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

[Shareefruck]

But it was. A 4th round pick is not much if you actually gain a legit young player in return. It was the perfect kind of gamble if you were smart enough to do it. It all depends if it is a "modest return" or not. Which I think the jury is very much out on .*gasp*

True, it all depends on whether or not the return is "modest" or "meaningful", and the jury's out on that. That's what I've been arguing from the start. It hasn't proven to be meaningful YET, despite his current progression, so it doesn't make sense to expect people who didn't like the conditions of the trade to reconsider.

Edit: To me, Granlund was a high-probability-low-upside prospect further along in development and the current version of him is only modest return. I would probably not trade a 4th round pick for this version of him, even if there was a good chance of the 4th round pick becoming nothing and this technically being a won trade, despite Granlund being a legitimate NHLer. I would not call that result a "good gamble" either.

It remains to be seen whether Pouliot is Granlund-esque return or Baertschi-esque return. Let's hope it's the latter, in which case the concerns/skepticism I had about the trade would be squashed pretty handily.

 

[WTG]

If you look at his analytics, you could make the argument he is already playing at a top 4 level.

His Corsi/Fenwick/Shots stats all look very well. Relative to his teammates he's got all -'s in the defensive stats, and +'s in the offensive stats, that's a really good sign.

Pouliots transition stats are also some of the best on this team according to dissect the blue line.


Although there is a good point to be made that he's being sheltered. But I don't think he has been lately.

 

[Addison Rae]

If you look at his analytics, you could make the argument he is already playing at a top 4 level.

That's the issue with analytics they always favour skill players playing soft minutes. Pouliot has been getting better all season long, but he absolutely isn't a top 4 defender yet.

 

[drax0s]

A rebuilding team needs to acquire a number of young players to form a new core. Full stop. If those young players are acquired via draft, trade, waivers, offer sheet, free agent signing or cloning - who cares. The goal is to find young talent that can grow into a competitive team. The "this isn't a rebuild because picks" crap is so pedantic.

Many here who hate this trade (and management) opined that Pouliot's CURRENT level of play wasn't even possible for him or was such a long shot to not even be worth considering. In this case, the odds evaluation by those posters seems to have been off and the Canucks evaluation seems to have been on.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

What makes you think I have criticized this trade on it's merit/result? I have repeatedly said that a bad trade can have a good result. Further, have remarked on Pouliot's good play. The contention is the process used to obtain Pouliot. It's about judging this trade specifically AND about judging the general mode of obtaining reclamation projects for picks. This is not a thing rebuilding teams do. If you want to contest that, by all means, do so.

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

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".

It's a bad value deal because of the context surrounding the deal at the time of trade. If you disregard what he is doing here, at the time of trade he was a fringe depth Dman that was playing himself off PIT's roster. Then, Benning called and picks him up for a mid-draft pick + prospect. Now, the context is that Benning is managing a rebuilding club. The context also is that he has made similar trades during his tenure -- dating back to his first draft (Vey). That's the context involved.

And so, the immediate evaluation methods will be:

IF:
1. Is this trade good in isolation? In other words, is a fringe player worth a mid-draft pick from the average club? If you said yes, now take into account that this is a rebuilding club.

2. Does a rebuilding club usually pay picks for fringe depth players? If you said yes, then evaluate this deal against Benning's intentional targeting of fringe assets.

3. Is this a good gamble based upon his body of work? If you said yes, then this trade is a good value deal to you across the board. Whether that be in isolation, in terms of a rebuild and in terms of Benning's total trades of this ilk.

Else: If you said no to any of these, then the value is in question for you.

Do you understand, finally?

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.

No, I've said waivers was a factor in Pouliot being let go by PIT. He was a fringe player, that's all that needs to be said. Fringe players get put on waivers all the time. Note what I said there: An _asset_like_ Pouliot could have been had on waivers. Which at the time was a bottom-pairing Dman. We still don't know if he's a top4 long-term, remember?

