Player Discussion Derrick Pouliot, Pt. II: Will not be qualified (again)

[racerjoe]

It's a simple premise, if the process is correct, than the majority of the time this should be considered the correct move. So take a look at history and show where it has happened. Where has a rebuilding team focused on players this close to the waiver wire then become successful?

 

[krutovsdonut]

A legitimate question. I have never before witnessed a rebuild that follows this outline. Thus, it's either a retool or a rebuild of a new variety.

you should watch more hockey.

can you name a single team that didn't make moves like this during a successful rebuild ?

hint: it is not chicago

chicago in 2005 traded a 4th for 24 year old radim vrbata, a 5th for 24 yr old andy hilbert and a 3rd for 24 year old patrick sharp.
in 2006 they traded a 2nd and 2 recent second round prospects for 25 year old havlat (and 35 year old smolinski).

worked out ok for them.

 

[Bleach Clean]

you should watch more hockey.

can you name a single team that didn't make moves like this during a successful rebuild ?

hint: it is not chicago

chicago in 2005 traded a 4th for 24 year old radim vrbata, a 5th for 24 yr old andy hilbert and a 3rd for 24 year old patrick sharp.
in 2006 they traded a 2nd and 3 prospects for 25 year old havlat (and 35 year old smolinski).

worked out ok for them.

The bold phrase tells me that you are continuing to misconstrue my argument. Please refer to my post to alternate for clarification.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The bold phrase tells me that you are continuing to misconstrue my argument. Please refer to my post to alternate for clarification.

i did not understand your post to alternate and i still do not understand it.

throughout this thread you are complaining about acquiring 23 year old pouliot for a 4th rounder. you even named this thread "process vs result" to make your point that you disagree with trading picks as a process regardless of outcome. you claim it was not a proper trade to make when rebuilding. you have also specifically cited chicago as an example of a team that rebuilt properly more than once.

i just gave you multiple examples of similar trades chicago made of picks for players pouliot's age. one of those trades got them 24 year old patrick sharp, who was a key part of their cup team, and two others of which got them good complimentary pieces in vrbata and havlat.

i will wait patiently for you to explain how you reconcile these trades to your thesis that trading picks for young player during a rebuild is always bad,.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Seems to me the only problem with 'the process' to this point has been the pro scouting.

Had Pedan been evaluated correctly he would have been a fantastic addition as a big, smooth-skating physical defenceman with a mean streak and a shot.
Had Clendenning been evaluated correctly he would have been a fantastic addition as an offensive-minded defenceman who was two years ahead of Forsling on the development curve.
I am not going to defend the Vey acquisition. That was bad.
Etem was a popular player with this board when Ryan Kesler was being shopped.
Baertschi goes down as a win, even if he is a complementary player.

Pro scouting seems to have finally gotten one right on the defensive side with Pouliot and 'the process' looks a whole lot better.

If pro scouting had been on the ball with the other evaluations no one would be complaining about a poor process because the Canucks would have several valuable young pieces in the lineup.

Everything in hockey is about results. Everything.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i did not understand your post to alternate and i still do not understand it.

throughout this thread you are complaining about acquiring 23 year old pouliot for a 4th rounder. you even named this thread "process vs result" to make your point that you disagree with trading picks as a process regardless of outcome. you claim it was not a proper trade to make when rebuilding. you have also specifically cited chicago as an example of a team that rebuilt properly more than once.
.

The mode of trading picks for fringe prospects is not typical of rebuilding teams. It's not the normal course of action. This does not mean that exceptions cannot occur. Once in a while, sparingly, a rebuilding team can give up a pick for a player, but it's rare. Why? Because picks are precious to rebuilding teams. They are the best assets with which to rebuild. Makes sense, yes or no? If you still don't understand this concept after having me explain it yet again, then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and I no longer wish to re-explain it to you.

Is trading picks the primary process of a rebuilding team? Yes or no?

