Confirmed with Link: Derrick Pouliot's here because reasons. Part 1. (#859)

[TruGr1t]

Please crunch the numbers since it's so easy. Is there the equivalent of WAR in hockey?

Yes, but for once how about you do your own research and stop throwing around broad, unsubstantiated claims. There's even *gasp* a spreadsheet out there if you can figure out the Google machine.

 

[krutovsdonut]

here are the even strength ice time numbers against the kings.

left side
edler - 13:53
del zotto 15:55
hutton 15:20

right side
pouliot - 14:23
gudbranson 15:44
biega - 15:09

pouliot got sat down late in the third. i'll accept green avoided putting him out for defensive face offs given la had last change.
other than that i'd have to see some match ups to be convinced that pouliot was being sheltered in a meaningful way. the evenness of the minutes suggest that would have been hard to do, and i surely did not notice it.

 

[Melvin]

When did hockey only become about "tough minutes" and ES play? Last time I looked the power play has become more important than ever in the age of parity. If you are selected to play on the first power play unit those minutes don't count? One of the biggest problems in Canuck history is rarely having defencemen who can actually play the point. Pouliot has some skills in this area and is improving each week. That has value.

Since people started claiming that he is drew doughty and the best player on the team. These posts are a direct response to those posts. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't know how many times I need to say it. He is doing fine. He is being used in a certain role and performing reasonably well. But he needs to thrive in a tougher role before he's the best defenseman on the team and drawing comparisons to the best defensemen in the league.

 

[Melvin]

From the simple reasoning that an 8th overall pick who was given every chance in his original organization to succeed couldn't crack a oft-injured d-corps? Effort and compete play into that equation too, but part of it was also that he often was out of position and unaware of what was going on. Let's look at the first page of a thread inquiring about him on the Pens forum. This is pre-trade btw, so there's no hindsight factor.









I stated pretty clearly that I wasn't referring to Biega as being poised like Tanev, but calming in that he's a veteran player with a firm understanding of his own strengths and limitations. From my observations, young players like Hutton last year and Pouliot this year have played well with Biega because he communicates well with his partners so they know exactly what they should be doing on the ice. This is very different from Hutton, MDZ, Stecher, and especially Gudbranson, who seem to often just go with gut plays, and as a result lose their check, make an errant move without communicating for cover, etc. No different than why Jake has meshed with the Sedins - he's been given a direct task of what to do, so he doesn't have to think about it. He can just play according to his skillset, which is to forecheck hard and retrieve pucks.

Similarly for Pouliot, he's been tasked with moving the puck. There is definitely a need for this, and in the minutes he's played he's done well. But just as I'd be wary to dub Jake as having shaken off the bust label based on this season, I'm hesitant to proclaim Pouliot as a potential top-4 guy until he can start holding his head above water in all situations rather than just focusing on one aspect of the game that his skillset is tailored to succeed in. That doesn't mean he needs to play 5+ PK minutes a game or start blocking 200 shots a year. It just means that I want to see him play reasonable minutes in non-ideal situations.

This was an excellent post and states what I have been trying to say in much more detail.

 

[Scurr]

Ok I apologize..but he has played over 20 mins twice this season (tougher minutes) and we lost 4-1 and 5-0. All I'm saying is if he gets forced into a role with more minutes and tougher match ups through injuries he might struggle.

I think "soft" is fair and certainly the argument that he might struggle with more responsibility is fair.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

This was an excellent post and states what I have been trying to say in much more detail.

Great you may join his fan club as well. It has gone from he cant play, maybe he can play but anyone could in his minutes, to finally he is playing well in his role.
I think he has been the best d the last 7 games or so based on each d mans role. I stand by that. I realize he is not on pk which is a plus to him as it has failed the last while or on while holding a lead in last minutes. He is used on offensive faceoffs. I think they should reconsider that as winning a faceoff to Gudbranson, Biega or even MDZ is like losing the face off. We have another game tonight to how he does on the first pair. One point not brought up is what forward line how the d been playing with? Though on this years team maybe it doesnt matter much.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

You may be right, but his minutes are definitely soft. It is not just the zone starts; he is also getting more PP time lately than anyone, does not kill penalties and plays barely more at ES than Biega (who, conversely, kills penalties and gets 0 PP time.)

