[Signing] Canucks sign Tucker Poolman

[Millerdraft]

I had a huge write up about how these 4-year, $2m - $3m AAV contracts are a bit of a red herring argument, as somewhat missing the forest for the trees, when it comes to “overspending on bottom six forwards and bottom four pairing defencemen”, especially so in a rebuild but I’ll try to just summarize it into a couple sentences that should refocus this thread, hopefully.

 

The concern seems to be that we will lose out on the cap flexibility to either sign or retain top-six forwards and top pairing Dmen which can be a valid critique, and even more so if you’re a fan of the Dubas/Shanaplan rebuild philosophy that strips all depth by paying “proper salaries to the low end of their roster”.

 

The counter argument is that all the Canucks’ cap problems could’ve been solved by not taking a home run cut on a specific player our management thought would be a top-six for six years and instead striking out by finding out we had signed a bottom six forward for $4m - $5m AAV more than he was going to be worth. That was a concerning, potentially crippling, contract that led to all of our cap problems not the three separate “overpaid by a cumulative total $3m-ish” contracts.  Our management made a calculated guess that this one player would work out with the twins and  they lost that bet.  When you swing and miss on commitments like that when a drafted core is ready to compete for a Cup then that is a real concern.  Four years/$10m is not the same thing.  Please take this hyper fear of bad, cap structure crippling contracts to the thread where it makes sense, the OEL thread.  Swinging and missing on OEL is of far more consequence than swinging and missing on Tucker Poolman.

 

Now, can we breathe some oxygen of positivity back into this thread?  Let’s give this guy a chance before we start getting out the pails of tar and flocks of swans as we March on down to Mr Benning’s residence with our pitchforks in hand.

[RWMc1]

Thank you. I don't mean to be picayune, but it seemed very arbitrary.

Edited August 3, 2021 by RWMc1

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, AV. said:

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.

And yet you've said very little about the player, including the history of how he played in Winnipeg. 2.5 is low, as you've stated, and it's hilarious that you equate this with Benning's other signings, namely Gudbranson at 4 M, which most of us in hindsight can say it was an ill-advised move. However, we ended up getting an underperforming Pearson who has now found a home in Vancouver.

 

In that light, Benning has LEARNED not to put in too much term/money for defencemen, especially ones that don't generate a huge amount of offense.

 

Despite Benning's missteps with contracts, he has managed to turn his mistakes into pieces that the team can use moving forward. Unlike other GMs this offseason, he managed to get rid of his mistakes, while TAKING ON assets like Garland through the use of a first rounder. OEL is also not a 'throw in'; he is very much a main piece, with the success of the team dependent on how he performs these next few years. Given our much improved roster, it is more than reasonable to assume that OEL will play BETTER than his previous years in AZ that had substandard rosters.

Toronto/Philadelphia/NYI had to pay substantial amounts of picks to get rid of their problems.

 

Again, your point about contracts is extremely repetitive. Only now on Page 94 do you finally realize that you've "said enough". Other posters had already pointed out the redundant posts that focussed squarely on cap management, not the player. Therefore, you really had nothing to add in this thread.

 

 

However, just because you have decided not to participate in this thread any further, other posters with more perspectives should be allowed to weigh in on this player.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Dazzle

[Provost]

2 hours 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 do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

[Dazzle]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

Anyone reading the stats box could've given this statement. Do you wish to elaborate on this player? Have you seen this player play?

[RWMc1]

1 minute ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

It's not controversial, it's just been restated so many times. The discussion degenerates into circular arguments. On and on it goes.

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

Did you not read DLC’s post last page where Poolman’s value as a defensive D man is very good?  He’s as good as Tanev, and he’s half the cost.  I recommend you go back and read the statistics on this guy.  He’s a very good player, who will mesh perfectly with Hughes.  

[bishopshodan]

[-SN-]

[Me_]

37 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Did you not read DLC’s post last page where Poolman’s value as a defensive D man is very good?  He’s as good as Tanev, and he’s half the cost.  I recommend you go back and read the statistics on this guy.  He’s a very good player, who will mesh perfectly with Hughes.  

There’s so much possibility this season. 
 

So much.

 

The Canucks will have signed/acquired 10 defensemen this off-season.

 

Hughes

OEL

Hamonic

Poolman

Schenn

Juolevi

Hunt

Keeper

Burroughs

Stephens

 

And also, I like this from Dailyfaceoff, but I’m sure Schenn will carve his place.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Me_

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

Oh, you absolutely pay for potential. Especially in a free agent market with other teams interested. If a team didn't think there was any potential for improvement, they wouldn't have stuck around when they found out other team were in, they would have put up and offer they thought was worth what he'd already showed and then seen if he'd accepted.

 

But that's even true with re-signing your own RFAs, and we'll see that with Pettersson and Hughes. You definitely don't pay to 100% of their potential, because they rarely reach it, but also to make sure to get some value back for having a little faith. Regardless, you can bet the players' agents are all arguing potential when negotiating new contracts, so it factors in.

[Dr. Crossbar]

After 95 pages, my guess is that Poolman's new D pairing is named Syskill ...

 

 

[Millerdraft]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

Just the fact that he’s a RH defenceman mitigates much of the “risk”.  There’s PLENTY of teams that would pluck almost any RHD that exhibits above average bottom pairing capabilities off waivers, if not trade for him, even if he craters here.  Heck, even the most critical takes on this signing say he’s a high end bottom pairing guy that gets over his head in higher quality of competition situations.  Just by supply alone RHD get “.overpaid” and we’re not talking $4m-$5m overpaid here, are we?
 

