Confirmed with Link: Rangers sign Benoit Pouliot (1 year, $1.3M)

[Brooklyn Ranger]

I am not disagreeing with the contract, I am disagreeing that the Rangers currently have a 2nd line LW.

I also disagree that one can extrapolate points per minute to a number than prorate that number over more total or average minutes.

If 5 on 5 Pouliot scores 30 pts from a 3rd line role at ~11 minute per might, I would be happy as well. My concern is not that he can achieve that and maybe more. My concern is that he ends up a 15-16 minute per game player in the 2nd line role and ends up with the same ~30pts. There is just little evidence that he can handle a role above where he has been playing. ~11 mins or ~830 mins total over a full season.

There is even less evidence that Kreider or any other top 6 wing is going to be able to fill that role.


That leaves me with the idea that the Rangers are reaching and either Pouliot or Kreider end up in a role they have little hope of succeeding in.

Obviously, we're in agreement about Pouliot--but the thing about Kreider is he has the potential to grow into the the top 6 forward role.

 

[KreidertheGlider]

I put Stepan on the 3rd line because he is defensively responsible unlike Brassard and Richards.

I almost guarantee AV and Management didn't keep Richards to play him on the 3rd line. He WILL play top 6 minutes.

And there was a quote from AV I read somewhere that said he wants a scoring top six, and defensive 3rd line and an energy 4th line.

Stepan is much better defensively than Brassard or Richards and fill the role that AV wants.

I would prefer Stepan on the 1st line just like most of you. This is just what I think will happen.

 

[Calad]

I put Stepan on the 3rd line because he is defensively responsible unlike Brassard and Richards.

I almost guarantee AV and Management didn't keep Richards to play him on the 3rd line. He WILL play top 6 minutes.

And there was a quote from AV I read somewhere that said he wants a scoring top six, and defensive 3rd line and an energy 4th line.

Stepan is much better defensively than Brassard or Richards and fill the role that AV wants.

I would prefer Stepan on the 1st line just like most of you. This is just what I think will happen.

Either Brassard or Richards will be playing wing before Stepan is ever playing minutes on the third line. That is a ridiculous notion

 

[LaffyTaffyNYR]

I put Stepan on the 3rd line because he is defensively responsible unlike Brassard and Richards.

I almost guarantee AV and Management didn't keep Richards to play him on the 3rd line. He WILL play top 6 minutes.

And there was a quote from AV I read somewhere that said he wants a scoring top six, and defensive 3rd line and an energy 4th line.

Stepan is much better defensively than Brassard or Richards and fill the role that AV wants.

I would prefer Stepan on the 1st line just like most of you. This is just what I think will happen.

The 3rd line can be the energy line with Kreider (can move up if he earns it)- brassard and pouliot

 

[SA16]

Either Brassard or Richards will be playing wing before Stepan is ever playing minutes on the third line. That is a ridiculous notion

It really doesn't matter much given the state of the roster the top 3 lines will likely all get similar even strength TOI.

 

[JohnC]

I think some people take line numbers too seriously sometimes

 

[Colby]

At the time, I thought the Bruins would be better served to re-sign Benoit Pouliot, a 16-goal scorer for the Bruins in 2012 with good possession numbers that wouldn’t be so highly-priced. In the 2013 season with Tampa, Pouliot scored one fewer goal than Peverley and Kelly combined despite making just $1.8-million. I can’t seem to find any literature that would indicate why the Boston Bruins and Pete Chiarelli soured on Pouliot, but sour they did, and he was the odd-man out in 2013 after his linemates got big contracts.

...

http://blogs.thescore.com/nhl/2013/...t-or-cutting-waste-at-the-bottom-of-a-lineup/

 

[Tawnos]

That's a pretty misinformed article.

 

[Punxrocknyc19*]

 

[Ola]

There's been alot of talk about Pouliot, his solid stats and what not, but I haven't really chipped in, I just didn't haven't kept a very good track of him since he was a bit younger and broke into the league.

I caught a rerun of a Tampa game vs us from the 28th February and followed Pouliot as much as I could. Pouliot played LW on Tampa's 1st line with Lecavalier and St. Louis. He logged more than 19 minutes, not PK and a little PP.

Pouliot is a pretty big kid, tall and lanky. Definitely meets the 6'3 he is listed at.

I am not very impressed by him. He is a tall lanky but still decent skater. He is not very strong on the puck, he got that typical weak back where if he is pushed he constantly tilts back and forth. To some extent he makes up for that in terms of puck possession with his long reach and good hands. He picks up and controlls pucks fast and is good at moving it around along the boards.

