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

Canuck D Pairings -- Some Surprises

Rate this topic


JamesB
 Share

Recommended Posts

Poolman was actually dare I say pretty good when Boudreau took over. He was actually far better than expected I'd like to see him come back next year. It's really unfortunate about the headaches 

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DS4quality said:

Poolman was actually dare I say pretty good when Boudreau took over. He was actually far better than expected I'd like to see him come back next year. It's really unfortunate about the headaches 

I thought Poolman was alright. But let's be real, you don't generally get a "special" player in free agency for $2.5m either. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, DS4quality said:

Poolman was actually dare I say pretty good when Boudreau took over. He was actually far better than expected I'd like to see him come back next year. It's really unfortunate about the headaches 

 

22 minutes ago, Baggins said:

I thought Poolman was alright. But let's be real, you don't generally get a "special" player in free agency for $2.5m either. 

Poolman's making about what he should be. Signing him wasn't necessarily a problem in isolation. It's that we already had Hamonic and Schenn on the roster (as well as an ill-fitting Myers). Signing Poolman did nothing to actually solve any "needs" on this defense core. It was just more (unneeded) depth thrown at the (poorly constructed) wall. 

 

The individual player, and his contract, in isolation, aren't the problems.

 

And no $2.5 doesn't buy you "special" :lol:

Edited by aGENT
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

Poolman's making about what he should be. Signing him wasn't necessarily a problem in isolation. It's that we already had Hamonic and Schenn on the roster (as well as an ill-fitting Myers). Signing Poolman did nothing to actually solve any "needs" on this defense core. It was just more (unneeded) depth thrown at the (poorly constructed) wall. 

 

The individual player, and his contract, in isolation, aren't the problems.

 

And no $2.5 doesn't buy you "special" :lol:

Actually I think Schenn was signed to be the number 7 guy. He just played better than expected, particularly with Hughes. Just as Burroughs wasn't signed to be among the six. He was a bit of a nice surprise though. A good thing Benning signed some depth.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Baggins said:

Actually I think Schenn was signed to be the number 7 guy. He just played better than expected, particularly with Hughes. Just as Burroughs wasn't signed to be among the six. He was a bit of a nice surprise though. A good thing Benning signed some depth.

Guys like Burroughs and Schenn signed as cheap depth = good. We didn't need another +/-$2.5m D that did nothing to fix the ill constructed, starting right side.

 

Again nothing wrong with Poolman individually but he did nothing to address the poor construction and lack of top 4 capable D there. He didn't  help "fix" anything.

 

An extra layer of drywall covering up the poorly constructed wall behind it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aGENT said:

Guys like Burroughs and Schenn signed as cheap depth = good. We didn't need another +/-$2.5m D that did nothing to fix the ill constructed, starting right side.

 

Again nothing wrong with Poolman individually but he did nothing to address the poor construction and lack of top 4 capable D there. He didn't  help "fix" anything.

 

An extra layer of drywall covering up the poorly constructed wall behind it.

Given it was a new team and his injuries/health problems limiting him to just under half a season I'm willing to give him a mulligan. But I think he was signed to be the steady 3rd on the right side with the 3rd left side being a huge question mark. Juolevi was the guy expected to be in that 3rd left spot. Being an inexperienced question mark it made sense to have a steady guy to pair with him whether it was Hamonic or Poolman. That fell apart quickly with Juolevi failing to impress at all in preseason. 

 

The best thing about signing Schenn for depth is he can play either side. Good depth signing but he really exceeded my expection. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Given it was a new team and his injuries/health problems limiting him to just under half a season I'm willing to give him a mulligan. But I think he was signed to be the steady 3rd on the right side with the 3rd left side being a huge question mark. Juolevi was the guy expected to be in that 3rd left spot. Being an inexperienced question mark it made sense to have a steady guy to pair with him whether it was Hamonic or Poolman. That fell apart quickly with Juolevi failing to impress at all in preseason. 

 

The best thing about signing Schenn for depth is he can play either side. Good depth signing but he really exceeded my expection. 

I really don't think you're grasping my point here. Yes again Poolman on his own is fine as a 3rd pair guy. I said as much above. But that wasn't a problem we needed solving. We didn't need more 3rd pair depth. We still don't need more 3rd pair depth.

