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

[Ryan Miller*]

Benning has already stated that Green wasn't the reason they acquired Pouliot:

He will be coached in Vancouver by Travis Green, who helped shape Pouliot in Portland.

“That’s not why we made the decision,” Benning told reporters. “It could be beneficial. But we made the decision because we believe in Derrick’s talent level, his skill level."

Looks like their belief is proving accurate, strangely enough since they are reported to have the "worst pro-scouting" in the league.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

i've been watching him all season. i agree he has not proven he is even a #6 dman yet based simply on games played. but to suggest he is solidly trending to be at least that good, is not a stretch. he has shown consistent improvement game by game since putting on a canuck jersey.

i should also note that what has sparked this discussion today was simple measured praise for the guy after a 3 point game.

Definitely! DP is looking better every game, he deserves some praises for that. And if he keeps it up, even if he plateau as a bottom pairing offensive D, it's a good trade and Benning will get credit for that (from me anyways). However to say "DP has a 3pt night so what all u benning haterz has to say now?" Is alittle premature.
Don't forget how grunland got praised last season for being a "20goals guy". One season, let along 2 months or 1 game, isn't enough to draw a conclusion.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

well your "mis-evaluation" is my "near miss". i don't think it was a mistake for a scout to say vey was likely to be an nhl regular. i would take advice from the same guy again.

if you want an example of a mis-evaluation try clendenning. he never came close to sticking here or elsewhere.

Well clennding actually played nhl games after Vancouver, Vey didn't. But both are mis-evaluations to me. It was just more obvious in clennding's case since the GM admit his acquisition "can't skate".
Pedan looks like another, although I suspect his concussions, and willy's treatment of him, didn't help. But he only cost a 3rd, while vey cost a 2nd and clennding cost a good prospect, so I'm more forgiving on the pedan trade.

 

[Cupless44]

So far, so good on this one deal. If his play also manages to be the catalyst needed to deal Gudbranson, even better.

I was a bit dubious about the deal at the start, but I'm liking his progression.

And that is a really honest and reasonable comment about the situation.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Don't forget how grunland got praised last season for being a "20goals guy". One season, let along 2 months or 1 game, isn't enough to draw a conclusion.

The irony of this is mind-blowing. People were "wrong" to call Granlund a 20-goal player when he put up over a 20-goal pace in 70 games last season, and now the "right" perspective is to judge him as a replacement-level player because of a sample much less than half that size.

Granny has had a slow start to the season, but while last year every shot for him was going in, this year he's getting incredible chances and they're simply not going in. His 2-way play has been there enough to make him still a useful player thus far, in my opinion. Personally, I still have a lot of belief in this player and think he'll start potting some more goals sooner than later. Either way, he's objectively a much better player than Shinkaruk....

 

[sandwichbird2023]

The irony of this is mind-blowing. People were "wrong" to call Granlund a 20-goal player when he put up over a 20-goal pace in 70 games last season, and now the "right" perspective is to judge him as a replacement-level player because of a sample much less than half that size.

Granny has had a slow start to the season, but while last year every shot for him was going in, this year he's getting incredible chances and they're simply not going in. Personally, I still have a lot of belief in this player and think he'll start potting some more goals sooner than later. Either way, he's objectively a much better player than Shinkaruk....

I pretty sure you misunderstood what I meant. Nowhere did I say anybody was "wrong". Nor did my post commented on the trade involving shinkaruk. I'm not sure what you are quoting me for but your reply has absolutely nothing to do with my post.

 

[WTG]

How can you go off underlying stats if there are none to begin with? He wasn't really given a chance in the NHL and he plays a position where you need to get experience before you start to show what you're capable of.
Look, I get where you're coming from and the basis of your argument has merit (see Gudbranson), but I don't think it applies to the Pouliot deal.

AHL data, plus a tiny bit on NHL data.

There's plenty a sample size.

 

[Krnuckfan]

lol a fluky goal and a couple secondary assists and he's the next coming of drew doughty. He's still below average defensively, and will finish the year with less than 30 points while being a mainstay on the PP.

I mean compared to the absolute pile of crap benning has managed to bring in in terms of dmen pouliot looks decent by comparison.

He's nowhere near what a Ehrhoff was.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

\
But Benning made this trade probably because Pouliot had connections with Travis Green. Much like how he acquired Dorsett/Vey for Willie Desjardins.

A nice benefit, for sure, but I think assumptions of any kind make for a dangerous trend.