For people to conclude that he's been "our best defenseman" shows their lack of ability to consider this sort of context.

Maybe he should be considered our best d man lately even with the context you just brought up. The other d men have been failing on the pk, should they still get credit for being on the pk? If it was a top pk sure but in the last couple weeks it has been among the worst in the league and that is seen as a negative for Pouliot? I am partially arguing Pouliot has been our best dman because of the other dman failing on the pk. Being the Canucks best dman recently may be akin to being the world's tallest midget but from my measurements he is it.

 

[The Drop]

hah, you just admitted granlund didn't suck last year. busted.

Ya he was trash.


Bonose does not like this

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Rough game. Thought early on Edler was to blame but the give away was all him. I am starting to really dislike Gudbranson liked him early in year but since the Washington game he has been horrid. Hutton deserves credit for having to play with him as you cannot pass the puck to him. For Pouliot I think he will bounce back. I do not think our other d have anything more to give.

 

[PG Canuck]

I mean, I can’t say I didn’t expect this.

 

[Melvin]

ES Minutes from tonight

Hutton 21:51 (+0:15 PP)
RealGud 19:47
MDZ 18:03
Biega 17:35
Pouliot 17:32 (1:35 PP)
Edler 17:24 (2:16 PP)

Finished -3. Canucks did not convert on 2 PP chances. No PK opportunities.

I don't have zone-start data.

Evidence that he is playing on the top-pairing and getting leaned on to great effect continues to be lacking.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I mean, I can’t say I didn’t expect this.

The guys played 16 games for the Canucks..makes a few boners in one game...You must feel pretty justified/elated that Benning totally blew that high 4th...

 

[PG Canuck]

The guys played 16 games for the Canucks..makes a few boners in one game...You must feel pretty justified/elated that Benning totally blew that high 4th...

So you don’t like what we have drafted in later rounds? Noted.

 

[CuriousGeorge]

The guys played 16 games for the Canucks..makes a few boners in one game...You must feel pretty justified/elated that Benning totally blew that high 4th...

You really defending those mistakes? Wow.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

You really defending those mistakes? Wow.

Of course I'm not defending his mistakes...he's a project,and he's going to make mistakes....Just LOL'ing at PG Canuck who felt the need to tell us 'he was right all along' after one bad game....He's been waiting 15 games to post that.

 

[shottasasa]

If you position is that we will never know all of the details so we should not bother to speculate, then we might as well just close up this board right now.

We will never know, even half of the details for transactions. All we can do is speculate. As another poster noted, it is not about Pouliot in particular, it is the pattern of behaviour. Benning is making a reputation for giving up picks for guys who are likely waiver-bound. Pouliot is just the latest possible example.

That's a strawman argument and pretty weak at that. Speculating and taking that speculation as fact are two different things. And the counter point which as just as likely (or more likely in my mind) as the assumption that Pouliot would have been available on waivers, is that another team would have traded for him instead and we never would have gotten the opportunity.

As I mentioned, I don't have a problem if people don't like "the process", I just have a problem with people basing their arguments on something that isn't factual, such as claiming that a pick was thrown in for a player the Canucks would've gotten for free.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The guys played 16 games for the Canucks..makes a few boners in one game...You must feel pretty justified/elated that Benning totally blew that high 4th...

And the 3rd he traded for Pedan.

 

[Melvin]

That's a strawman argument and pretty weak at that. Speculating and taking that speculation as fact are two different things. And the counter point which as just as likely (or more likely in my mind) as the assumption that Pouliot would have been available on waivers, is that another team would have traded for him instead and we never would have gotten the opportunity.