 

This signing did nothing to address the problems with the right side D (a lack of top 4 talent and and the one "top 4" talent we have there, being an ill fit with the two good top 4 guys we have on the left). 

 

Poolman was an "ok" solution to a problem we didn't/don't have.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JM_ said:

its like Benning went up to the all you can eat buffet and kept taking helpings of macaroni salad. No one told him he had other options. 

 

And fair enough that top 4, RHD aren't exactly "easy" to just sign/acquire.

 

But don't go and commit (small but not insignificant) cap space, for term, to solve a problem you don't have! It's just a roadblock to fixing the needs you DO have, when/if the opportunity arises.

 

Thankfully new management somewhat dealt with that by moving Hamonic. And I'm fine with (healthy) Poolman/Schenn as our tandem 3RD in the event we can fix the rest of of our right side (something like Miller for Marino, move out Myers, sign Lyubushkin). But it's just another example of Benning acquiring decent of pieces on their own, that just don't fit in to a bigger "cohesive" picture.

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

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Baggins said:

Given it was a new team and his injuries/health problems limiting him to just under half a season I'm willing to give him a mulligan. But I think he was signed to be the steady 3rd on the right side with the 3rd left side being a huge question mark. Juolevi was the guy expected to be in that 3rd left spot. Being an inexperienced question mark it made sense to have a steady guy to pair with him whether it was Hamonic or Poolman. That fell apart quickly with Juolevi failing to impress at all in preseason. 

 

The best thing about signing Schenn for depth is he can play either side. Good depth signing but he really exceeded my expection. 

 

22 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I really don't think you're grasping my point here. Yes again Poolman on his own is fine as a 3rd pair guy. I said was much above. But that wasn't a problem we needed solving. We didn't need more 3rd pair depth. We still don't need more 3rd pair depth.

 

This signing did nothing to address the problems with the right side D (a lack of top 4 talent and and the one "top 4" talent we have there, being an ill fit with the two good top 4 guys we have on the left). 

 

Poolman was an "ok" solution to a problem we didn't/don't have.

I think @aGENT has the right call on this one. I remember Craig Button's comment at the time that he did not understand why Benning was trying "to corner the market on 3rd pairing defencemen". Button was often critical of Benning, notably predicting that Benning would choose Virtanen at 6 overall even though Button had him as somewhere in the second round on his own draft list. 

 

As for Juolevi, saying that he was "expected" to be in the 3rd pairing slot might be a stretch. It is true that Benning said he hoped Juolevi would be in that spot. But that was more wishful thinking than a legitimate expectation as it was pretty obvious by that point that Juolevi was a complete whiff as a number 5 overall pick. 

 

I think part of it was that Benning had a bit of cap room available and couldn't resist spending it on Poolman in a desperate attempt to maximize the chances of making the playoffs given that he was already pretty much "all in" on trying to make the playoffs last year without any real plan for the future. In the UFA period Benning was always like a kid in a candy store with some money in his pocket. 

Edited by JamesB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I really don't think you're grasping my point here. Yes again Poolman on his own is fine as a 3rd pair guy. I said as much above. But that wasn't a problem we needed solving. We didn't need more 3rd pair depth. We still don't need more 3rd pair depth.

 

This signing did nothing to address the problems with the right side D (a lack of top 4 talent and and the one "top 4" talent we have there, being an ill fit with the two good top 4 guys we have on the left). 

 

Poolman was an "ok" solution to a problem we didn't/don't have.

I grasp your point. We simply view it differently. With a rookie on the left side it made sense to me to sign more than a minimum wage fringe 7/8 guy for the right side. It's not easy signing a top 4 RHD in free agency at a decent price. The odds are you'll overpay. I don't see it happening without moving Myers. Then you need another top 4 anyway. The most likely scenario is moving a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD and moving Myers for the cap space. The money wasn't there to sign a top 4 to push Hamonic down to the third spot. I think we're now in position to move a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD. The way Podz played in the second half he can be moved into the top six. Plus there's Hogs potential still and Karlsson coming with potential. it's trading from strength to address weakenss. We weren't in that position last year. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Baggins said:

I grasp your point. We simply view it differently. With a rookie on the left side it made sense to me to sign more than a minimum wage fringe 7/8 guy for the right side. It's not easy signing a top 4 RHD in free agency at a decent price. The odds are you'll overpay. I don't see it happening without moving Myers. Then you need another top 4 anyway. The most likely scenario is moving a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD and moving Myers for the cap space. The money wasn't there to sign a top 4 to push Hamonic down to the third spot. I think we're now in position to move a top 6 forward for a top 4 RHD. The way Podz played in the second half he can be moved into the top six. Plus there's Hogs potential still and Karlsson coming with potential. it's trading from strength to address weakenss. We weren't in that position last year. 