But he doesn't really have any top end ability. He is not a sniper or playmaker really, or any kind of offensive dynamo or something like that. He played in the AHL when he was 21-22 y/o and had 24 pts in 46 games. The year before that he had 36 pts as a 20-21 y/o. I only saw him in a small sample, but his ambition level was not very high. That match with what I remember of him from WJC's, his earlier years in Minny etc. Why is that relevant? He is a former 4th overall pick, and I was at least a bit curious what people saw in him back then. Could there be something hidden in his game? Something that is latent but that he still hasn't been able to bring out in the NHL? No, I can't see it. He wasn't a 4th overall pick because he got a 6th sense offensively. He was a 4th overall pick because he is 6'3, skates well, has good hands and playing the game seems to come easy for him. He was probably an early bloomer too.

He is not a good forechecker or backchecker. He seems to try to do what is expected of him, but he is not very ambitious in his game without the puck...

You can understand why clubs don't keep him. He is an option to play with other good hockey players. Its problematic if you work extremely hard to achieve something on the ice, to find certain situations, and then all of a sudden the puck ends up on the blade of the "3rd link" on the ice and he mishandles it, don't figure out what is going on, or something like that. Pouliot is definitely not an offensive analphabet. He keeps up fairly well with the pace of the game. He is fairly good at protecting the puck.

I think Pouliot can play on a 1st line with Nash for us or on a 2nd line with Brassard or Zucc, or something like that.

But when picking up a player like this, you at least hope that its a kid who got a bit of potential. Somebody who will be solid, but also could step it up atleast another level. Its not unusal in this league to see players do that. But I just don't see much of that potential in Pouliout. To me he seems to be very much in the Marcel Hossa/Wojtek Wolski/Alexander Frolov mold (with WW probably being the closest to him). From my point of view, I think Pyatt and Pouliot are pretty interchangeable in terms of value but can fill a bit diffrent needs for you (Pyatt being much more of a PF). Where does his corsi comes from? I am sure playing alot with MSL helps in Tampa. I don't think he is a player you put in tough situations, I think you put him on the ice to get secondary offensive hockey. Is it easier to get good corsi in those roles?

Pouliot reminds me a bit of Kristian Huselius (without the top end ability though), and Huselius was decent with Nash. Pouliot rescue might be if he manage to grow a telephatic chemistry with a player like Nash or a group of players (Brassard-Zucc? Stepan-Callahan?).

But I don't think that is likely and I am not sure I like the signing. It seems like a bit of a cover your bases sining, that wasn't very thought true. 1.3m for 1 y isn't much if you start the season for a couple of weeks without two wingers, and the player you bring in might be a better fit for the new coach coming compared to what we previously have (Pyatt), and to prevent our kids be put in sitautions that are over their head too early. The rationale on paper makes sense. But when everything is said and done, I definitely wonder if we will like this signing. He can play in this league, don't get me wrong. He can play on a top 2 line, you could definitely do worse there. But our cap situations would definitley be -- almost significantly -- easier to handle without him. Are we really in dire need for a stop gap between Kreider, JT Miller, Pyatt, Asham and Powe being options at LW going into the season, and guys like Zucc or one of the centers also being capable of playing there.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Your impression of Pouliot is basically the same as mine Ola and I think the comparison to Wolski is spot on. But I am far more positive towards the signing and think Pyatt is far from comparable in value.

IMO players like Wolski and Pouliot get underrated because they are perceived as lazy and disengaged regardless of the actual impact they have on the ice.

Both have been among the top ES scorers on their respective teams adjusted for ice time, and they have improved the puck possession of whatever players they have been playing with. Their impact on +/- has been positive as well.

Here are their statsheets with links to their With Or Without You pages at the top of the page. Pouliot, Wolski. Look especially at Wolski and Stepan in 10-11

So they score a lot, improve possession, the team scores more and concedes less when they are on the ice. What is not to like?

Of course they have been sheltered which improves their numbers, but they have still done a lot better than most of their linemates that received the same sheltered minutes alongside them. And even so, getting their contributions from said minutes is a LOT more valuable than having Pyatt out there scoring less and allowing more goals in the same type of situation. And I even kind of like Pyatt.

Guys like Pouliot, Wolski, or say Mathieu Perreault create matchup problems because they eat up the other team's lower lines. Brian Boyle, while good in the D-zone creates no matchup problem, neither does Pyatt, Dorsett or guys like Nyström, Torres, Burish. These aren't Kostitsyn (both)/David Jones/Stephen Weiss/Jussi Jokinen/Olli Jokinen types who primarily score on the PP and get outplayed at ES.

However, big guys that play a "soft" game and don't pile up points on the PP are given the shortest leash of all; from fans and coaches alike. I expect Pouliot to be a valuable contributor this season that is almost universally reviled by our fanbase and let go by season's end.

 

[Ola]

Your impression of Pouliot is basically the same as mine Ola and I think the comparison to Wolski is spot on. But I am far more positive towards the signing and think Pyatt is far from comparable in value.

IMO players like Wolski and Pouliot get underrated because they are perceived as lazy and disengaged regardless of the actual impact they have on the ice.