So to recap:

1. Players of Pouliot's quality (bottom6 defenders) get put on waivers.

2. I have no source that PIT had decided to put him on waivers.

3. Pouliot was a fringe depth dman at the time of trade. That's how he was perceived by PIT bloggers/insiders. (I have linked 2 articles to show this in a previous post)

4. Benning traded a mid-draft pick for a fringe depth dman.

5. Benning is in charge of a rebuild here, allegedly.

6. This is not the first time Benning has made a similar move. So has his strategy worked overall?

7. This is not the first time Benning has done this, does he know what a rebuild is?

8. Do rebuilding teams do this as a primary function? Yes/No?

 

[Jay Cee]

The primary function of a rebuild is to rebuild the talent pool no matter how you do it. It is not just the static suck and take picks model. I do not agree with many of the deals that our management have made, but it is ok to call a win a win. I'm not even calling it a win, it might be a loss but man, people are already falling all over themselves to explain why a win isn't a win or why a win doesn't matter before it even happens. This is hockey on the internet.

 

[Bleach Clean]

A rebuilding team needs to acquire a number of young players to form a new core. Full stop. If those young players are acquired via draft, trade, waivers, offer sheet, free agent signing or cloning - who cares. The goal is to find young talent that can grow into a competitive team. The "this isn't a rebuild because picks" crap is so pedantic.

Of course, if you can find core players on waivers or trading for fringe assets, great. Among the many methods you have listed, do you equate the probability of finding those core players as being the same across the board? If not, welcome to the discussion. If yes, then let's see your homework.

 

[VanJack]

This debate is starting to remind me of the Granlund-Shinkaruk trade....even a guy flipping a coin will likely be right half the time, and Jimbo can't lose every trade....The fact they'd been trying to pry Pouliot out of Pittsburgh since 2014 and wanted him as part of a potential Kesler trade to the Pens, tells you a lot. Unless his play is a mirage (possible but not likely with now a 20 game sample size) Jimbo wins this deal hands-down. It happens. Get over it.

 

[drax0s]

Of course, if you can find core players on waivers or trading for fringe assets, great. Among the many methods you have listed, do you equate the probability of finding those core players as being the same across the board? If not, welcome to the discussion. If yes, then let's see your homework.

Of course not. Obviously the odds of finding a core player are much higher with first round picks, and less with waiver pickups, but trades are highly likely as well to provide key pieces as well.

Really, it comes down to odds evaluation. The odds of a 4th turning into a bust, replacement level player or actual asset are known. The odds Pouliot can turn things around are harder to assertain. What are his deficiencies? Can they be fixed or masked? Is it a confidence issue? Do we have more confidence we can turn him into a player than we do with a 4th? If so, grab him.

I don't think acquiring older prospects blocked by depth (which is really what Benning has been doing) is something you can do to the exclusion of other means of acquiring prospects because you're talking on a player who needs more work and coaching. But I do think it has value when you've done an odds assessment on said player turning things around.

 

[krutovsdonut]

[wall of words ]

Do you understand, finally?

[wall of words ]

i do understand.

 

[TheOtherGM]

He was a fringe player, that's all that needs to be said.

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I feel like you're trying to talk people to death with boring and obtuse rhetoric.

I'll just pick one piece out of here rather than re-hash the rest of it.

He was caught in a numbers game with the Stanley Cup champions, which makes him a fringe player for them. But they may have been loathe to let him go. They may or may not have been putting him waivers. They may or may not have been asking for a certain asset from several teams.
You have zero idea because you weren't in their front office, nor were you in the front office of the Colorado Avalanche, Vancouver Canucks or any other NHL team who may have had Pouliot on their radar.

You act like all of these players roll off an assembly line. They are identical interchangable assets. Didn't get the one you want? No worries, there's another one right over there.
Clearly any of the defencemen that were on waivers around that time would have come to Vancouver and done the exact same things that Pouliot has done.

Rubbish. You have zero idea how anybody else viewed him. Zero. Yet you speak in absolutes.

Fact. Derek did not roll off the D-Robot Model E45HJ assembly line. The Vancouver Canucks have apparently been following this guy for several seasons and have his ex-junior coach running their bench.
Argue about the Vey/Pedan/Larsson/Etem deals if it'll make you happy, but this deal looks like a smart and well-informed move that is working out well.