Nope, based on your post,I don't think you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, JamesB said:

 

I think @aGENT has the right call on this one. I remember Craig Button's comment at the time that he did not understand why Benning was trying "to corner the market on 3rd pairing defencemen". Button was often critical of Benning, notably predicting that Benning would choose Virtanen at 6 overall even though Button had him as somewhere in the second round on his own draft list. 

 

As for Juolevi, saying that he was "expected" to be in the 3rd pairing slot might be a stretch. It is true that Benning said he hoped Juolevi would be in that spot. But that was more wishful thinking than a legitimate expectation as it was pretty obvious by that point that Juolevi was a complete whiff as a number 5 overall pick. 

 

I think part of it was that Benning had a bit of cap room available and couldn't resist spending it on Poolman in a desperate attempt to maximize the chances of making the playoffs given that he was already pretty much "all in" on trying to make the playoffs last year without any real plan for the future. In the UFA period Benning was always like a kid in a candy store with some money in his pocket. 

Button had Pettersson 6th behind Glass and Vilardi. When it comes to prospects everybody is right and wrong. The truth is Virtanen had all the tools to be a solid pick with his size, speed, and shot. The problem was he lacked the maturity and work ethic to use and build on those natural skills. He just didn't have that drive and desire to be the best he could be. Would Horvat be the same player is he didn't have the drive and desire? What if he showed up to camp failing one or more fitness tests year after year. Or couldn't be bothering to hire a power skating coach after his first season. Maturity, drive and desire doesn't alway come across in prospect interviews. They are coached on how to answer questions. Kassian wasted years of his career because he had the same problem lacking desire and drive. Wasted talent due to a lack of maturity and work ethic.

 

I'm not sold Virtanen was all Benning and not the scouting department as well. Button wasn't the only "expert" one that believed Virtanen was most likely to be picked. Much like Pettersson, Virtanen was all over the place on various draft rankings. Button was the only one I saw that didn't have Virtane in the first round. Pettersson was in the 20's on one list. 

 

I still think the reason he spent on that right side was to help support a rookie (Juolevi) being on the left side.

  • Cheers 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Nope, based on your post,I don't think you do.

Based on this I don't think you get my point of view regarding a rookie with a fringe d-man.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Based on this I don't think you get my point of view regarding a rookie with a fringe d-man.

Sorry, which one is "fringe"? Is it the guy we had playing on our top pair with Hughes? The guy we had playing largely with OEL as our matchup pair? Or the guy we sent to Ottawa because we had redundant bottom pair D (and he was also an ill fit)?

 

We didn't need ANOTHER, redundant, bottom pair D man. Full stop.

Edited by aGENT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, aGENT said:

We didn't need ANOTHER, redundant, bottom pair D man

Except he wasn't redundant because Hamonic wasn't playing. 

My question is who was more redundant Poolman 40 games played or Hamonic 19 games played?

 

Edited by DS4quality
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DS4quality said:

Except he wasn't redundant because Hamonic wasn't playing. 

My question is who was more redundant Poolman 40 games played or Hamonic 19 games played.

Hamonic was redundant not Poolman 

Point being, we didn't need both. Poolman would have been a fine signing if we'd never extended Hamonic, or had traded him. But nope, we doubled down on a redundant guy that didn't actually address any pressing roster issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Point being, we didn't need both. Poolman would have been a fine signing if we'd never extended Hamonic, or had traded him. But nope, we doubled down on a redundant guy that didn't actually address any pressing roster issues. 

Actually we did need both because they never played together

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aGENT said:

Yup, having both surely saved our season last year....

Imagine having neither?  Remember the rotating cast. Again the defense got much better after TG and Co left. And statistically speaking our defense wasn't our problem 5 on 5, we couldn't score goals, so I don't know why you're throwing shade at Poolman +2 when it was the forwards dragging the team down. 

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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