Josh Morrissey. You can notice the same trends. Morrissey struggled without Poolman, while Tucker did just fine without him. I think by this point, we know who did the heavy lifting defensively on this pair

Gritensity Competition	CA/60	GA/60	DFA/60	SA/60
without Josh Morrissey	49.30	2.69	35.32	27.79
with Josh Morrissey	58.84	3.24	49.28	31.85
Josh Morrissey without him	53.88	2.31	47.57	26.94
Both off	48.74	1.49	32.86	25.20

Among gritensity competition, it was the only area where Poolman did not do as well as he could have. And the Morrissey-Poolman pairing especially was awful.

Overall, I just do not think you can deny the positive effect Poolman had on Morrissey defensively. Yes, he also killed offense. But as a shutdown presence, there is no doubt Poolman is a very effective player. You can see the same trends if you compare the raw numbers among all Jets defensemen

	GA/60	xGA/60	CA/60	SA/60
Tucker Poolman	1.72	2.43	54.75	28.61
Logan Stanley	1.78	2.22	49.87	29.29
Neal Pionk	2.02	2.33	50.44	26.11
Josh Morrissey	2.17	2.83	60.22	32.71
Dylan DeMelo	2.19	2.14	52.58	28.10
Derek Forbort	2.61	2.42	52.41	26.31
Nathan Beaulieu	3.30	2.97	60.39	34.37

Another way to visualize Tucker Poolman's impact defensively is using Hockeyviz's isolated impact charts

If you look at the right side of the Even-Strength Defence, you can see Poolman doing a great job at limiting the quantity and quality of shots, whereas his D partner has leaked a lot of chances against on the left side.

While defense is important, you need to produce offense too. And Poolman offensive numbers have been abysmal. But that does not mean, he is incapable of playing good offense. I looked at some of Poolman's points over the years, and he has showed flashes of being a good 2-way defensemen (video did not work)

Poolman Offense

Poolman has a good stretch pass, he is not afraid to join the rush and has a decent shot too. Last season, Poolman had 16 points in 57 games which are good numbers for a Top 4 defensemen. Poolman will always be somebody who will cover for his teammates and stay back. It is just his play style. But these flashes are good to see, it shows that there is room for growth and improvement. It is important to note that Poolman has only played 3 seasons in the NHL, he just turned 28 years old and is yet to peak.

Poolman had a very good career as a junior and in the NCAA, some of his accolades include, USA Hockey Junior Player of the Year, USHL Most Goals By Defensemen, NCAA (NCHC) Best Defensive Defensemen. The potential is there.

Tucker Poolman is locked up for 4 more seasons at a very good price. Poolman can play Top 4 minutes this season, and can provide even further value as he gets more experienced. And if it does not work out, there are 31 other teams in the league that would love to add an affordable Top 4/6 shutdown RD at 6'2" and 199 lbs. When Canucks pursued Poolman in Free Agency, there were 12 other teams after him. It wasn't a hunch that Benning made. The Canucks pro-scouts, analytics department, coaches, management all came together to make the decision to acquire him. If Poolman can improve Josh Morrissey's defensive results, he will do an excellent job with a Jack Rathbone or Olli Juolevi on the 3rd pair. And will be able to step in the Top 4 as well, and help out OEL or Quinn Hughes. We have a good, young defensemen here. And we should be lucky to have him.

 

[-DLC-]

9 minutes ago, AV. said:

We certainly have an idea from his experiences in Winnipeg.  I'm by no means writing him off, I've just seen this type of story play out before with other players.  Of course, every story is different.  Here's to hoping Poolman lives up to what management sees in him.

We don't have ANY experience with him in our line up, alongside our players and under our coaches.

 

Maybe he wasn't happy in Winnipeg?  Just as people here hint that players want to leave because of this management....isn't it fair to apply that elsewhere too then?

 

Sometimes a change of scenery makes a difference.

[JM_]

12 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Something to add onto this, Poolman is now the 7th biggest hitter on the team. (This is of course moving the player's stats from another team onto this team)

 

IN FACT, look at what the new acquisitions could potentially bring.

 

 

Motte is well respected as a beast, and we have Schenn potentially producing a similar style of game on the backend. Ekman Larsson, Dickinson and Poolman are also no slouches. Even Giuseppe could potentially be a useful addition.

