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

[TheOtherGM]

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.





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.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting in the bolded that having a six-foot-three swift skating Russian defenceman with a heavy shot and the willingness to play physically (had pro scouting been right and Pedan worked out) would not outweigh the slim possibility of drafting a Norris Trophy winner in the third round?

 

[Shareefruck]

While Pouliot is progressing reasonably well, which is nice to see, I'm not convinced that he's progressed enough yet to justify the strategy of trading picks for prospects who are further along in both age and development. I disagree that trades should be judged purely on a positive net outcome per trade basis-- if that were true, it would be a good strategy. From the start, it was more likely that Pouliot would be better than the 4th (just like it would be for any other trade using that strategy), but unless you're getting players good enough to be a part of a competing team, I'm not really satisfied with losing out on the chance to gamble on something more meaningful (even if it just has a small chance of happening).

And as I mentioned in the Juolevi thread, I don't see any way around stepping on the toes of Benning discussion in this thread. You can't really paint a full picture about Pouliot without bringing up the circumstances of the acquisition. Whether the risk of spiraling into toxic discussion is frustrating or not, it's a part of the answer. I hate that that inherently gets lumped in with having an agenda for some people.

 

[DL44]

Flames from the time they sold Iginla and Boumeester at the TDL 2013...

4th rounder for Knight
4th rounder for Galiardi
5th rounder for Russell
cond 4th rounder for Colbourne
(ok that was just embarassing to read and write down for them.)
6th for MacDermid
3rd for Bollig
(Even better)
So here they start to 'go for it'?
1st, 2nd, 2nd for Hamilton
7th for Freddie Hamilton
Granlund-Shink
2nd, 3rd rounder for Elliot
3rd, 5th (cond) for Stone

You can cut off where ever you feel their rebuild ended.

Flames suck tho.

 

[Melvin]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting in the bolded that having a six-foot-three swift skating Russian defenceman with a heavy shot and the willingness to play physically (had pro scouting been right and Pedan worked out) would not outweigh the slim possibility of drafting a Norris Trophy winner in the third round?

It's not that simple. If it were, it would be the correct strategy to trade every single one of your draft picks, every single year.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's not that simple. If it were, it would be the correct strategy to trade every single one of your draft picks, every single year.

that seems like a leap in logic.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Flames from the time they sold Iginla and Boumeester at the TDL 2013...

4th rounder for Knight
4th rounder for Galiardi
5th rounder for Russell
cond 4th rounder for Colbourne
(ok that was just embarassing to read and write down for them.)
6th for MacDermid
3rd for Bollig
(Even better)
So here they start to 'go for it'?
1st, 2nd, 2nd for Hamilton
7th for Freddie Hamilton
Granlund-Shink
2nd, 3rd rounder for Elliot
3rd, 5th (cond) for Stone

You can cut off where ever you feel their rebuild ended.

Flames suck tho.

that is awesome. you need to add hamonic.

 

[Bleach Clean]

@DL44 If you're keen on proving the Benning rebuild model, let's do this right.

First, we need go over every single one of Benning's moves to show where picks were forgone, given up or not requested, to establish a baseline.

Second, we need an arbiter for when we disagree on said interpretation.

Third, establish the rebuild parameters for another team.

Fourth, run through the same interpretation model for the rebuilding team over the agreed upon time span.

Fifth, compare lists, and then come to the conclusions.

Sound about right?

 

[DL44]

@DL44 If you're keen on proving the Benning rebuild model, let's do this right.

First, we need go over every single one of Benning's moves to show where picks were forgone, given up or not requested, to establish a baseline.

Second, we need an arbiter for when we disagree on said interpretation.

Third, establish the rebuild parameters for another team.

Fourth, run through the same interpretation model for the rebuilding team over the agreed upon time span.

Fifth, compare lists, and then come to the conclusions.

Sound about right?

Sounds right if I was trying to prove any sort of model... But no need to do all that.

It was a great trade.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sounds right if I was trying to prove any sort of model... But no need to do all that.

It was a great trade.

I think it would be a good thought experiment. It would be the best thing we have to discerning how close or how far Benning is from rebuilds around the league. Are you sure you want to pass?

Edit: What were you trying to prove then, if not that?

 

[DL44]

I think it would be a good thought experiment. It would be the best thing we have to discerning how close or how far Benning is from rebuilds around the league. Are you sure you want to pass?

