Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,056
- 6,628
Continue on with my favourite current topic.
EDIT:
EDIT:
Last edited by a moderator:
this player has been nothing but better than expected since he got here and has been steadily improving. he has greatly exceeded expectations. he just had a solid three point night.
i wonder what more pouliot needs to do so he doesn't get a salty thread title next time?
Damn good pick up from a money-puck perspective.
But Benning made this trade probably because Pouliot had connections with Travis Green. Much like how he acquired Dorsett/Vey for Willie Desjardins.
He has been fine and is trending up. He needs to sustain it, and show that it can be sustained.
so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?
assuming it is true, that is wrong, how? green has zero incentive to bring a passenger aboard his first year of coaching.
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 with the evidence we have up to this point it is not. Yes we should be able to get a 3rd pairing dman for cheap/free. Much like we have in the past.
Re:thought exercise.
Sure if they had a magical box I could totally agree. However as far as we know he doesn't have said box, and they used the same things they have used in the past. Therefore I can pretty safely say it was the same process as the past trades.
I didn't say it was wrong...
there is a "but" in your post that implies that even though he has played well, the trade was made for a bad reason.
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 with the evidence we have up to this point it is not. Yes we should be able to get a 3rd pairing dman for cheap/free. Much like we have in the past.
Re:thought exercise.
Sure if they had a magical box I could totally agree. However as far as we know he doesn't have said box, and they used the same things they have used in the past. Therefore I can pretty safely say it was the same process as the past trades.
The decision to trade for Pouliot wasn't driven by his underlying stats, but because of his familiarity with our current coaching staff.
I didn't imply that I think negatively of taking a player because of familiarity. Rather, that I think more highly of taking a player for "money-puck" reasons.
Probably messed up, I think I should have said "rather" instead of "but" to be more clear.
ok, so if he sustains his play until the next thread, a pouliot fan gets to start the next thread or at least provide the title? seem fair?
I think you need to start acknowledging Pouliot's role is a bit beyond what you are stating. He plays on the powerplay, leads the defence in scoring, plays 22 minutes a game and when Gubrandson comes back in the line up so they don't kill his trade value, 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.
It is wrong.
If we traded a 4th for the player he is now, a player that already leads our dmen in points and is on pace to score over 30 in a year, this is already a win for us for a 4th rounder. He has also improved defensively and his confidence is growing each game.
If he continues to improve and we re-evaluate what his new ceiling could be compared to the doomsday talk that was going on at the time of the trade, then we absolutely ripped off the Penguins.
Isn't that how we ended up trading a 2nd for vey, because Willy vouched for him?so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?
assuming it is true, that is wrong, how? green has zero incentive to bring a passenger aboard his first year of coaching.
That it's just one game? Or 2 months into the season? If that's all you need to make a conclusion about a player, then surely you must also think virtanen and his 2+ SEASONS of below average play is a bust, no?All the Benning haters have to be cringing in their seats after his 3 point performance - soo many people were wound up on this trade when we made it "There goes Boy Wonder trading away our assets again!!" and now look where we are...........what do they have to say now?
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.
That it's just one game? Or 2 months into the season? If that's all you need to make a conclusion about a player, then surely you must also think virtanen and his 2+ SEASONS of below average play is a bust, no?
If he didn't blindly follow WD's advise, then it's a mis-evaluation on Benning's part of the player. Either way it's not good.there's no basis for saying he blindly followed advice. assuming willie had input i am sure others did too.
vey busted. that's hockey. you can follow scouting and good inside advice on a player and it still doesn't always pan out.
vey played over 100 games for us. he now scores ppg in the khl and dominated in the ahl. calgary still thought enough of him to sign him when we walked.
he is the very definition of a near miss.
that's as good or better odds than you get with a 50th overall pick.
If he didn't blindly follow WD's advise, then it's a mis-evaluation on Benning's part of the player. Either way it's not good.
But my post was more a reply to your question "so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?
assuming it is true, that is wrong, how?"