 

It should be noted that Motte generated that many hits with FEWER GAMES.

one useful thing from this thread is, if one cares to look, is stuff like this ^. We can see why Jim and his crew are making the bet on this guy. 

 

You'll never be able to get anywhere with the "but what if he sucks in 4 years" group, its all speculation. What you and others have shown is there are some sound fundamental things to like about this guy. 

 

Now we get to see who he meshes with best at camp. 

 

 

 

 

[AV.]

1 minute ago, -DLC- said:

Contracts don't solely determine "worth/value".

 

Gas right now is through the roof but it doesn't mean I don't need gas...you pay according to needs and what the market dictates.  I pay $1.67/L because that's what they're asking and I need gas.

 

Here is some information about him that I dug out (unsure of the source but, until proven incorrect, good enough for me):

 

I appreciate the analogy, although I would argue Poolman isn't an essential for us in the same sense that gas might be for people.  If we wanted a RD option, there were players like Vatanen, Carrick, the much talked about Hakanpaa, and even internal guys like Chatfield/Rafferty.  I don't think we needed Poolman, but it was clear we wanted him, and that's totally fine.  If management and coaching feels he's going to be a good piece at the contract they gave him, then let's hope he's a good piece and he rewards them.  They make the decisions and I don't.

[-DLC-]

5 minutes ago, AV. said:

I appreciate the analogy, although I would argue Poolman isn't an essential for us in the same sense that gas might be for people.  If we wanted a RD option, there were players like Vatanen, Carrick, the much talked about Hakanpaa, and even internal guys like Chatfield/Rafferty.  I don't think we needed Poolman, but it was clear we wanted him, and that's totally fine.  If management and coaching feels he's going to be a good piece at the contract they gave him, then let's hope he's a good piece and he rewards them.  They make the decisions and I don't.

Gas isn't "essential"...I can choose not to drive but I need it if I want to drive.  And we had a need as a team...they filled that need.  You're using "essential" in this but that wasn't my word.

 

Were you on board with Chatfield and Rafferty before?  

 

There were options, sure...but they chose this one.  Time will tell if you knew better...I've learned from the Vilardi/Glass days that sometimes CDC gets it wrong.

 

Beating a dead horse now though..for those NOT on board, it changes nothing to prove your point at this point.  Because it can't be proven one way or another.  And why not support the new guys if you're fans of the team?  Be hopeful and optimistic until they give you REASON not to be?

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, AV. said:

I appreciate the analogy, although I would argue Poolman isn't an essential for us in the same sense that gas might be for people.  If we wanted a RD option, there were players like Vatanen, Carrick, the much talked about Hakanpaa, and even internal guys like Chatfield/Rafferty.  I don't think we needed Poolman, but it was clear we wanted him, and that's totally fine.  If management and coaching feels he's going to be a good piece at the contract they gave him, then let's hope he's a good piece and he rewards them.  They make the decisions and I don't.

Read the stats DLC posted.  Poolman was the Jet’s best defensive D man.  We have him at a great cap hit for his prime years.  He’s a younger Chris Tanev.  After reading what DLC posted, I’m now seeing Poolman playing a lot extremely effective 5 on 5 minutes with the Huggable one.  

[RWMc1]

I don't think that most of the negativity is about Poolman. It's clear that certain posters have an unhealthy obsession with Benning and look for ways to complain.

 

The usual method seems to be       If waaaaahhhhhh,   then waaaaaahhhhh.

                                                        In the past waaaaahhhhhh,  therefore in the future  waaaaaahhhhhh.

 

followed by a wishy washy "if it works out then great" type comment to go back to when they are proven wrong.

[ohmy]

3 minutes ago, AV. said:

I appreciate the analogy, although I would argue Poolman isn't an essential for us in the same sense that gas might be for people.  If we wanted a RD option, there were players like Vatanen, Carrick, the much talked about Hakanpaa, and even internal guys like Chatfield/Rafferty.  I don't think we needed Poolman, but it was clear we wanted him, and that's totally fine.  If management and coaching feels he's going to be a good piece at the contract they gave him, then let's hope he's a good piece and he rewards them.  They make the decisions and I don't.