It's actually a silly thought process because you are trying take Benning's moves and trying to fit them in your predetermined definition of what you think is a rebuild.

It's also amazingly "silly" that you think rebuilds are similar around the league.

It's also silly you are putting so much weight into a specific transaction type while completely disregarding the whole picture and how each move fits into a roster puzzle.

It's all soooo pointless. The amount of energy you have spent and I have have wasted on the semantics of how this specific transaction fits into your definition of rebuild is ridiculous and completely pointless.

 

[TheOtherGM]

@DL44 If you're keen on proving the Benning rebuild model, let's do this right.

First, we need go over every single one of Benning's moves to show where picks were forgone, given up or not requested, to establish a baseline.

Second, we need an arbiter for when we disagree on said interpretation.

Third, establish the rebuild parameters for another team.

Fourth, run through the same interpretation model for the rebuilding team over the agreed upon time span.

Fifth, compare lists, and then come to the conclusions.

Sound about right?

Goodness sakes, how much free time do you have? You sound like I did when I was in my early 20's, lived and died by the Canucks, B.C. Lions and Green Bay Packers and had all day long to discuss the three.
Those were the days.

 

[HSD19]

With players like Pouliot consistency tends to be an issue. He's been good of late but let's see if he can carry it forward. He looked confident in both zones last game hoping that continues

 

[DL44]

With players like Pouliot consistency tends to be an issue. He's been good of late but let's see if he can carry it forward. He looked confident in both zones last game hoping that continues

With players like Baertschi, Boeser, Horvat, Goldy, Pouliot, Hutton, Stecher consistency tends to be an issue... i.e. young.

Altho Horvat seems like he could be taken off this yr. He's been as consistent as consistent can get after sub-par initial 4 gms of the season after the home opener. I've probably jinxed him - watch him disappear for the next 6 weeks now...

 

[TheOtherGM]

With players like Baertschi, Boeser, Horvat, Goldy, Pouliot, Hutton, Stecher consistency tends to be an issue... i.e. young.

Altho Horvat seems like he could be taken off this yr. He's been as consistent as consistent can get after sub-par initial 4 gms of the season after the home opener. I've probably jinxed him - watch him disappear for the next 6 weeks now...

I see what you did there.

 

[Cupless44]

While Pouliot is progressing reasonably well, which is nice to see, I'm not convinced that he's progressed enough yet to justify the strategy of trading picks for prospects who are further along in both age and development. I disagree that trades should be judged purely on a positive net outcome per trade basis-- if that were true, it would be a good strategy. From the start, it was more likely that Pouliot would be better than the 4th (just like it would be for any other trade using that strategy), but unless you're getting players good enough to be a part of a competing team, I'm not really satisfied with losing out on the chance to gamble on something more meaningful (even if it just has a small chance of happening).

And as I mentioned in the Juolevi thread, I don't see any way around stepping on the toes of Benning discussion in this thread. You can't really paint a full picture about Pouliot without bringing up the circumstances of the acquisition. Whether the risk of spiraling into toxic discussion is frustrating or not, it's a part of the answer. I hate that that inherently gets lumped in with having an agenda for some people.

Overall I agree that i do not want Benning trading draft picks, certainly not the 2nd rounders he did earlier, but where the prospect pool is getting to now, if the odd 4th or 5th rounder is traded on a worthwhile initiative it really is not the end of the world. I think a talented player like Pouliot, who Green knew well, and never really got a huge chance in Pittsburgh while they were playing for cups, made some sense.

 

[Shareefruck]

Overall I agree that i do not want Benning trading draft picks, certainly not the 2nd rounders he did earlier, but where the prospect pool is getting to now, if the odd 4th or 5th rounder is traded on a worthwhile initiative it really is not the end of the world. I think a talented player like Pouliot, who Green knew well, and never really got a huge chance in Pittsburgh while they were playing for cups, made some sense.

I'm obviously pulling these numbers out of my *** and using extremes to illustrate my point, but in principle, it just often feels too much like trading a 99% bust, 1% core-player pick for a 50% expired-near-NHLer, 50% modestly-effective-NHLer prospect (Obviously there are exceptions to this). The latter is obviously going to happen a lot more often (which technically means more won trades!) but the former seems like the only possible reward that's actually meaningful to me. And when you get a player who optimistically turns out in that modestly-effective-NHLer-prospect range (which Pouliot hasn't shown signs of exceeding yet), or even slightly better, it doesn't really inspire me to go "Well, you got me! Good trade!"