As I mentioned, I don't have a problem if people don't like "the process", I just have a problem with people basing their arguments on something that isn't factual, such as claiming that a pick was thrown in for a player the Canucks would've gotten for free.

Nobody is taking their speculation is fact. It should be axiomatic that everything we are posting is a combination of speculation and opinion. It goes without saying. Being annoyed that someone did not preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a futile endeavour.

"Pouliout could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> Shottassa mad!
"In my opinion, Pouliot could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> This is okay?

It is the same thing. We opt for brevity in cases where we can make reasonable assumptions about how things will be read.

You will have to explain to me how my remarks were a strawman. I am not seeing it.

 

[The Iron Goalie]

Was ok tonight, but man that turnover was terrible, and overall took a step back from recent form. Lets hope he rebounds with a strong effort next game.

 

[Jessep]

Nobody is taking their speculation is fact. It should be axiomatic that everything we are posting is a combination of speculation and opinion. It goes without saying. Being annoyed that someone did not preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a futile endeavour.

"Pouliout could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> Shottassa mad!
"In my opinion, Pouliot could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> This is okay?

It is the same thing. We opt for brevity in cases where we can make reasonable assumptions about how things will be read.

You will have to explain to me how my remarks were a strawman. I am not seeing it.

I don't think the problem is your verbiage. Actually the problem is either version assumes two things:
1 - Nobody else was interested in trading for him.
2 - Colorado had no interest in him

There's no way of knowing either. It's entirely possible another team had interest in trading for him but Benning's was the better offer. You see if I don't want to lose a player for nothing and hope to move him I'm not going to contact one team and hope for the best. I'd make sure several teams that could have interest were aware the player was available. We'll just never know if another team had interest though. The truth is we may possibly have been able to get him for free, but it's just as possible we wouldn't have got him for free.

I believe the bottom line here is Benning felt Pouliot had more potential than Pedan and ensured he got him rather than rolling the dice on him going to another team.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Research and proof based of a false assumption is still false. It is impossible to prove a negative. Granlund and Sven were not waiver eligible when the Canucks traded for them both spent time in the Ahl when they were traded for. It is like the situation if Jake Virtanen goes back down to the Ahl this year. Is that proof the Canucks would waive him next year? Pouliot was in the same situation as Brendan Gaunce is he about to go on waivers even after scoring 1 nhl goal in his career. Pouliot has shown a lot more at the nhl, ahl and junior level than Gaunce. Most teams do not give up good young assets on waivers remember Corrado here and the uproar. Your faulty thought process is that teams are willing to lose viable young prospects so easily. In order to justify your opinion show examples like Corrado where good prospects were let go on waivers. I do not think there are a lot of examples of high first round picks being let go after being Ahl all stars but i might be wrong.

It is not a false assumption to state that all three were fringe assets at the time of trade. They were. Granlund was on the 4th line and fading. Baertschi put an ultimatum to CGY management that if he had not secured a spot on CGY's roster, that he wanted to be moved -- and he was moved. Last, Pouliot was regarded as an 8th Dman that had just had a poor camp. Is that enough for you to accept that they were fringe assets? Yes or No? Because that's all that needs to be established for Waivers to be a factor for each of them. In other words, Waivers just needs to be a concern for each GM in order to provide enough motivation to make a move. It does not need to be the immediate destination for to precipitate such a move either.

Some posters (like yourself) are getting caught up with requiring evidence that these players were in fact heading to Waivers right then and there, unequivocally. That evidence will never be available. Insiders/Media/Fans can speculate that each prospect was likely headed for waivers, but unless a direct GM leak indicates this action it will not satisfy the requirements of evidence. What we do have to go on is that these players were A) Fringe Assets and B) Losing favour with their respective clubs and C) Were traded within close proximity of their changing Waiver status. For example, you say that Granlund was not Waiver eligible at the time of trade -- even though his GM comes out and says that pending Waiver status was a factor in that move. He was a short time away from Waivers. So you're technically right, but still wrong in determining that waivers had no impact in the decision. It quite obviously did.