 

[Shareefruck]

This debate is starting to remind me of the Granlund-Shinkaruk trade.

That's because it's largely the same issue that we disagree on in both cases. Whether or not getting the better outcome is the be-all-end-all for a trade being a good one.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i do understand.

Awesome news.

Of course not. Obviously the odds of finding a core player are much higher with first round picks, and less with waiver pickups, but trades are highly likely as well to provide key pieces as well.

You've said "of course not", but there are caveats in your acceptance. Do you equate the odds of finding core players as the same between the draft as a whole (including rounds 2 through 7, not just the 1st round) to that of potential trades made?

I get the sense you will acknowledge the draft as the primary mode by which to acquire core players. If that's the case, then the acquisition of picks should be the primary function of the rebuilding team -- > It's the best route to forming a core group. That's all that's being put forth here.

Basically, it's a common understanding that I'm surprised has to be argued to be a common understanding.

Really, it comes down to odds evaluation. The odds of a 4th turning into a bust, replacement level player or actual asset are known. The odds Pouliot can turn things around are harder to assertain. What are his deficiencies? Can they be fixed or masked? Is it a confidence issue? Do we have more confidence we can turn him into a player than we do with a 4th? If so, grab him.

I don't think acquiring older prospects blocked by depth (which is really what Benning has been doing) is something you can do to the exclusion of other means of acquiring prospects because you're talking on a player who needs more work and coaching. But I do think it has value when you've done an odds assessment on said player turning things around.

I'd imagine that an odds assessment is done on every such player. By every GM/Pro Scouting dept.

Anyway, I do agree that it's an odds evaluation overall. It's just going to be very difficult to quantify the odds of the actions involved, and the actions forgone. It's not just about the 4th turning X (Do you have a link to this study BTW?). It's about how pick frequency alters total draft succession rates. It's about categorizing the Pouliot level prospect and the yield of similar players for mid-range picks. Across a number of test cases, and then comparing them to draft success rates.

Anecdotally though, I think most people bank on the draft as the best avenue to getting core pieces. I don't think many debate this. That core pieces can be had via other means does not dispute this either. All good?

 

[krutovsdonut]

That's because it's largely the same issue that we disagree on in both cases. Whether or not getting the better outcome is the be-all-end-all for a trade being a good one.

that is not why it reminds me of the granlund/shinkaruk thread

 

[krutovsdonut]

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I feel like you're trying to talk people to death with boring and obtuse rhetoric.

"like"

 

[drax0s]

You've said "of course not", but there are caveats in your acceptance. Do you equate the odds of finding core players as the same between the draft as a whole (including rounds 2 through 7, not just the 1st round) to that of potential trades made?

Hard to quantify without looking at every team's core, finding out how each were acquired and then adjusting for frequency to find out odds of each move providing a core piece (since more draft picks are made than trades). However that largely seems like a waste of time because it's clear good, core players can be acquired by trade and 4th round picks largely bust.

I get the sense you will acknowledge the draft as the primary mode by which to acquire core players. If that's the case, then the acquisition of picks should be the primary function of the rebuilding team -- > It's the best route to forming a core group. That's all that's being put forth here.

You're taking the number of hits of a method while not accounting for number of attempts. League wide, there are more draft picks made than trades so of course more players will be found via the draft. That's like assuming 1d20 has better odds of hitting a 1 than 1d12 because more d20s are rolled.

Basically, it's a common understanding that I'm surprised has to be argued to be a common understanding.

... and then comes the condescension..

It's not just about the 4th turning X (Do you have a link to this study BTW?). It's about how pick frequency alters total draft succession rates. It's about categorizing the Pouliot level prospect and the yield of similar players for mid-range picks. Across a number of test cases, and then comparing them to draft success rates.

I don't have a link to the study because the data I was using was self tallied... For reference, the odds of *four* 4th round picks giving you one Pouliot is now is something like 18%.

 

[tyhee]

...




It's a bad value deal because of the context surrounding the deal at the time of trade. If you disregard what he is doing here, at the time of trade he was a fringe depth Dman that was playing himself off PIT's roster. Then, Benning called and picks him up for a mid-draft pick + prospect. ...