Hakanpaa maybe, but Chatfield/ Rafferty are AHL fodder and Vatanen/Carrick are a 6 at best but likely depth at this point. Poolman is a calculated risk and has a better than adequate chance of improving significantly. It's a slam dunk if we get an improved 19/20 Poolman, and not severely overpaid if he ends up a solid 6. Massive credit this offseason to our management group.

[awalk]

16 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Read the stats DLC posted.  Poolman was the Jet’s best defensive D man.  We have him at a great cap hit for his prime years.  He’s a younger Chris Tanev.  After reading what DLC posted, I’m now seeing Poolman playing a lot extremely effective 5 on 5 minutes with the Huggable one.  

If that ends up being the case, great signing. Hopefully he comes out and has a big first season.

[awalk]

20 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Gas isn't "essential"...I can choose not to drive but I need it if I want to drive.  And we had a need as a team...they filled that need.  You're using "essential" in this but that wasn't my word.

 

Were you on board with Chatfield and Rafferty before?  

 

There were options, sure...but they chose this one.  Time will tell if you knew better...I've learned from the Vilardi/Glass days that sometimes CDC gets it wrong.

 

Beating a dead horse now though..for those NOT on board, it changes nothing to prove your point at this point.  Because it can't be proven one way or another.  And why not support the new guys if you're fans of the team?  Be hopeful and optimistic until they give you REASON not to be?

 

I like the re-brand, Deb 

[TheRussianRocket1994]

29 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Gas isn't "essential"...I can choose not to drive but I need it if I want to drive.  And we had a need as a team...they filled that need.  You're using "essential" in this but that wasn't my word.

 

Were you on board with Chatfield and Rafferty before?  

 

There were options, sure...but they chose this one.  Time will tell if you knew better...I've learned from the Vilardi/Glass days that sometimes CDC gets it wrong.

 

Beating a dead horse now though..for those NOT on board, it changes nothing to prove your point at this point.  Because it can't be proven one way or another.  And why not support the new guys if you're fans of the team?  Be hopeful and optimistic until they give you REASON not to be?

Because that would be logical, but god forbid that happens!

 

Great post btw!! 

[AV.]

16 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Gas isn't "essential"...I can choose not to drive but I need it if I want to drive.  And we had a need as a team...they filled that need.  You're using "essential" in this but that wasn't my word.

 

Were you on board with Chatfield and Rafferty before?  

 

There were options, sure...but they chose this one.  Time will tell if you knew better...I've learned from the Vilardi/Glass days that sometimes CDC gets it wrong.

 

Beating a dead horse now though..for those NOT on board, it changes nothing to prove your point at this point.  Because it can't be proven one way or another.  And why not support the new guys if you're fans of the team?  Be hopeful and optimistic until they give you REASON not to be?

Fair enough.  The intention behind sharing the tweet I did (the Freidman quote) was to dismantle the notion that it was solely users like myself (ones deemed as "complainers") who had issue with the contract.  I wanted to validate some of the concerns shared in this thread by sharing a tweet that highlighted similar concerns from people in the hockey world upon learning the terms of the Poolman contract.  

 

Like you and others, I do care a lot about the team and wish the best for the players.  It's why this contract matters to me because I would hate to see it a contract like this prevent us from future extensions down the line for players that really matter.  I'm well aware that 2.5M out of 81M salary cap is "low" but these deals tend to add up, and we've seen first-hand how a tight cap structure can impact signings (it's happening right now with Petterson and Hughes), and we've also seen how hard it really is to shift money out.

On that note, I think I've said enough here.  My feelings on the player are well known and it's time to see how he performs on the ice before revisiting for further comment.

[Junkyard Dog]

1 hour ago, -DLC- said:

Contracts don't solely determine "worth/value".

 

Gas right now is through the roof but it doesn't mean I don't need gas...you pay according to needs and what the market dictates.  I pay $1.67/L because that's what they're asking and I need gas.  Doesn't make gas any less important to me because I may be paying more than I should or it's cheaper in another city.

Many contracts aren't solely in line with production and performance (numbers) but that doesn't mean a player can't be useful to a team that's identified needs.  Which is why I take the "wait and see" approach before determining if he's "worth it" or not.

 

Here is some information about him that I dug out (unsure of the source but, until proven incorrect, good enough for me):

 

Nice find.

[RWMc1]