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

[rune74]

Why the spin here? I just don't get why it has to be spun as a negative due to process instead of us being happy we got this asset for a 4th.

 

[I in the Eye]

This pretty much sums it up.

So far this has been a excellent move

I think forsling pretty much sums it up... a rebuilding team shouldn't throw it's babies out with the bath water... and a draft pick is an embryo. A rebuilding team, as a rule, shouldn't throw babies or embryos out with the bath water.

I'd take forsling over puiliot 10 out of 10 times... and this is completely ignoring all the other babies and embryos flushed down the drain.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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?

Seven per draft is the standard allotment for all teams, rebuild/retool/competitive. To get an understanding of Benning's practice of a rebuild, and how it compares to other rebuilds, we would have to look at his moves at the margins. Meaning, when he had the chance to acquire extra picks, and instead chose to take a gamble on a fringe player as opposed to acquiring and using the pick.

Rebuilding teams use assets and cap space to accrue picks. Extra picks. Benning's rebuild includes the standard allotment of picks. That has to be the range of discussion. Otherwise, tracking the team that deals the most picks could have us looking at competitive teams trying to win a cup. I.e. not useful for the standard.

@DL44: You are free to choose any team.

 

[krutovsdonut]

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?

i think i would remember if you had said reclamation trades are the "primary" focus of rebuilding this team from the outset and used that as a basis to criticize the pouliot trade. it's a claim i disagree with and would be able and willing to debate.

my recollection is that you have doggedly criticized this particular trade on the merits.

here is you explaining your position on november 30th

"It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me."

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/138487985/

you were focussed on this trade and calling it a "bad value deal". not a word about "too many trades like this".

your primary focus for a long time on this thread was in fact a claim that benning could have gotten this player off waivers and so he overpaid. again, specific to this trade being bad on the merits. here you are on october 7th.

"On overall player quality, an asset like Pouliot could have been had on waivers. Further, a player like Pedan could have been had on waivers, twice. Clearly, Benning doesn't think along these lines. He sees a skill set he thinks he needs and then overpays for it. That's what he does."

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/136439501/


i think you are jumping from lily pad to lily pad.

 

[TheOtherGM]

So based on that I hadn't accounted for the pick given up for Larsson.

Seven per draft is the standard allotment for all teams, rebuild/retool/competitive. To get an understanding of Benning's practice of a rebuild, and how it compares to other rebuilds, we would have to look at his moves at the margins. Meaning, when he had the chance to acquire extra picks, and instead chose to take a gamble on a fringe player as opposed to acquiring and using the pick.

Rebuilding teams use assets and cap space to accrue picks. Extra picks. Benning's rebuild includes the standard allotment of picks. That has to be the range of discussion. Otherwise, tracking the team that deals the most picks could have us looking at competitive teams trying to win a cup. I.e. not useful for the standard.

@DL44: You are free to choose any team.

OK, but then I'd focus more of my ire on his inability to move Hamhuis and Vrbata for futures.
You'd get no argument from me there.
My only beef here is with your apparent take that it has to be one or the other, allowing for the rare exception. My opinion is that draft picks and these types of deals are both tools in the tool-box that, if used effectively (you can argue they haven't), can produce solid results toward a rebuild.

He's batting .333 with the picks for fringys strategy, which seems to have produced two very useful players for the present and (potentially) future in Baertschi/Pouliot.
I have zero problem with the strategy. My problem is with the pro scouting that produced flawed targets for the strategy.

 

[Cupless44]

I think forsling pretty much sums it up... a rebuilding team shouldn't throw it's babies out with the bath water... and a draft pick is an embryo. A rebuilding team, as a rule, shouldn't throw babies or embryos out with the bath water.

I'd take forsling over puiliot 10 out of 10 times... and this is completely ignoring all the other babies and embryos flushed down the drain.

Why do you even have to drudge up a bad trade from 3 years ago? We all know it was a horrible deal. What does that have to do with assessing this trade and why should we not be happy at getting Pouliot for basically a 4th round pick?

Two different deals. Two different outcomes.

 

[Bleach Clean]

OK, but then I'd focus more of my ire on his inability to move Hamhuis and Vrbata for futures.
You'd get no argument from me there.
My only beef here is with your apparent take that it has to be one or the other, allowing for the rare exception. My opinion is that draft picks and these types of deals are both tools in the tool-box that, if used effectively (you can argue they haven't), can produce solid results toward a rebuild.

He's batting .333 with the picks for fringys strategy, which seems to have produced two very useful players for the present and (potentially) future in Baertschi/Pouliot.
I have zero problem with the strategy. My problem is with the pro scouting that produced flawed targets for the strategy.

The Hamhuis + Vrbata botch job is definitely part of why I think Benning's focus is not to rebuild, but to retool. For sure.