Here's a "good prospects on waivers" list for you:

Michael Grabner - Waived as a 22 year old.
Martin Frk - Waived as a 23 year old.
Sven Andrighetto - Waived as a 23 year old.
Jason Pominville - Waived at 23 year old.
Martin St. Louis - Waived as a 24 year old for the purposes of a buy out.
Martin Gelinas - Waived as a 24 year old.
Thomas Hickey - Waived at 24 years old.
Craig Anderson - Waived as a 24/25 year old.
Dale Weise - Waived as a 22 year old.
Seth Griffith - Waived as a 23 year old.
Joonas Donskoi - NHL rights relinquished at age 23.
Magnus Pajaarvi - Waived at 23 by the Blues.
Ron Hainsey - Waived at 24 years old.

That's just a scatter-shot of examples. If you consider Corrado a good prospect, and are looking for like examples, these players were all waived while relatively young. Now I'd like to see some homework from you: Which teams were calling for Granlund/Baertschi/Pouliot at the time of trade and what were they offering? (To justify Benning paying the price that he did)

None of this is evidence that others weren’t prepared to trade for these players, or that they didn’t have value. Sure if trade partners weren’t found it’s possible that they could have hit waivers and we’re clearly thought of as surplus to requirements by their organisations, but then most tased players are. Seeing as trade partners were found and there could have been others bidding, means no one who is arguing the “Canucks wasted assets when we could have had the player for free on waivers” has anything but their own assumptions to go on.

I understand if people don’t like the trades because they don’t like the players they got in return, or don’t like strategy of giving up draft picks for older prospects who have fallen out of favour. If you want to have a go at Benning ability, he’s made enough outright bad moves without this nonsense. Even bad or mediocre GMs can make good trades with sound logic sometimes.

Except in this case unsound logic produced favourable results. As someone had mentioned before, you have to assess this practice by Benning on the whole, successes and failures, to ascertain whether the strategy has merit. It can't just be isolating Baertschi/Granlund and then forgetting about Vey/Clendenning/Pedan etc...

Please provide proof as to which other teams were bidding for the services of the three players mentioned. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but in order to progress this discussion, the 'Benning paid a fair price' side is going to have to bring something forward to prove it.

It doesn't even have to be 'Canucks wasted assets vs. Waivers'. It could be 'The Canucks paid too much knowing waivers was a factor'. As in, Benning could have outbid himself. There's a sense of this in Treliving's remarks, and with media critiquing the Pouliot trade. This can be a thing without fighting over Waivers/No Waivers.

 

[pitseleh]

With Clendening/Baertschi/Granlund, the Canucks traded for each shortly before their teams were forced into a decision on the player, and gave up significant pieces to get them. In the case of Vey, they gave up a significant piece even though LA had no leverage. Even if they didn't end up available for free on waivers, in all likelihood the price would have been lower if the team had waited.

The idea that the Canucks had to outcompete other teams for these players isn't really grounded in reality. Just look through the NHL trades over the past several seasons: there only other similar transactions I see, with scuffling 21-22 year olds traded for significant assets, are Griffin Reinhart to Edmonton and Curtis Lazar to Calgary, and both of those deals look awful. Given other teams just don't really do this, it is unlikely that the Canucks were having to outbid others each time to get their player.

Taken together, however, doesn't mean the Canucks could have got them for free. I do think it is reasonable to think that the Canucks could have got them for less if they had waited though.

At least the Canucks did it right with the Pouliot trade - they waited until the other team had no leverage, and gave up nothing of significance.