We don't know anything that's inside anyone else's head, including primary or secondary reasons why a trade is made.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

No clue how to reply on an old post in the new board... sure it probably isn't much harder.

Anyway, I have already stated, if my assessment of this player ends up being wrong, sure it could be a good trade. However

Conditional concessions like this are disingenuous.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

it will not be Pouliot sitting, it will be Stecher, Hutton or Del Zotto. His coach doesnt consider him a 3rd paring defenceman. Neither should you.

I tend to agree, but we don't know that yet until it happens.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

I can't believe this thread has any debate going on. This should basically be a celebration thread.

We traded inconsequential assets for what looked like would probably be an inconsequential asset, and the asset we acquired is blossoming!!!

I'm no Benning fan not even close but credit where credit is due, great job Jimbo.

Could not be more thrilled with the play of Pouliot. Hopefully Green is tapping into whatever made Pouliot such a high profile prospect once upon a time.

Well put.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

Benning has already stated that Green wasn't the reason they acquired Pouliot:
.

I had forgotten about that. Good point.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You can't just separate "process" and "player evaluation." You're not trading a pick for a random entity that meets a certain statistical criteria; you're trading for a specific individual. Judging "process" without allowing time to assess "evaluation" makes no sense.

Who is doing this? Please explain how this is happening.

IMO too much emphasis is put on the "franchise altering" potential of most picks. Sure, any pick could be the next Datsyuk, but by the same logic, any mid round pick dealt for a "fringe prospect" could be the next Patrick Sharp. Other than Dorsett, the picks traded by Benning have been for players who are still developing.

Benning has made 28 picks in four drafts. That's 7 per year, a full contingent. Some feel a rebuilding team should be making extra picks every year, not just the allotted 7. Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree. Still, at least the acquired picks that Benning deals do still have "boom" potential...sure you've mostly given up the "franchise altering" upside of the pick, but you've also insulated yourself from zero organisational return on the investment.

Your position here is effectively: Upside potential is traded off for surety when dealing for fringe assets. If you admit this, how is too much being made of it? Seems an odd discussion point.

Further, you are admitting that a rebuilding team usually emphasizes pick acquisition, to the eventual result of a greater than standard allotment.

We are largely in agreement. What's the contention?

Even some of Benning's most scrutinised "age gap" transactions are a good balance of short and long term needs. Vey didn't work out, but he was a PPG AHLer and is now a top scorer in the KHL...clearly there is some hockey ability there, he just didn't have the toolbox to stick in the NHL. More skill/IQ less toolbox is something people want to see more of.

The same process that brought in Vey also brought in Baertschi. If Benning drafted Baertschi with a 2nd, everyone would consider it a good pick. So Benning used 2 2nds to get Baertschi as a medium to long term piece, and Vey as a stop gap for two seasons. So basically a hit rate of 50%. Last time the Canucks drafted a Baertschi level player in the second round was Mason Raymond in 2005. Before that, Chubarov in 1998. That's two NHL quality players in 15 years of drafting (up to Demko in 2014). Of course a big part of that is how few 2nd rounders we've actually used over that time period, but Benning isn't trading them for Derek Roy or the like.

Same on defence. Offense from the blueline is so valuable. Clendenning was a miss, but he's played NHL games for four different organizations since he was here, so there's obviously something about his game worth looking at. Larsen (5th)/Pedan(3rd)/Pouliot(4th)...if that turns into one 30 point, top 4, strong transition defender, is it worth it? Pouliot still has to show his recent play is a development step and not just a hot streak, but I'd say it is. If hypothetically Benning had drafted with those third/fourth/fifth rounders and Pouliot had been the result, we're likely looking at that as a good draft for the Canucks.

That imo is what gets overlooked by this "process" talk. Benning has added medium to long term pieces with these deals that are contributing now as the new core takes shape, and could even be parts of it going forward.

None of this actually gets overlooked. We've been over draft odds vs. fringe asset conversion. We've also been over judging draft success rates vs. the past work of the Canucks = This gets us nowhere because the Canucks have been an abysmal drafting organization. The true barometer is about assessing average conversion rates across the 31 teams, and then evaluating fringe asset success rates vs. the success rates of the picks made.

"Age gap" targeting is how we ended up with Gudbranson and Vey, lest we forget. It was not, nor has it ever been, a justifiable reason to acquire fringe assets because a rebuilding team should not care about the "now" so much as the future.

 

[Cupless44]

lol a fluky goal and a couple secondary assists and he's the next coming of drew doughty. He's still below average defensively, and will finish the year with less than 30 points while being a mainstay on the PP.