My take about rebuilding is that it has to be _more_ one the other. The majority of moves should focus on the draft. I don't equally weight draft picks with flyers on fringe players because I feel the best upside can only be had through the draft. My problem with Benning's strategy his moves do not align with that understanding. Hope that's clear.

Other than that, I think we understand the separation in each others' perspective.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Lets go through it...

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.

lol at the disrespect you are giving dale tallon for building the team stan bowman took over. tallon went to the conference finals the year he got fired/promoted for failing to make qualifying offers. he had assembled and developed the entire blackhawk core. bowman was handed a contender on a platter. the only thing he gets credit for is maintaining contender status by cap management, which is a totally different issue than the rebuild.

 

[Cupless44]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Rather than talk about Derrick Pouliot in the Derrick Pouliot thread...we have this turned another management thread piling on Benning by those who feel the need to drudge all that up because they cant admit this looks like a very promising trade.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I think forsling pretty much sums it up... a rebuilding team shouldn't throw it's babies out with the bath water... and a draft pick is an embryo. A rebuilding team, as a rule, shouldn't throw babies or embryos out with the bath water.

I'd take forsling over puiliot 10 out of 10 times... and this is completely ignoring all the other babies and embryos flushed down the drain.

excellent. you are reduced to "but forsling" in criticizing the pouliot trade.

i guess you've given up on "overpaid" also. weren't you "positive this trade sucks" because a 4th is so valuable not so long ago. i am pretty sure that was you.

 

[DL44]

Seven per draft is the standard allotment for all teams, rebuild/retool/competitive. To get an understanding of Benning's practice of a rebuild, and how it compares to other rebuilds, we would have to look at his moves at the margins. Meaning, when he had the chance to acquire extra picks, and instead chose to take a gamble on a fringe player as opposed to acquiring and using the pick.

Rebuilding teams use assets and cap space to accrue picks. Extra picks. Benning's rebuild includes the standard allotment of picks. That has to be the range of discussion. Otherwise, tracking the team that deals the most picks could have us looking at competitive teams trying to win a cup. I.e. not useful for the standard.

@DL44: You are free to choose any team.

Arizona?

 

[krutovsdonut]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Rather than talk about Derrick Pouliot in the Derrick Pouliot thread...we have this turned another management thread piling on Benning by those who feel the need to drudge all that up because they cant admit this looks like a very promising trade.

yep. they want to talk about anything but this trade. "but benning did other bad things".

 

[TheOtherGM]

The Hamhuis + Vrbata botch job is definitely part of why I think Benning's focus is not to rebuild, but to retool. For sure.

My take about rebuilding is that it has to be _more_ one the other. The majority of moves should focus on the draft. I don't equally weight draft picks with flyers on fringe players because I feel the best upside can only be had through the draft. My problem with Benning's strategy his moves do not align with that understanding. Hope that's clear.

Other than that, I think we understand the separation in each others' perspective.

Yeah I think I see where you're coming from.
You believe that the chance of pulling a Datsyukian type talent with higher upside from rounds three through seven outweighs the chance of one of Benning's picks-for-fringys with lower upside working out.
And that's fair.
But a counter argument can be made that, with proper pro scouting and the perspective that comes with watching a player who is two or three years further along on the development path, it should be easier to produce something positive from the latter strategy than the former (if your pro scouts aren't chowderheads).
I've heard it said the draft is a crap shoot, and while I understand that amateur scouting has advanced greatly over the last decade and it's a good idea to have more lottery tickets, the odds of pulling a difference-making asset out of rounds three through seven are still steep.

But I'd reiterate that I personally don't believe you have to choose one or the other.
Would your opinion be different at all had just one more player, say Pedan, been a hit instead of a miss? Then Benning would be at 50 per cent on these gambles with a young first/second line winger/snarly physical D-man/puck moving D-man to show for it.

Edit: I don't even like using the word gamble. If your pro scouts are good and you are confident in their assessments, these shouldn't be gambles.

 

[I in the Eye]

Why do you even have to drudge up a bad trade from 3 years ago? We all know it was a horrible deal. What does that have to do with assessing this trade and why should we not be happy at getting Pouliot for basically a 4th round pick?

Two different deals. Two different outcomes.

Because... process. Has the process done more harm, or good, for the Canucks?

Some of those who are arguing this is a good deal are also praising the drafting under Benning in the later rounds. You brush the 4th away like it is a meaningless asset. It is an embryo. A Puiliot has a long way to go to be used as evidence that the process has worked to the Canucks favour. So far, the process has led to a gross negative. Just because the embryos haven't become tangible babies that can be seen, doesn't mean an embryo is not worth much.

For me, a last half of a draft pick for the chance on Puiliot? Ok, I could turn away as the embryo gets flushed... ignore the basic rule for a special circumstance, if there is a strong belief in puiliot.