You're correct that it doesn't hurt that much as a single trade, but when that is essentially the bread and butter of your entire ongoing strategy for acquiring good players for the future, to me it's kind of an act of giving up hope, encouraging prolongued mediocrity, and buying into something that seems doomed to fail in the long term.

There's still a chance that Pouliot continues to improve into a key player, and I'll be ecstatic if that happens, but currently, I still think this trade, and these kinds of trades in general, have a bad smell to them, even when you technically receive more than you give up.

 

[TheOtherGM]

I'm obviously pulling these numbers out of my *** and using extremes to illustrate my point, but in principle, it just often feels too much like trading a 99% bust, 1% core-player pick for a 50% expired-near-NHLer, 50% modestly-effective-NHLer prospect (Obviously there are exceptions to this). The latter is obviously going to happen a lot more often (which technically means more won trades!) but the former seems like the only possible reward that's actually meaningful to me. And when you get a player who optimistically turns out in that modestly-effective-NHLer-prospect range (which Pouliot hasn't shown signs of exceeding yet), or even slightly better, it doesn't really inspire me to go "Well, you got me! Good trade!"

You're correct that it doesn't hurt that much on the basis of a single trade, but when that is essentially the bread and butter of your entire ongoing strategy for acquiring good players for the future, to me it's kind of an act of giving up hope, encouraging prolongued mediocrity, and buying into something that seems doomed to fail in the long term.

But again, it's not 'essentially the bread and butter of your entire ongoing strategy... so on and so forth'

Pettersson/Boeser/Gaudette/Lind/Gadjovich/Demko/Dahlen/Goldobin/Virtanen/Juolevi/Tryamkin/Lockwood/DiPietro and others are players who were not acquired through this method but were acquired through the preferred method of drafting.

It is not a case where Benning has thrown all of these picks at marginal players at the expense of the draft.
Has he had as many picks as we were at HockeysFuture would like? No, I'd have preferred more. But he has made many draft picks (averaging seven per), many of which are tracking very well.
To suggest that the Pouliot trade symbolizes the bulk of this regime's rebuilding effort is simply incorrect.

edit: To me, the inclusion of the pick in the Gudbranson deal was the one truly aggregious error in pick-related judgement that I can't defend.

 

[Shareefruck]

But again, it's not 'essentially the bread and butter of your entire ongoing strategy... so on and so forth'

Pettersson/Boeser/Gaudette/Lind/Gadjovich/Demko/Dahlen/Goldobin/Virtanen/Juolevi and others are players who were not acquired through this method but were acquired through the preferred method of drafting.

It is not a case where Benning has thrown all of these picks at marginal players at the expense of the draft.
Has he had as many picks as we were at HockeysFuture would like? No, I'd have preferred more. But he has made many draft picks (averaging seven per), many of which are tracking very well.
To suggest that the Pouliot trade symbolizes the bulk of this regime's rebuilding effort is simply incorrect.

You're right, but it represents one of the most regrettable aspects of their ongoing strategy. My point is that it can't be dismissed as something that is 'really not the end of the world' when it's such a persistent occurrence.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Pouliot great and makes me happy. Trade discussion Picks after earlier second round are terribly overrated as an asset. Trading picks after this level is a viable rebuild plan. Want to keep picks but if they like player and feel they are undervalued go for it. It seems Benning target players 3rd round and later disregarding ranking. So perhaps he does not value picks because he had targets like Lockwood Gaudette Tryamkin were not nessarily ranked to go earlier. Last yeat they traded back to gain a pick because they had two guys they liked who would be available. In closing Pouliot's great.

 

[TheOtherGM]

You're right, but it represents by far the most regrettable aspect of their ongoing strategy.

And that's fair.
But as I've mentioned several times, I don't mind the strategy itself, it's the execution of it that has been problematic.

 

[Shareefruck]

And that's fair.
But as I've mentioned several times, I don't mind the strategy itself, it's the execution of it that has been problematic.

I mean, sure, there's a more shrewed and specific version of the approach that could work. If the strategy were purely about being opportunistic about identifying organizations who have dropped the ball on promising prospects who look like they were otherwise poised to be key players (like Baertschi clearly looked like) but were mismanaged, that would be a worthwhile strategy.

I don't get the impression that that's what they've been trying to do, though. This is subjective, but to me, it looks a lot more like their mantra is "young players take a long time to develop, and deserve second chances if they stumble or stagnate out of the gate."