I was dubious about this trade at the time and am amazed to be in a position of defending Benning (who I have criticized fairly consistently in the past) but there are a couple of problems with your approach.

1. You treat Pouliot as a fringe depth d-man. If that is indeed the way the Canucks viewed him, then he wasn't worth what they paid for him. If he was viewed as a young defenceman with talent who had a reasonable chance of becoming a decent regular, then the view changes.

It isn't what the Penguins fans thought of Pouliot. The issue becomes what were the Canucks intending to acquire. If as you say they were acquiring him to be a depth/fringe players there's no point to paying anything-as you've pointed out.

If on the other hand they see a prospect for more then the value changes. Pouliot is definitely showing signs of becoming more than depth/fringe level. Even if he never becomes more than a solid #5, that's worth a 4th round draft pick. (More on that below.)

2. In saying the Canucks gave up a prospect and a mid-round pick, Pedan is being treated as a prospect.

I have no way of knowing this (nor do people have a way of knowing the contrary) but if the Canucks had given up on him as a prospect then his part in the trade, from the Canucks' point of view, becomes nothing more than a contract dump.

I know the Canucks didn't need to re-sign him this summer, but by the time of the trade the depth chart included Edler, Tanev, Hutton, Stecher, Gudbranson and del Zotto (in whatever order) as the top 6, followed by Biega, Wiercioch and likely Holm all ahead of Pedan, who was in a group with McEneny, Brisebois, Chatfield and possibly Subban, with the probability of Juolevi being slotted in ahead of him next season. Perhaps this training camp Pedan didn't show enough to make them think he'd ever be good enough and they didn't think of giving him up as giving up a prospect at all.

Or perhaps the Canucks saw themselves giving up a really poor prospect for a good one.

We don't know that's the way they viewed it. We don't know that isn't the way they viewed it. When teams move young, still developing players, imo they should be assumed to be looking at what their upside should be-not what they are at the time of the trade. Otherwise such trades make little sense-as you've argued this one makes no sense.

All we can tell for sure is that so far it looks like this trade rates to be successful for the Canucks and that Pouliot looks to have some upside that the Penguins were not getting out of him.

I know, this is partly speculation. But Pouliot has shown enough upside to think he could still be with the Canucks next season. Pedan hadn't. At the time of the trade it isn't unlikely the Canucks viewed Pouliot as a possibility to be a regular 3rd pair guy, while the chances are that by the end of training camp Pedan's chances of sticking with the Canucks as other than depth/fringe were pretty much zero.

I don't think trading a 4th round pick for Pouliot was a mistake. If the Canucks viewed Pedan as someone who still had any more than an outside chance to crack their lineup this season or next, then the trade becomes questionable. If Pouliot was seen as nothing more than fringe/depth than as you say the trade was bad-in fact, indefensible.

The problem is that we don't know the Canucks' motives and the way they viewed Pouliot or Pedan at the time of the trade.

 

[racerjoe]

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.

Are you deflecting? Did I actually say anything that wasn't true? Just cause you don't like what I said doesn't mean it wasn't true.

Dale Tallon did a lot of good... he also did a lot of bad.

Bowman actually did a ton over the years, including bringing in Hossa, and assembling one of the best dcores, and finding players to complement that team. It is a bit like trying to give Nonis all the credit for a team Gillis built. Or not giving Burke credit for the ducks cup.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I feel like I'm repeating myself and I feel like you're trying to talk people to death with boring and obtuse rhetoric.

I'll just pick one piece out of here rather than re-hash the rest of it.

You are repeating yourself (which isn't interesting either, FWIW), and it's because we disagree on a few key points. Again and again.

He was caught in a numbers game with the Stanley Cup champions, which makes him a fringe player for them. But they may have been loathe to let him go. They may or may not have been putting him waivers. They may or may not have been asking for a certain asset from several teams.
You have zero idea because you weren't in their front office, nor were you in the front office of the Colorado Avalanche, Vancouver Canucks or any other NHL team who may have had Pouliot on their radar.

PIT could have had all of that trepidation and interest, none of that should have mattered to the Canucks.