As a process, this needs to stop, IMHO. Puiliot playing well in sheltered minutes doesn't change that. Forsling is playing very well in top 4 minutes. Where's the proof that the strategy is working? Puiliot, Granlund, Baertschi... in exchange for all those dead babies and embryos. Not worth it, for a rebuilding team.

 

[I in the Eye]

excellent. you are reduced to "but forsling" in criticizing the pouliot trade.

i guess you've given up on "overpaid" also. weren't you "positive this trade sucks" because a 4th is so valuable not so long ago. i am pretty sure that was you.

I'm criticizing the process. In a vacuum, the Puiliot for 4th has been a lot better than it could have been so far, IMO (but then again, that embryo... how good looking a baby will that be? Benning's drafts have got some good looking babies with Benning impregnating those eggs) . No, I was never positive this trade sucks... I was the one who thought the correct gamble was to gamble if could get Puiliot off of waivers instead of paying in an embryo. I still think it was an overpayment... not a good gamble (the correct gamble to me was to try and get Puiliot for free). I also think it's great when the Canucks are able to win on the backs of it's youth... and in that regard, I'm happy enough with Puiliot - we was really important in the Carolina game (which I think is great). The process that led to Puiliot, sucks... even though I hope that Puiliot won't suck, and I like the way Puiliot is playing more times than not so far.

Forsling though, is awesome. If Puiliot can become our Forsling, that would be fantastic.

 

[DL44]

Arizona...
They spent a '18 5th on Wedgewood.
2nd rounder for DeAngelo
1st rounder.. as a basement team.. plus DeAngelo on 28 yr old Raanta and a 27 yr old Stepan.
5th rounder+ for Cousins, Madsen
6th rounder for Holland
3rd rounder for Crouse and salary
5th rounder for the rights to Goligoski. Who they signed.

I just went back to last offseason,.


Could you imagine that 5th for the rights of Goligoski trade happening here?

rah rah you could of had from free if you waited!!
but he signed so it was good asset management!
but it was poor process!

 

[TheOtherGM]

Because... process. Has the process done more harm, or good, for the Canucks?

Some of those who are arguing this is a good deal are also praising the drafting under Benning in the later rounds. You brush the 4th away like it is a meaningless asset. It is an embryo. A Puiliot has a long way to go to be used as evidence that the process has worked to the Canucks favour. So far, the process has led to a gross negative. Just because the embryos haven't become tangible babies that can be seen, doesn't mean an embryo is not worth much.

For me, a last half of a draft pick for the chance on Puiliot? Ok, I could turn away as the embryo gets flushed... ignore the basic rule for a special circumstance, if there is a strong belief in puiliot.

As a process, this needs to stop, IMHO. Puiliot playing well in sheltered minutes doesn't change that. Forsling is playing very well in top 4 minutes. Where's the proof that the strategy is working? Puiliot, Granlund, Baertschi... in exchange for all those dead babies and embryos. Not worth it, for a rebuilding team.

And like I've been saying to ROE, the Pouliot result (so far promising) shows there may be merit to the process, if done correctly with solid pro scouting.
I'd hate to have a GM say no to the Pouliot result because he wanted to hang on to a fourth round pick. I'd love for that same GM to say no to the Vey result and keep the 2nd round pick.
It is about results and how good your scouting is. That's what makes this strategy viable or not, and if it is viable it is a strategy that can be implemented into a rebuild.

 

[krutovsdonut]

No, I was never positive this trade sucks... I was the one who thought the correct gamble was to gamble if could get Puiliot off of waivers instead of paying in an embryo.

you literally posted the following on october 6th.

I am positive, this deal sucks...

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/136433571/

 

[sting101]

I think forsling pretty much sums it up... a rebuilding team shouldn't throw it's babies out with the bath water... and a draft pick is an embryo. A rebuilding team, as a rule, shouldn't throw babies or embryos out with the bath water.

I'd take forsling over puiliot 10 out of 10 times... and this is completely ignoring all the other babies and embryos flushed down the drain.

Patrick Sharp pretty much sums it up.

Without him Chicago probably doesn't win their cups. A 3rd round pick.

Chicago should have drafted someone no one would ever remember??

 

[TheOtherGM]

I'm criticizing the process. In a vacuum, the Puiliot for 4th has been a lot better than it could have been so far, IMO. No, I was never positive this trade sucks... I was the one who thought the correct gamble was to gamble if could get Puiliot off of waivers instead of paying in an embryo. I still think it was an overpayment... not a good gamble (the correct gamble to me was to try and get Puiliot for free). I also think it's great when the Canucks are able to win on the backs of it's youth... and in that regard, I'm happy enough with Puiliot - we was really important in the Carolina game (which I think is great). The process that led to Puiliot, sucks... even though I hope that Puiliot won't suck, and I like the way Puiliot is playing more times than not so far.