I mean compared to the absolute pile of crap benning has managed to bring in in terms of dmen pouliot looks decent by comparison.

He's nowhere near what a Ehrhoff was.

That is what you call a fluky goal? I saw some pretty good skill on that goal. If Boeser had 2 secondary assists this board would be over the moon.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

That is what you call a fluky goal? I saw some pretty good skill on that goal. If Boeser had 2 secondary assists this board would be over the moon.

There are flukey goals and flukey non goals...

they pretty much zero out.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Process = Poor, in whose opinion? Yours?
If the process = We have liked Pouliot for a long time, and there is developmental upside we can tap, let's trade for him.... then it seems the Process = excellent.

Don't mistake thinking Pouliot was worth Pedan and 4th = not caring about a 4th round pick.

Because YOU didn't think it was good asset management, does NOT mean it wasn't.
Warning... Appeal to Authority: The professionals in charge seemed to think it was worth it.

Please show an example of a rebuilding club dealing picks for fringe assets as a primary mode. If you can do that, then show how this rebuilding club's actions are representative of the actions of most rebuilding clubs. If you can do do both, then you have established that Benning's actions constitute "good asset management" within the context of a rebuilding club. If you can't, then that should signify that what he has done is atypical. If it's atypical of a rebuild, how can it be judged as being "good" outright?

It's not my standard that Benning is failing. It's the standard of what is usually expected in a rebuild. But instead of figuring out a way to prove that his clearly atypical approach is as good or better than the typical approach of a rebuild, I get "he did it, so it must be good". Or, "he wanted it, so he paid for it". Beautiful.

Also a rebuild isn't an all or nothing approach. Not every transaction is or has to be a trade for a pick going only one way. Sometimes you trade a depth pick for a 23 yr old. Don't think you can find a single team that's rebuilt well that did not trade picks in their process to target players they felt fit their team.

Pouliot significantly changes the complexion of our group of young dmen.
Seems like he will be a middle 3 offensive defender for our team for the next decade. That's a nice asset to have for a cost of .... assets.

Or we can dismiss the Pouliot trade and pretend they just willy nilly lucked out on this one.

This has already been addressed. No one has put forth that it's an all or nothing approach, but the exception also does not prove the rule. If the primary actions of a rebuilding club is to acquire picks, then exceptional cases where picks are dealt for fringe assets do not alter that understanding.

"why is the super scout GM trading picks in a rebuild?". Where is that rationale?

Maybe consider maybe the management feels like we have our high end elite prospects now and a decent cupboard of potential depth... so let's move forward and support them with some veterans with the goal of winning and pushing for the playoffs now because a competitive environment will breed and produce better character players than if they actively wasted a professional year of service of all our current players having a lineup of unsupported youth flounder around the ice.

So going forward... the plan is to break in players like they are Goldobin... create some depth above them that they have to break thru to earn a spot and earn to keep it.
You want Pettersson to do the same thing next yr. Dalhen. Juolevi.
Feel bad for Burmistrov and Weircoch who signed on for an opportunity to play for their next contracts..... but have become a safety net for our roster instead.

Sedins are obviously coming back next yr... Vanek may not be - definitely not for $2mil... but I'm off on a tangent now.

My point... Just cuz YOU don't understand the rationale of Pouliot for Pedan and 4th, does not mean there is a lack of it.

I understand the rationale: Benning is re-tooling under the guise of a rebuild. He has never actually attempted a proper rebuild.

Further, your point about now supporting the already in-house elite prospects rings hollow when we realize that Benning has been doing this even when he didn't have Pettersson, Juolevi and/or Dahlen. This has been his mode throughout. From the time of getting Vey at his first draft to now in getting Pouliot Nothing has changed. Yet, he keeps dealing picks for fringe assets. Is there any wonder why fans looking for a rebuild (his stated goal) are questioning his actions? There shouldn't be.

I think Benning would do himself a great service if just admits he's not rebuilding and it's always been about making the current product competitive, faster. Nobody would be questioning the process then. Everybody would understand he's just continuing the re-tool.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

I think Benning would do himself a great service if just admits he's not rebuilding and it's always been about making the current product competitive, faster. Nobody would be questioning the process then. Everybody would understand he's just continuing the re-tool.

That's what the owners wanted when Gillis suggested a rebuild in 2013 and they canned him. Why would now be any different? To me it looks like ownership has outlined the terms of his employment: they want playoff revenue at nearly any cost. But it seems he knows he needs to retool at the same time. Two competing goals. You can't hit one or the other well. Only do a half assed job, sadly.