Pouliot was perceived as a fringe asset that was headed for a roster squeeze. The Canucks are a rebuilding team paying picks for fringe assets. That doesn't change no matter how special you think Pouliot could have been in isolation. Put another way, if I think Dale Weise is the next Gretzky, am I paying a Gretzky-worthy price for him? Or, am I judging the market for fringe assets and paying accordingly?

You act like all of these players roll off an assembly line. They are identical interchangable assets. Didn't get the one you want? No worries, there's another one right over there.
Clearly any of the defencemen that were on waivers around that time would have come to Vancouver and done the exact same things that Pouliot has done.

Rubbish. You have zero idea how anybody else viewed him. Zero. Yet you speak in absolutes.

Fact. Derek did not roll off the D-Robot Model E45HJ assembly line. The Vancouver Canucks have apparently been following this guy for several seasons and have his ex-junior coach running their bench.
Argue about the Vey/Pedan/Larsson/Etem deals if it'll make you happy, but this deal looks like a smart and well-informed move that is working out well.

If the same process is followed for all of those deals, why are you OK with me slagging Vey/Pedan/Larsson/Etem and leaving the Pouliot deal alone? Shouldn't you be defending them too?

I have zero idea how people viewed him? Ok. Do the insiders linked in the articles about Pouliot that state that he was a fringe player have an idea? Do the fans? Does PIT media? Anyone? Why do you call him a fringe asset?

Pouliot was a #7 asset at the time of trade. There was a high likelihood that his career hinged on establishing himself as a bottom pairing asset. A #5/#6 Dman. Forget top4, he needed to prove top6 competence first. Those types of assets are abundant. Not the same exact asset, just another bottom pairing Dman. Agree or disagree?

 

[docbenton]

It's simply a matter of talent assessment. It doesn't matter what Pittsburgh thought about Pouliot, Vancouver decided that he still was a top prospect and paid what they thought was a bargain for him. There may have been other teams that thought similarly. They may or may not have been able to get him for less, but they decided it was worth it to make sure they got him. Turns out they were right.

Other players like Vey or Clendenning, their assessment was wrong. The draft pick or younger player was more valuable. That's the problem, not the strategy itself.

You are repeating yourself (which isn't interesting either, FWIW), and it's because we disagree on a few key points. Again and again.





PIT could have had all of that trepidation and interest, none of that should have mattered to the Canucks.

Pouliot was perceived as a fringe asset that was headed for a roster squeeze. The Canucks are a rebuilding team paying picks for fringe assets. That doesn't change no matter how special you think Pouliot could have been in isolation. Put another way, if I think Dale Weise is the next Gretzky, am I paying a Gretzky-worthy price for him? Or, am I judging the market for fringe assets and paying accordingly?





If the same process is followed for all of those deals, why are you OK with me slagging Vey/Pedan/Larsson/Etem and leaving the Pouliot deal alone? Shouldn't you be defending them too?

I have zero idea how people viewed him? Ok. Do the insiders linked in the articles about Pouliot that state that he was a fringe player have an idea? Do the fans? Does PIT media? Anyone? Why do you call him a fringe asset?

Pouliot was a #7 asset at the time of trade. There was a high likelihood that his career hinged on establishing himself as a bottom pairing asset. A #5/#6 Dman. Forget top4, he needed to prove top6 competence first. Those types of assets are abundant. Not the same exact asset, just another bottom pairing Dman. Agree or disagree?

 

[TheOtherGM]

You are repeating yourself (which isn't interesting either, FWIW), and it's because we disagree on a few key points. Again and again.





PIT could have had all of that trepidation and interest, none of that should have mattered to the Canucks.

Pouliot was perceived as a fringe asset that was headed for a roster squeeze. The Canucks are a rebuilding team paying picks for fringe assets. That doesn't change no matter how special you think Pouliot could have been in isolation. Put another way, if I think Dale Weise is the next Gretzky, am I paying a Gretzky-worthy price for him? Or, am I judging the market for fringe assets and paying accordingly?





If the same process is followed for all of those deals, why are you OK with me slagging Vey/Pedan/Larsson/Etem and leaving the Pouliot deal alone? Shouldn't you be defending them too?