There’s plenty of other more significant mistakes to worry about our cap structure (OEL, Hughes getting some stupid $9m AAV before we know exactly how much he can adapt defensively to become an all around Dman, Pettersson getting an 7-year/$70m offersheet, should we re-sign JT Miller at the age he’ll be,  etc, etc).  This contract is about six steps down the list of concerns.  That by itself is telling about peoples’ biases.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Millerdraft

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, RWMc1 said:

Is it too much to ask for some courtesy?

 

The gif that I posted was in humour and was to try and alleviate tension. I was not antagonizing anyone.

 

A pm to explain why it was deleted would have been nice.

 You think after everything else going on in this thread your GIF getting deleted gets a courtesy message? The mods have been busy enough, I wouldn't get too worried about it.

 

But that's some perspective. After a thread about a depth UFA defenceman signing reaching 90+ pages, we can worry about a post and a pissing match. Glad we don't have as much to worry about as we have at some really low times in Canucks history.

[TheRussianRocket1994]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

If you are right in your pro scouting you happen get the benefit of him overplaying his contract and being a great value.  That is the only way teams win in a cap world… having players who are really efficient use of dollars.
 

If you pay him for future potential, you mostly remove that upside on contract efficiency.  He is already gong to be paid like he will improve more, or betting he is the player he was for an 8 game stretch last playoffs.  
 

Guys with a thin resume like that getting a 4 year term is a lot.  It shouldn’t be so controversial to be worried about that.  I am not sure a guy with only 120 games under his belt should need to be rejuvenated (I hope that is what happens with OEL)

 

Everyone hopes he outplays even this contract, no one is wishing for him to fail.  If he becomes a steady top 4 guy and we have him locked in for four years it will be a great bargain.  If he is in the press box half the time because Schenn outplays him, then we are stuck with more inefficient cap on the books again right after paying futures to get rid of it.  
 

I guess you missed the part about change of scenery / playing on our team??? You do realize players can and do play differently on different teams, because things like change of scenery, environment, coaches & teammates play a role in how a player plays. There's literally hundreds of examples of it. 

[Devron]

This thread is the definition of insanity 

[-DLC-]

2 hours ago, Provost said:

We do know what the player is now.  He has played parts of 3 seasons.  You pay for what a player has done in the league… not what maybe they could do in the future.

 

That is literally the entire point.  
 

 

Oh, so like Loui Eriksson?  Gotcha.  Good thing we paid him what he was worth then.

 

So that's the yardstick.....what you've done in the past.  Because that means for sure you'll just keep on producing at that same level always, right?  

 

Or maybe it's that players have peaks and valleys and just because a player hasn't shown his best yet, doesn't mean he won't or he doesn't have it in him.  You look at more than just the numbers, for things like work ethic and effort.  Resiliency.  Team player and how he may fit in with the roster in place.

 

Matters.

 

Don't always trust the stats to guide you....you have to see beyond them and perhaps management knows more than we do about this guy.

[JM_]

22 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

This thread is the definition of insanity 

A guy I used to work with said things get really crazy when the stakes are low enough. These threads on bottom 6 or 4th line guys always lead to the weirdest fights because the roster spot is least important. No one fights like this about Petey. 

 

Poolman looks like a solid bet to be a regular #5, occasional 4 when injuries happen. Anyone arguing for days that he isn't is just in it to argue. 

[RWMc1]

45 minutes ago, elvis15 said:

 You think after everything else going on in this thread your GIF getting deleted gets a courtesy message? The mods have been busy enough, I wouldn't get too worried about it.

 

But that's some perspective. After a thread about a depth UFA defenceman signing reaching 90+ pages, we can worry about a post and a pissing match. Glad we don't have as much to worry about as we have at some really low times in Canucks history.

It was two gifs. One was Will Forte filling a small pool with alcohol and another of him sitting in it with a huge straw.

 

Why do you care about this post in particular with all the other crap going on. Responses like yours add nothing.

[Provost]

24 minutes ago, -DLC- said:

Oh, so like Loui Eriksson?  Gotcha.  Good thing we paid him what he was worth then.

 

So that's the yardstick.....what you've done in the past.  Because that means for sure you'll just keep on producing at that same level always, right?  

 

Or maybe it's that players have peaks and valleys and just because a player hasn't shown his best yet, doesn't mean he won't or he doesn't have it in him.  You look at more than just the numbers, for things like work ethic and effort.  Resiliency.  Team player and how he may fit in with the roster in place.

 

Matters.

 

Don't always trust the stats to guide you....you have to see beyond them and perhaps management knows more than we do about this guy.

Maybe… but we paid him more than anyone else was willing to… and more than other guys with similar resumes… so we can all hope our pro scouts or Shaw as a new voice are right on his potential.

 

They paid about a million dollars more and/or a year or two too long based strictly on his past performance. 

Management’s judgement on pro scouting has certainly earned a healthy level of distrust.  We just paid a top Ten pick and a 2nd round pick to get out from under contracts that were bad calls on their part.  That is possibly another Horvat and another Demko we removed from our Prospect pool based on their bad judgment.

 

All the other signing seem like pretty good

bets based on past performance and that is good news.  This one is just the one filled with the most risk.  That isn’t just my opinion, that is a pretty common one from folks who get paid to give their opinions and/or have a lot of experience in the game.