Both have been among the top ES scorers on their respective teams adjusted for ice time, and they have improved the puck possession of whatever players they have been playing with. Their impact on +/- has been positive as well.

Here are their statsheets with links to their With Or Without You pages at the top of the page. Pouliot, Wolski. Look especially at Wolski and Stepan in 10-11

So they score a lot, improve possession, the team scores more and concedes less when they are on the ice. What is not to like?

Of course they have been sheltered which improves their numbers, but they have still done a lot better than most of their linemates that received the same sheltered minutes alongside them. And even so, getting their contributions from said minutes is a LOT more valuable than having Pyatt out there scoring less and allowing more goals in the same type of situation. And I even kind of like Pyatt.

Guys like Pouliot, Wolski, or say Mathieu Perreault create matchup problems because they eat up the other team's lower lines. Brian Boyle, while good in the D-zone creates no matchup problem, neither does Pyatt, Dorsett or guys like Nyström, Torres, Burish. These aren't Kostitsyn (both)/David Jones/Stephen Weiss/Jussi Jokinen/Olli Jokinen types who primarily score on the PP and get outplayed at ES.

However, big guys that play a "soft" game and don't pile up points on the PP are given the shortest leash of all; from fans and coaches alike. I expect Pouliot to be a valuable contributor this season that is almost universally reviled by our fanbase and let go by season's end.

I have to stay on top of this and follow Pouliot over a longer period of time.

As of now, I can say for sure that I agree with you as regards to all player types you describe. But I am not sold on Pouliot being fitting into one of those cathegory's as you describe. Or Wolski. But maybe they are, and then its something I've missed. Take Wolski for example. That 10-11 line was Wolski-Step-Zucc, and it was a young Step who wasn't as good as he is now. I remembering Zucc carrying alot of load on that line, and I also remembering Zucc being forced to take a far from optimal defensive responsiblity because WW never got back on time. But OTOH if you have a Step and Zucc in place, you gotta ask yourself who can be the third link. I have often felt that while sure, WW and Pouliot is -- as described -- someone who will understand what they are doing and play up to par with that, they aren't as big upgrade over say a JT Miller / Pyatt that its warranted to have them. But maybe it is.

 

[gravey9]

It is interesting that Pyatt was brought in with the idea that he could play anywhere from 2nd to 4th line wing. Add size, grit and some scoring punch in front of the net. But that just wasn't the case at all.

The issue is, when you look at the Rangers top 6 going into this season - the only proven wings are: Cally, Hags and Nash. AND TWO OF THEM ARE OUT FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST MONTH. The last top 6 wing is between Zucc, Kreider and Pouliot (+ Kristo and Fast with outside shots). Pouliot seems like more of an insurance policy than anything else - definitely until Cally/Hags return and then beyond if there's too much inconsistency with the other players.

With Pouliot, we just may have a player that is a bit too soft. His effectiveness depends on how/if the team's style of offensive play becomes more geared towards puck possession and speed.

That said, for those of you that expect him to play a lot of bottom 6 minutes. You may be right. But if the team is icing a 3rd unit of say Brass, Zucc and Pouliot - that seems like a much softer squad for opponents to face in comparison to more recent seasons. Is that ok? we'll have to see...

 

[I Eat Crow]

Pouliot was brought in for depth and nothing much else. With Callahan and Hagelin missing time at the beginning of the season, the team needed NHL bodies that could fill in. It's very possible a kid like Miller or Fast comes in and steals his spot. For the meantime though, he's a decent option that can play in the top 6 in a pinch. I'd wager a significant amount that he won't be a Ranger past this coming season.

 

[Ola]

Its kind of the problem with advanced stats in hockey. Stats is stats and they can reflect all kind of things. But the degrees are diffrent.

I mean, if you have a player who is a great sniper but had skater and in general a below avg puck possession player -- what would his stats show? One would expect that teams only would be interested in him if they could play him with center that is an excellent puck possession player. Right? It feels like a player like that could play on 5 teams over 15 years, with stats showing the said player as someone who is quite good at other things than putting the puck in the net.

 

[Blue Blooded]

Its kind of the problem with advanced stats in hockey. Stats is stats and they can reflect all kind of things. But the degrees are diffrent.

I mean, if you have a player who is a great sniper but had skater and in general a below avg puck possession player -- what would his stats show? One would expect that teams only would be interested in him if they could play him with center that is an excellent puck possession player. Right? It feels like a player like that could play on 5 teams over 15 years, with stats showing the said player as someone who is quite good at other things than putting the puck in the net.

This is why WOWY charts are useful. If we look at Pouilot you can see he improved the possession numbers of every single Tampa player the past season and of every Boston forward the year before. Is it a coincidence that the play of Peverley and Kelly dropped off after Benoit left?

Some of this effect can surely be explained by the plyers playing more difficult minutes away from Pouliot, but it hardly seems like he has been carried.