 

[TheOtherGM]

I mean, sure, if the strategy were purely about being opportunistic about identifying organizations who have dropped the ball on promising prospects who look like they were otherwise poised to be key players (like Baertschi clearly looked like) but were mismanaged, that would be a worthwhile strategy.

I don't get the impression that that's what they've been trying to do, though. This is subjective, but to me, it looks a lot more like their mantra is "young players take a long time to develop, and deserve second chances if they stumble."

That sounds a bit too simplistic and if they really believed that they'd be making way more of these deals than they have.

The two deals that have worked out involved players familiar to Travis Green (Baertschi and Pouliot). Though Benning has stated that wasn't the reason for the Pouliot deal, I'm certain Green was consulted and his familiarity with the player played a role. If your coach, who is very familiar with these players, vouches for them and expresses confidence to coach them up, that's a trade motivator.

Two deals, Vey and Etem, were made based on familiarity with the previous coach. You can say that familiarity with a player is a stupid reason to make a deal, but it's an asset to know what you're getting, and it seems to have worked with one coach and not another. So perhaps success/failure in those transactions is as much a Willie D vs Travis G thing as anything.

One deal involved a tall, strong, physical defenceman stuck in a numbers game on Long Island. You can make a case for that Pedan deal all day long, even if it didn't end up working out.

The Clendenning and Larsson deals targeted offensive defenceman and were pro-scouting fails.

 

[Jay Cee]

While Pouliot is progressing reasonably well, which is nice to see, I'm not convinced that he's progressed enough yet to justify the strategy of trading picks for prospects who are further along in both age and development. I disagree that trades should be judged purely on a positive net outcome per trade basis-- if that were true, it would be a good strategy. From the start, it was more likely that Pouliot would be better than the 4th (just like it would be for any other trade using that strategy), but unless you're getting players good enough to be a part of a competing team, I'm not really satisfied with losing out on the chance to gamble on something more meaningful (even if it just has a small chance of happening).

And as I mentioned in the Juolevi thread, I don't see any way around stepping on the toes of Benning discussion in this thread. You can't really paint a full picture about Pouliot without bringing up the circumstances of the acquisition. Whether the risk of spiraling into toxic discussion is frustrating or not, it's a part of the answer. I hate that that inherently gets lumped in with having an agenda for some people.

Let's say in theory that Pouliot becomes a top 4 dman, and then the pick goes on to be a top 10 scorer, do you think that people wouldn't say "That's why we said all along it was a bad trade at the time?"

The "it was a bad trade at the time" crowd think that they have all the answers, and are actually pompous enough to say that their opinion about a trade is the only one that could be ever possibly right and people are actually stupid or shills of Benning or something. It is micro analysis to the point where people get in the heads of NHL GMs and how much other teams would have offered at the time and whether or not the player would have gotten waived, and whether other teams were interested or not, and throw in a Jason Botchford theory etc. It is all very complicated and situational and fast moving to say that you know all the moment the trade is made to say that you would have accepted less probably means the deal doesn't get done or you don't get the player. You can't have it both ways when it turns out to be a clever deal or good gamble.

 

[Shareefruck]

Let's say in theory that Pouliot becomes a top 4 dman, and then the pick goes on to be a top 10 scorer, do you think that people wouldn't say "That's why we said all along it was a bad trade at the time?"

The "it was a bad trade at the time" crowd think that they have all the answers, and are actually pompous enough to say that their opinion about a trade is the only one that could be ever possibly right and people are actually stupid or shills of Benning or something. It is micro analysis to the point where people get in the heads of NHL GMs and how much other teams would have offered at the time and whether or not the player would have gotten waived, and whether other teams were interested or not, and throw in a Jason Botchford theory etc. It is all very complicated and situational and fast moving to say that you know all the moment the trade is made to say that you would have accepted less probably means the deal doesn't get done or you don't get the player. You can't have it both ways when it turns out to be a clever deal or good gamble.

I don't really see what any of this has to do with what I said. My point is that if you're skeptical about the fundamental reasoning behind a trade because it seems to favor high probability low returns over low probability high returns, it's not very meaningful to only look at the fact that you "won" a trade by receiving modest returns to say that the strategy/trade was proven successful.

Trading an unproven pick for an further along prospect and coming out on top with only modest return to show for it is closer to being safe to a fault than it is to being a clever gamble.

 

[Jay Cee]

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*