 

[Bleach Clean]

That's what the owners wanted when Gillis suggested a rebuild in 2013 and they canned him. Why would now be any different? To me it looks like ownership has outlined the terms of his employment: they want playoff revenue at nearly any cost. But it seems he knows he needs to retool at the same time. Two competing goals. You can't hit one or the other well. Only do a half assed job, sadly.

So we are all acknowledging that this is not a rebuild? I just want this to be clear so that the Pouliot trade, and trades like it, are judged through that lens. If that's the understanding, I'm fine with it. I just don't think some fans would agree with you that this is the understanding.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

So we are all acknowledging that this is not a rebuild? I just want this to be clear so that the Pouliot trade, and trades like it, are judged through that lens. If that's the understanding, I'm fine with it. I just don't think some fans would agree with you that this is the understanding.

I think we can all agree that is the direction we should be going. I also think it doesn't matter what we call it at all. as far as judging trades... I think we can only judge based on what actually gets done. I don't put any faith into what a media outlet says almost happened, or didn't happen, or could have happened, or the supposed reasons for the above. That's speculation not worth yours or my time.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I think we can all agree that is the direction we should be going. I also think it doesn't matter what we call it at all. as far as judging trades... I think we can only judge based on what actually gets done. I don't put any faith into what a media outlet says almost happened, or didn't happen, or could have happened, or the supposed reasons for the above. That's speculation not worth yours or my time.

We actually don't agree that this is the direction we should be going in.

My point is that as long as we are all acknowledging that this is in fact the direction, a re-tool instead of a rebuild, then at least there won't be any confusion as to how trades should be judged in terms of context.

To a lot of fans, it does matter what the stated direction of the franchise actually is. That's why getting Linden and Benning to admit that this was a rebuild was such a farce. They know it's not, we know it's not (I hope), and it would be easier for everyone if trades were not judged by that standard, but they just won't let it happen...

 

[Paulinvancouver]

We actually don't agree that this is the direction we should be going in.

My point is that as long as we are all acknowledging that this is in fact the direction, a re-tool instead of a rebuild, then at least there won't be any confusion as to how trades should be judged in terms of context.

To a lot of fans, it does matter what the stated direction of the franchise actually is. That's why getting Linden and Benning to admit that this was a rebuild was such a farce. They know it's not, we know it's not (I hope), and it would be easier for everyone if trades were not judged by that standard, but they just won't let it happen...

sorry. thought you were pushing for a full rebuild. dealing all the oldies for picks, etc. must have had you mistaken for someone else. sorry.

 

[TheWanderer]

You know what pisses me off about this board?

Going back to "the asset value at the time of the trade" whenever something works out in Jim's favor. I don't like Jim, but be a little more objective, because the biased narrative is getting old. Sports trades are gambles, there's no sure thing. Some people bet against the odds. Pretty sure that's how you get ahead - you win some, you lose some. You gotta play the lottery to win, and yet all I see on these boards are people getting in pissing contests over our GM's gambles. At least it's no Nonuts Nonis here.

Benning's past gambles may look bad in hindsight, but let's not forget the Willie Factor as well. He really was that bad. I like what I'm seeing and hearing of Green. Benning is getting better, at the very least. It all tastes like chicken anyways...

Anyways, good on Poulet.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

AHL data, plus a tiny bit on NHL data.

There's plenty a sample size.

AHL data isn't always a great indicator. Otherwise, from a production standpoint, the Clendenning trade was justified. Besides, based on stat watching, Pouliot looked good in the AHL for offensive production.
Tiny bit of NHL data spread over multiple seasons. Pouliot never got a chance to find his groove and build his game in the NHL.

 

[Paulinvancouver]

You know what pisses me off about this board?

Going back to "the asset value at the time of the trade" whenever something works out in Jim's favor. I don't like Jim, but be a little more objective, because the biased narrative is getting old. Sports trades are gambles, there's no sure thing. Some people bet against the odds. Pretty sure that's how you get ahead - you win some, you lose some. You gotta play the lottery to win, and yet all I see on these boards are people getting in pissing contests over our GM's gambles. At least it's no Nonuts Nonis here.

Benning's past gambles may look bad in hindsight, but let's not forget the Willie Factor as well. He really was that bad. I like what I'm seeing and hearing of Green. Benning is getting better, at the very least. It all tastes like chicken anyways...

Anyways, good on Poulet.

I like this post.
He's a Canuck.
I'm happy for him.
The cost was controlled.
That's all that matters.