 

[MS]

If you make 5 or 8 bad, low-percentage moves but on one of them, that low percentage hits ... that doesn't mean you're smart and made a good deal. That means you got lucky and that a broken clock is right twice/day.

So far Pouliot has been much better than I (or any Penguin fans who followed him closely for 5 years) thought he could be. Looks like he can be a decent bottom-pairing defender who can help on the PP. His quick, accurate outlet passing has been an asset and the coaching staff has done a good job managing his defensive issues.

 

[TheOtherGM]

The mode of trading picks for fringe prospects is not typical of rebuilding teams. It's not the normal course of action. This does not mean that exceptions cannot occur. Once in a while, sparingly, a rebuilding team can give up a pick for a player, but it's rare. Why? Because picks are precious to rebuilding teams. They are the best assets with which to rebuild. Makes sense, yes or no? If you still don't understand this concept after having me explain it yet again, then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and I no longer wish to re-explain it to you.

Is trading picks the primary process of a rebuilding team? Yes or no?

No.
But neither is it so black and white that you can't trade away picks, if your pro scouting has done its job well and you feel you can acquire a young piece at a bargain rate.
This is what the team appears to have successfully (pending, but looks very good) done with Pouliot, and there seems to be a solid chance he can be a part of the next core.
If true, he projects as a successful part of this management regime's efforts to transition from one core to the next.

As mentioned previously, imo, it's not the trading away picks for players that is flawed, because as Pouliot has (pending) proven, that can work.
The flaw is trading those picks for the wrong players.

In an alternate universe, Pedan and Clendenning and Vey are part of the 2023 Stanley Cup champion Canucks and Pouliot is a barbecue salesman.

As for the overall discussion about the 'right way' to carry out a rebuild or re-tool or neo-quasi-alt-rebuildatron, I'm fairly certain there isn't an all-encompassing manual that tells you how to get from point A to point B.

 

[DL44]

If you are rebuilding... it does not mean you make transactions for picks only.
It does not mean you cannot make moves to target players you think will make your team better longer term...
What it does mean is you do not make moves to trade assets for short term vets.
We brought in Gudbranson (24), Baertschi (22), Granlund (22), Pouliot (23) for outgoing picks.

Complain about the players and semantics all you want... but the philosophy behind them line up with a rebuild/retool/alt-retool/retoobuild/buildtooler.

It's just nonsense now how you are so hung up on this.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's a simple premise, if the process is correct, than the majority of the time this should be considered the correct move. So take a look at history and show where it has happened. Where has a rebuilding team focused on players this close to the waiver wire then become successful?

i just gave an example of chicago and cited specific trades of picks for 24 year olds.

also, just like the draft picks that are traded, the process is more likely than not, not going to succeed. that does not make it wrong. also consider that "help now" is valuable in a rebuild even if the player is not there to hoist the cup.

 

[sting101]

Locking yourself into a box that costs you opportunities to improve your organisation is a very poor management strategy.

This pretty much sums it up.

So far this has been a excellent move

 

[DL44]

The mode of trading picks for fringe prospects is not typical of rebuilding teams. It's not the normal course of action. This does not mean that exceptions cannot occur. Once in a while, sparingly, a rebuilding team can give up a pick for a player, but it's rare. Why? Because picks are precious to rebuilding teams. They are the best assets with which to rebuild. Makes sense, yes or no? If you still don't understand this concept after having me explain it yet again, then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and I no longer wish to re-explain it to you.

Is trading picks the primary process of a rebuilding team? Yes or no?

Pick a team that went through/or is going through a rebuild and I can show you a number of similar moves...

You seem to living in a Canuck-only bubble.

 

[Bleach Clean]

No.

Thank you for your honesty.

But neither is it so black and white that you can't trade away picks, if your pro scouting has done its job well and you feel you can acquire a young piece at a bargain rate.

And I've acknowledged this by stating that there are exceptions to every rule... but that does not overturn the rule.

This is what the team appears to have successfully (pending, but looks very good) done with Pouliot, and there seems to be a solid chance he can be a part of the next core.
If true, he projects as a successful part of this management regime's efforts to transition from one core to the next.