I have zero idea how people viewed him? Ok. Do the insiders linked in the articles about Pouliot that state that he was a fringe player have an idea? Do the fans? Does PIT media? Anyone? Why do you call him a fringe asset?

Pouliot was a #7 asset at the time of trade. There was a high likelihood that his career hinged on establishing himself as a bottom pairing asset. A #5/#6 Dman. Forget top4, he needed to prove top6 competence first. Those types of assets are abundant. Not the same exact asset, just another bottom pairing Dman. Agree or disagree?

I said that he was probably a fringe asset for Pittsburgh, and I also suggested that they may have wished to keep him.
Or not.
I don't know and neither do you. But you are the one making assumptions about it.

Of course it matters to the Canucks how the Penguins feel about and value one of their assets and of course it matters how the rest of the league feels about Pouliot when you are trying to determine whether you will be able to acquire him.
You talk about judging the market? Without some kind of insider knowledge how exactly do you know they didn't judge the market?
Again, assumptions based on your own speculation/beliefs.

You do not know how any of the involved parties viewed this player.
You keep saying he was a fringe player, as if saying it over and over and over will make it 100 per cent true.
You have zero idea which parties viewed him as a fringe player. Zero.
All you know for sure is that the Penguins traded him for a fourth round pick and the Canucks surrendered the fourth round pick.
Those are the only facts you have to work with.

And let's not go silly comparing anything about this to Wayne Gretzky and Dale freakin' Wease.
You're better than throwing out ridiculous comparisons like that.

Again, your last paragraph repeats the same assumption that he was a fringe asset comparable to every other fringe asset.
All players are interchangeable robots and should be valued as such.
No need for pro scouts or coaches who are familiar with these players. No need for advanced stats and such.
If you are at a certain spot in your NHL career you are directly comparable with everyone else in a similar situation.

Everything so black and white when reality is far, far, far more nuanced.

edit: Regarding the other trades, I prefer to take each situation and judge it on its own merit. Results do matter.
If you wish to attack the Pedan trade I could probably carve out some time argue a bit about that, but dealing with this one alone is exhausting enough.

 

[F A N]

Has anyone answered my question of when hockey trades were evaluated based solely on perceived value at the time of the trade?

 

[Jessep]

Isn't that how we ended up trading a 2nd for vey, because Willy vouched for him?
A good GM takes the advise and analyse the player and comes to a correct decision. A bad GM blindly follows any advise given.

Vey wasn't traded for entirely on Willies opinion. Particularly when Willie hadn't coached him for several years. Willie certainly would have had input as to Vey's character and such. But more important would have been our AHL scouts who would have been seeing his recent play. Many seem to assume it's one voice that goes into these decisions but it's not. Scouting doesn't end when a player is drafted by another team.

Like drafting players there isn't a "correct decision" there's a "possibility". Prospects, whether junior, college, or AHL, don't come with guarantees. What was known about Vey was his AHL numbers were superior to anybody in our system. Our scouts would have had a book on him, and Willie had some history with him in junior. Those are the resources Benning had. The same resources he had with Pouliot. Nobody wins every time when it comes to prospects.

As a side note Vey is currently 2nd in KHL scoring, one point behind Kovalchuk. Is that a sign of how bad the KHL is, a sign that Vey can excel in lesser leagues but isn't good enough for the NHL, or that he actually does have the talent Benning was trading for? I suppose we won't know unless he gets another NHL shot.

 

[Jessep]

Has anyone answered my question of when hockey trades were evaluated based solely on perceived value at the time of the trade?

The only thing you can determine at the time of the trade is whether the cost versus the return was a reasonable price. It can take several years if you have the need to declare a winner in the trade. We could declare ourselves winner in the Pouliot trade but is that reasonable without knowing what Pittsburgh gets with that 4th round pick? Something we won't be able to evaluate for several years.

As far as I'm concerned it's a win/win at this point. Pittsburgh didn't lose Pouliot for nothing and we got what appears to be a puck moving NHL quality defenseman.

 

[me2]

Pouliot has yet to establish himself as a decent defender but he does show some promise if he can grow that side.

A 4th is fine. That's about what these types of gambles should go for.