 

[shottasasa]

Nobody is taking their speculation is fact. It should be axiomatic that everything we are posting is a combination of speculation and opinion. It goes without saying. Being annoyed that someone did not preface every sentence with "in my opinion" is a futile endeavour.

"Pouliout could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> Shottassa mad!
"In my opinion, Pouliot could have been had for nothing if we had waited." --> This is okay?

It is the same thing. We opt for brevity in cases where we can make reasonable assumptions about how things will be read.

You will have to explain to me how my remarks were a strawman. I am not seeing it.

Again your taking this in a direction it is not intended. This is a discussion board amongst fans, of course we speculate and have opinions. My point is summed up by Jessep. Calling the trade bad because Benning traded a pick to get Pouliot when he could have been had for free is completely ignoring the fact that others may well have traded for him or Colorado may have taken him. To me this seems likely enough, and thus negates the assumption he could be had for free.

We don't know what other teams were bidding, so right now the best wecan do is judge whether Benning made the right call by making the trade.

As mentioned before I understand the argument that Benning is managing assets poorly, I personally didn't like the Clendening trade at all. But using porous arguments to bash him doesn't add anything useful.

 

[shottasasa]

With Clendening/Baertschi/Granlund, the Canucks traded for each shortly before their teams were forced into a decision on the player, and gave up significant pieces to get them. In the case of Vey, they gave up a significant piece even though LA had no leverage. Even if they didn't end up available for free on waivers, in all likelihood the price would have been lower if the team had waited.

The idea that the Canucks had to outcompete other teams for these players isn't really grounded in reality. Just look through the NHL trades over the past several seasons: there only other similar transactions I see, with scuffling 21-22 year olds traded for significant assets, are Griffin Reinhart to Edmonton and Curtis Lazar to Calgary, and both of those deals look awful. Given other teams just don't really do this, it is unlikely that the Canucks were having to outbid others each time to get their player.

Taken together, however, doesn't mean the Canucks could have got them for free. I do think it is reasonable to think that the Canucks could have got them for less if they had waited though.

At least the Canucks did it right with the Pouliot trade - they waited until the other team had no leverage, and gave up nothing of significance.

I more or less agree that the Canucks did better on this than previous trades like it. I agree that the Canucks shouldn't be giving up high draft picks for reclamation projects even if they end up being outbid because the odds of successfully rehabilitating the player to become a solid contributor in the NHL just isn't high enough.

I didn't like the Granlund trade at the time, but have to admit, they got the better of that trade upon review after a season and a half. The 2nd round pick for Baertschi was intriguing because he was such a high skill player and it seemed that his issue was the relationship in Calgary, but was still a gamble. And yeah, the Vey and Clendening trades turned out to be terrible. But a 4th round pick is much acceptable. And I think it's perfectly realistic to consider that other organisations might have given that (or a lower pick) for someone like Pouliot in trade, and it can't discounted out of hand.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

With Clendening/Baertschi/Granlund, the Canucks traded for each shortly before their teams were forced into a decision on the player, and gave up significant pieces to get them. In the case of Vey, they gave up a significant piece even though LA had no leverage. Even if they didn't end up available for free on waivers, in all likelihood the price would have been lower if the team had waited.

The idea that the Canucks had to outcompete other teams for these players isn't really grounded in reality. Just look through the NHL trades over the past several seasons: there only other similar transactions I see, with scuffling 21-22 year olds traded for significant assets, are Griffin Reinhart to Edmonton and Curtis Lazar to Calgary, and both of those deals look awful. Given other teams just don't really do this, it is unlikely that the Canucks were having to outbid others each time to get their player.

Taken together, however, doesn't mean the Canucks could have got them for free. I do think it is reasonable to think that the Canucks could have got them for less if they had waited though.

At least the Canucks did it right with the Pouliot trade - they waited until the other team had no leverage, and gave up nothing of significance.

Good post! Mirco Mueller for a 2nd counts too IMO...Not sure if I can call this good or bad for New Jersey yet...