As mentioned previously, imo, it's not the trading away picks for players that is flawed, because as Pouliot has (pending) proven, that can work.
The flaw is trading those picks for the wrong players.

In an alternate universe, Pedan and Clendenning and Vey are part of the 2023 Stanley Cup champion Canucks and Pouliot is a barbecue salesman.

As for the overall discussion about the 'right way' to carry out a rebuild or re-tool or neo-quasi-alt-rebuildatron, I'm fairly certain there isn't an all-encompassing manual that tells you how to get from point A to point B.

There is precedent, however. And until people can honestly acknowledge and accept that precedent as fact, and how Benning's actions have veered from it, that part of the discussion will not move forward, IMO.

As to your comment in bold: I would argue that trading picks is still flawed (for a rebuilding team). You are still forgoing, as other posters have acknowledged, your best opportunity to acquire the highest upside assets. It places an extraordinary amount of pressure on the pro-scouting to be right. So much so, that that risks often outweigh the benefits and rebuilding teams opt to draft instead. That's why you don't see rebuilding teams aggressively trade picks to follow Benning's methodology.

Of course, I have to allow for the possibility that a GM can buck the trend and select the highest upside assets by forgoing the draft as a focus - as Benning has tried to do. That GM would be a game changer though, and would re-write NHL accepted practices as we know them. Do you believe Benning to be that guy?

 

[krutovsdonut]

If you make 5 or 8 bad, low-percentage moves but on one of them, that low percentage hits ... that doesn't mean you're smart and made a good deal. That means you got lucky and that a broken clock is right twice/day.

your expectations are unrealistic. trading a 4th round draft pick only has to yield a result with similar odds to a 4th round draft pick to be an even trade.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Pick a team that went through/or is going through a rebuild and I can show you a number of similar moves...

You seem to living in a Canuck-only bubble.

I'm the one asking people to show me that the Benning model follows a precedent, one outside the Canucks of course, and I'm the one in the "Canuck-only bubble"? Give your head a shake. It's the other way around.

Show me the rebuild precedent that informs Benning's methodology of a rebuild. It's not about similar moves, it's about the _majority_ of moves. Can you cite another instance, from another rebuilding team, where the majority of the moves had the organization deal picks to acquire fringe assets, forgoing the focus on the draft?

After you find that unique case, please show that the majority of rebuild cases in the NHL follow the same template. So much so that the Benning template is not recognized as the outlier or something altogether unique.

Can you do it?

 

[Dana Murzyn]

If you make 5 or 8 bad, low-percentage moves but on one of them, that low percentage hits ... that doesn't mean you're smart and made a good deal. That means you got lucky and that a broken clock is right twice/day.

If you're spending pennies on those low percentage bets, the rare hit might well outweigh the cost of all the misses. As others have argued, these cheap marginal gambles need to be judged in combination rather than individually.

Even by that standard Benning is probably in the negative. But I don't think the strategy is quite as blind or misguided as you make it out to be.

 

[TheOtherGM]

I would argue that an intelligent GM should be using every tool in his toolbox, and taking advantage of every opportunity that comes his way.
As I said, there is more than one way to get from point A to B.
I would find it worrisome if a GM was so narrowly focused on accumulating and saving picks that he wouldn't be open to the idea of acquiring a player like Pouliot.
A successful plan should involved several strategies working toward an ultimate goal.

Has Benning gone to the well too much with this strategy? Yes, based on the results. No, if the results had been better on Pedan/Clendenning/Vey.
There'd be none of this discussion if those evaluations had been correct.

Absolutely the main focus should be on accumulating picks, and it disappoints me that the Canucks have only had the expected seven per draft over the last few years.
But if the team comes into next June's draft with seven or more picks and they've acquired a player like Pouliot as well, I consider that solid work.