Forsling though, is awesome. If Puiliot can become our Forsling, that would be fantastic.

Re: Pouliot possibly being on waivers.

No one on this message board knows. No one. If Benning had to give up a pick to get this particular player, based on circumstances that none of us know, then so be it.
Pouliot appears to have been worth it.

 

[I in the Eye]

you literally posted the following on october 6th.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/136433571/

Ok. I also posted several that says I don't know if it will work out or not, but the correct gamble was to wait for waivers... and if Puiliot didn't make it to the Canucks, so be it. How much time should we have before determining if this has worked out or not? I'm not positive that this trade sucks. I'm not positive that this trade doesn't suck either. It's fantastic that it has worked out this good, so far, given the cost of a top half of draft pick. I want Puiliot to be better than I thought when he was first acquired. The youth is important for a rebuilding team. If the Canucks can win games on the backs of the Horvats, Boesers, Virtanens, Huttons, Puiliots, etc... I think that's a great result.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Arizona...
They spent a '18 5th on Wedgewood.
2nd rounder for DeAngelo
1st rounder.. as a basement team.. plus DeAngelo on 28 yr old Raanta and a 27 yr old Stepan.
5th rounder+ for Cousins, Madsen
6th rounder for Holland
3rd rounder for Crouse and salary
5th rounder for the rights to Goligoski. Who they signed.

I just went back to last offseason,.

So the rebuild started last offseason for Arizona in your opinion? I don't often do this DL44, but you get this from me:

Well done. You made smile.

Yeah I think I see where you're coming from.
You believe that the chance of pulling a Datsyukian type talent with higher upside from rounds three through seven outweighs the chance of one of Benning's picks-for-fringys with lower upside working out.
And that's fair.
But a counter argument can be made that, with proper pro scouting and the perspective that comes with watching a player who is two or three years further along on the development path, it should be easier to produce something positive from the latter strategy than the former (if your pro scouts aren't chowderheads).
I've heard it said the draft is a crap shoot, and while I understand that amateur scouting has advanced greatly over the last decade and it's a good idea to have more lottery tickets, the odds of pulling a difference-making asset out of rounds three through seven are still steep.

But I'd reiterate that I personally don't believe you have to choose one or the other.
Would your opinion be different at all had just one more player, say Pedan, been a hit instead of a miss? Then Benning would be at 50 per cent on these gambles with a young first/second line winger/snarly physical D-man/puck moving D-man to show for it.

To answer the question in bold: No, it would not have changed my opinion. Because I cannot accurately measure the options forgone in attaining those "hits". Traditionally, I know the biggest hits for any franchise are accrued from the draft. To have opinions overturned on that, we would need mountains of data suggesting otherwise. With full attention on the opportunity cost of switching strategies.

I don't think your counter-argument is sufficient if you, like others, acknowledge that the draft still provides the best opportunity to attain the highest upside players. If you acknowledge that, then you are effectively acknowledging the trade off in pursuing this alternate strategy -- on the whole (not unique cases). "Something positive" just rings hollow when forgoing the chance at a core player. I hope that's understood?

For me to change my opinion on this, a cogent argument that potential upside is not squandered has to be made. Are you saying that the potential upside of either strategy is the same? If you are, then please show your homework. If you aren't, then you have acknowledged why focusing on the draft in a rebuild is the preferred strategy.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Patrick Sharp pretty much sums it up.

Without him Chicago probably doesn't win their cups. A 3rd round pick.

Chicago should have drafted someone no one would ever remember??

but they lost the hilbert trade. so the process was bad. oh noes.

 

[TheOtherGM]

But now we're heading backwards, because I've already noted that a rebuilding team should place a heavy focus on the draft.
I am not arguing that and I will be the first at Benning's door with flaming torch and pitchfork if he makes a regular habit of trading first and second round picks.
And I would have greatly preferred he convert veteran assets like Hamhuis/Vrbata into picks.
We are not arguing that. Long live the draft!

What I am arguing, and I thought we were close to understanding each other on this, is exclusivity, in that drafting doesn't have to be the singular strategy employed.

For every Datsyuk there are hundreds of flamed out later-round picks, and you could just as easily plod along for years with a draft-only approach.
Or, you could pull the same type of solid-but-not-superstar-level contributor from those picks and arrive at the exact same place you're arriving at with Baertschi and Pouliot.

Have lots of lottery tickets and take your shots, and hopefully the hockey gods who've never smiled upon the Vancouver Canucks gift us some sort of difference-making player.
But also don't be blind to the opportunity to pick up a young puck-moving defenceman who is flashing some pretty serious potential these days.

 

[DL44]

So the rebuild started last offseason for Arizona in your opinion? I don't often do this DL44, but you get this from me:

Well done. You made smile.

Why.. is their rebuild over?

Another team? how about the Flames... people like comparing us to the flames... what were their retooling yrs?