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

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, Maniwaki Canuck said:

A portion of CDC might have preferred this guy to Poolman, but the fact that he went later and cheaper tells you what GMs' view was.

Still a bottom pair D man like Poolman, who signed for less term and 1m less. It is not always about getting the best player for all positions...which is what I feel the Canuck GM tries to do, did it with Holtby paying him 2 years at 4.3m to be a backup then had to buy him out to then go sign the most expensive backup G again this FA as Halak will all but assure to hit the 3m cap hit mark.

  • Hydration 1
  • Wat 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Poolman is overpaid a bit. However, why it took so long for Hakanpaa to be signed? Did he want to play for Vancouver? He is one year older than Poolman and yet he played fewer NHL games and in lesser roles than Poolman in Winnipeg. I think Poolman is the safer bet. 

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

I'm just gonna assume the Finnish connection /tax situation in Dallas enticed him to sign for less and let this one go :D

Sounds like it.  

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Roger Neilsons Towel said:

That’s my gut feeling as well.
 

Especially at $1 Million bucks less per season and one less year of term. 
 

But I’ll have to reserve judgement until I see Poolman play. 

It’s not really $1m less though.  The income tax situation in Texas makes it something like $500k - $750k less just based on that but there’s also the confirmed (by Poolman himself on Halford & Brought this morning) twelve teams that threw offers at Poolman.  I doubt there were twelve teams in on a guy known to be a puck-off-the-glass outlet “passer”.  Remember all the hage Gudbransson got being immobile and handling the puck like a live grenade?  Perhaps the vitriol would’ve been less if the cost to acquire (Jared McAnn and a 2nd) and sign ($4.5m) Guddy hadn’t been so high it would’ve been different but somehow I doubt it.

 

It’s likely that Tucker’s camp had multiple 3-year/$9m contract offers (look at Forbert etc).  That’s why Benning went with the 4th year.  It kept the AAV from being $3.33m in order to secure the signing.

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, HKSR said:

Darn, would have preferred him over Poolman.

obviously the bulk of the teams disagree as Poolman was sought after and Hakanpaa wasn't, really

 

edit: does sound like he had some teams after him, but wanted to be with finns

Edited by stawns
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Canuckster86 said:

It is not always about getting the best player for all positions...which is what I feel the Canuck GM tries to do

I'd take that approach anyday over what a lot of your perceive as the #proper way to go about it.

 

I'm not going to assume that you're one of the guys that fluffs Dubas ad-infinitum, but anyone that watches playoff hockey ought to realize that the teams that have depth (as opposed to top-forward-heavy builds that then have to fill out their rosters with bargain basement, #properly cheap depth) - teams that have quality throughout their lineup, are generally the teams that advance.  This year yet another example - as the Laffs fail to exit the first round yet again, and the Coil get swept, while the two deeper, less shiny teams that most people overlooked took them out.

 

I'm not going to say that Hakanpaa isn't quality - I think he'd be a good 3rd RHD for us - but when you spend low on one of your 'top 4' - as they did with Hamonic, I'm fine with them spending the extra million on Poolman - who I honestly thought the Jets would be retaining/re-signing (didn't see a Schmidt to Wpg deal coming).   A less mobile stay at home '3rd' pairing guy like Hakanpaa is not necessarily a problem imo (we got a similiar player in Schenn for 2 x 850k - so perhaps folks here want to reverse focus on him instead, as a comparable....

 

I like Hakanpaa - was interested in him - but in the end I wanted more mobility on the blueline (which is why I'd preferred they prioritize upgrading on Hamonic) - so I think it's a reasonable trade-off to take Poolman's skating - Hakanpaa's hitting/edge would have been nice, but Poolman isn't easy to play against either - so I'm ok with the guy we got and the fact that we paid a bit more to secure that mobility.

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Squamfan said:

Better deal than Jimbo have Poolman. That’s asset value sadly we don’t have it.

Worse deal then Jimbo have Schenn.  That's cap space we happily saved.  :P

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s up with Ryan Murray? Still hasn’t signed?

 

Wonder if we could get him on the cheap. Was a regular top 4 under Shaw in Columbus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

I'm curious why Carolina let him go for so little? They clearly preferred Bear for slightly more money. 

Hakanpaa was on their 3rd pairing. I guess we overrated him.  Poolman is a much better skater. He actually was on the first unit power play with Boeser at UND so he does have offensive potential.
 

I think Hakanpaa will be a serviceable 3rd pairing D who can move up to the 2nd pairing if needed. Poolman is a 2nd pairing guy who can move up

to the top pairing of needed. That’s the biggest difference between the two of them I think and why 12 teams were after Poolman. 

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...