And boo-hoo for the pro scouts who feel pressure to get things right. That's what they're paid for.
I certainly don't feel sympathy for the pressure the amateur scouts would feel to get things right in your draft-picks-only scenario.

 

[krutovsdonut]

The mode of trading picks for fringe prospects is not typical of rebuilding teams. It's not the normal course of action. This does not mean that exceptions cannot occur. Once in a while, sparingly, a rebuilding team can give up a pick for a player, but it's rare. Why? Because picks are precious to rebuilding teams. They are the best assets with which to rebuild. Makes sense, yes or no? If you still don't understand this concept after having me explain it yet again, then I'm afraid we are at an impasse and I no longer wish to re-explain it to you.

Is trading picks the primary process of a rebuilding team? Yes or no?

now you are moving the goalposts and throwing out straw men.

nobody has ever suggested we rebuild this team solely by trading picks.

clearly that is not happening. we have plenty of home grown talent in our line up right now, and we have plenty of draft pick prospects in the system.

you have said this is a bad trade regardless of outcome. "process vs. result" is your title for this thread. you have consistently refused to evaluate this trade on its own merits while criticizing it. you have never once said "this trade is fine in isolation but it sucks because benning does it too much". you have claimed this trade was bad period even if it turns out well. because it is the wrong type of trade.

so forgive me if i am having trouble with this new "once in a while it's ok" spin in your latest post.

are you now saying this is an ok trade in isolation but sucks because benning does it too much? because that is what is known as a pivot. aka jumping from lilypad to lilypad as they sink beneath you. aka, a limited hangout.

 

[sting101]

Pile A

Good = Baertschi Granlund Pouliot
Bad = Vey Clendening Pedan Larsen GUDBRANSON
meh = Etem 5TH

Pile B

Good = McCANN Forsling
Bad = Shinkaruk Jensen
Meh = 33(ASPLUND) 50(McKeown) 53(Andersson) 3rd 4th 4TH 5th 6th

Remove the stupid Gudbranson trade and it would be good.

 

[TheOtherGM]

I'm the one asking people to show me that the Benning model follows a precedent, one outside the Canucks of course, and I'm the one in the "Canuck-only bubble"? Give your head a shake. It's the other way around.

Show me the rebuild precedent that informs Benning's methodology of a rebuild. It's not about similar moves, it's about the _majority_ of moves. Can you cite another instance, from another rebuilding team, where the majority of the moves had the organization deal picks to acquire fringe assets, forgoing the focus on the draft?

After you find that unique case, please show that the majority of rebuild cases in the NHL follow the same template. So much so that the Benning template is not recognized as the outlier or something altogether unique.

Can you do it?

Maybe I'm misreading this.
These picks for fringys hasn't been the majority of his moves has it?
Baertschi/Vey/Pedan/Clendenning/Etem/Pouliot... who else? Am I missing someone or is it six times this has happened?

Balance that against the draft picks (seven per draft is what I read earlier) and moves like the Burrows and Hansen deals and I can't say that Benning has made this a heavy focus of whatever it is he's doing.
We're just about halfway through his fourth season now, so there's less than two of those moves per season, and the first five of those were earlier in his tenure when he was supposedly trying to address this age gap thing.
I think you're overstating a little bit. Am I wrong?

 

[krutovsdonut]

If you're spending pennies on those low percentage bets, the rare hit might well outweigh the cost of all the misses. As others have argued, these cheap marginal gambles need to be judged in combination rather than individually.

Even by that standard Benning is probably in the negative. But I don't think the strategy is quite as blind or misguided as you make it out to be.

i added a balance sheet in the benning transaction summary. you can go look at the totality of what he has traded and gotten back. i think you can argue he overpaid for more finished players like gudbranson and sutter, but his record on reclamation/logjam players holds up pretty well.

 

[Bleach Clean]

now you are moving the goalposts and throwing out straw men.

nobody has ever suggested we rebuild this team solely by trading picks.

There's no "solely" involved. I said as a "primary focus". That's about the majority of moves. That has been my position from the outset. That you cannot understand my position even now is of no concern to me. I would suggest actually reading the posts to get a clear understanding before engaging.

I will ask again: Is trading picks the primary process of a rebuilding team? Yes or no?

 

[DL44]

I'm the one asking people to show me that the Benning model follows a precedent, one outside the Canucks of course, and I'm the one in the "Canuck-only bubble"? Give your head a shake. It's the other way around.

Show me the rebuild precedent that informs Benning's methodology of a rebuild. It's not about similar moves, it's about the _majority_ of moves. Can you cite another instance, from another rebuilding team, where the majority of the moves had the organization deal picks to acquire fringe assets, forgoing the focus on the draft?

After you find that unique case, please show that the majority of rebuild cases in the NHL follow the same template. So much so that the Benning template is not recognized as the outlier or something altogether unique.

Can you do it?

Probably... pick a team.

 

[DL44]

Maybe I'm misreading this.
These picks for fringys hasn't been the majority of his moves has it?
Baertschi/Vey/Pedan/Clendenning/Etem/Pouliot... who else? Am I missing someone or is it six times this has happened?

Balance that against the draft picks (seven per draft is what I read earlier) and moves like the Burrows and Hansen deals and I can't say that Benning has made this a heavy focus of whatever it is he's doing.
We're just about halfway through his fourth season now, so there's less than two of those moves per season, and the first five of those were earlier in his tenure when he was supposedly trying to address this age gap thing.
I think you're overstating a little bit. Am I wrong?

No.. you aren't...


Trades:

-2014-15-----------
Bonino, Sbisa, 1st (#24 - McCann), 3rd --- Kesler, 3rd (#84 - Deven Sideroff)
Dorsett --- 3rd (#85 - Keegan Iverson)
2nd --- Garrison, 7th (204th - Jack Sadek), Costello
Vey --- 2nd (#50 - Roland McKeown)
Acton --- Lain
Pedan --- Mallet, '16 3rd (came back to us)
Clendening --- Forsling
Conacher --- Jeffrey
Baertschi --- 2nd (#53 - Rasmus Andersson)

-2015-16-----------
3rd (66th - Brisebois) and (#194 McKenzie) --- Lack
7th (210th - Tate Olson) --- McNally
Prust --- Kassian, (#124 Staum)
'16 2nd --- Bieksa
Sutter, (#64 Lockwood) --- Bonino, Clendening, (#55 Gustavsson)
Etem --- Jensen, '17 6th
Granlund --- Shinkaruk
Larsen --- '17 5th
Futures --- Fox

-2016-17----------
Gudbranson, (#140 Candella) --- McCann, (#33 Asplund), (#94 Ang)
Dahlen --- Burrows
Goldobin, '17 4th* --- Hansen


-2017-18-----------
5th (#135-Gunnarsson) and 6th (#181-Palmu) -- 4th (#112 Soderlund)
Pouliot -- Pedan, '18 4th

 

[racerjoe]

i just gave an example of chicago and cited specific trades of picks for 24 year olds.

also, just like the draft picks that are traded, the process is more likely than not, not going to succeed. that does not make it wrong. also consider that "help now" is valuable in a rebuild even if the player is not there to hoist the cup.

Lets go through it...

chicago in 2005 traded a 4th for 24 year old radim vrbata, a 5th for 24 yr old andy hilbert and a 3rd for 24 year old patrick sharp.
in 2006 they traded a 2nd and 2 recent second round prospects for 25 year old havlat (and 35 year old smolinski).

Of these players 1 was with them when they won their first cup. Vrbrata was traded for Future considerations. We can call the Andy Hilbert trade a loss can we not? Patrick sharp seems to be the only win, and only positive here.

The Havlat trade if I am not mistaken was only made as Ottawa was making room for another acquisition. I believe he was considered a good player at the time. Thats my memory though. either way he was not apart of the Hawks success and cup runs, he was jettisoned for Hossa.

Also all of these moves were done with a different GM than the one that guided them to success.