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

[deckercky]

And the 3rd he traded for Pedan.

We file this post under "Sunk cost fallacy".

 

[racerjoe]

For me it is a little bit different. They are the TYPE of asset you can get for free. Good teams shouldn't be trading for serviceable players, they should be picking them up for free on waivers or signing them in the off season. I don't remember off the top of my head but there was 2-3 dmen who to me were equal interesting that did make it to waivers.

 

[Melvin]

We file this post under "Sunk cost fallacy".

It is not a fallacy unless he was suggesting we should keep Pedan on the basis of what was surrendered.

Simply lamenting that Pouliot cost us ultimately a 3rd and a 4th is not fallacious, although it ignores the 2 years of "value" we got from Pedan.

 

[deckercky]

The third was sunk, and Pedan had lost all value long before Pouliot was acquired. Pedan was a contract moved out and nothing more. The third round pick has literally nothing to do with evaluating the cost of Pouliot.

 

[Melvin]

The third was sunk, and Pedan had lost all value long before Pouliot was acquired. Pedan was a contract moved out and nothing more. The third round pick has literally nothing to do with evaluating the cost of Pouliot.

That is correct.

However, again, we are not talking about the Pouliot transaction in isolation. We are talking about the pattern of Benning behaviour, and the long term analysis of his strategy to continuously move picks+prospects for these sorts of players.

In view of the broader picture, he spent a 3rd on Pedan and then spent a 4th to upgrade Pedan for Pouliot. I think most of us would have rather just kept both picks.

Nobody is suggesting that we should have held on to Pedan under the reasoning that we spent a 3rd on him. That would indeed by fallacious.

 

[krutovsdonut]

In view of the broader picture, he spent a 3rd on Pedan and then spent a 4th to upgrade Pedan for Pouliot. I think most of us would have rather just kept both picks.

Nobody is suggesting that we should have held on to Pedan under the reasoning that we spent a 3rd on him. That would indeed by fallacious.

what is fallacious is overvaluing picks when traded versus when used in drafts. you don't find a lot of interwebs ink spilled crying about a gm who missed picks in the third or fourth round, but god forbid a gm trades one of those picks for a prospect and does not get an nhl regular out of it.

pedan is a perfect example of this wonky thinking. he was a third round pick we traded for a third round pick. we basicly assumed the islanders draft odds mid player development when he was looking ok. now nobody would blink an eye if we had drafted pedan in the third round and then traded him when we did. but because a trade happened along the way we suddenly "wasted" a third round pick on this guy.

that's just not logical. we literally paid his original draft price for him.

the real issue is whether the player acquired was as good a risk as the value expended.

yet it never seems to work out that way in a discussion here and this one is no different. you just get people asserting that it is always wrong to trade picks for prospects who back it up with nothing but their feels. you see no honest effort to weigh pouliot's odds against a 4th rounder, and now it is argued that pedan's original cost also counts!

sometimes it's like talking to a vegas slot machine zombie. all that counts is how many quarters we have in the jar. god forbid we ever buy something with our quarters instead of putting it into a machine. because every quarter could be a million dollars.

 

[VanJack]

I actually loved Pouliot's game last night....pushed the pace most of the night and the passing was pinpoint again...admittedly that pairing with Edler was a trainwreck in their own zone most of the night, but I put a lot of that down to Edler, who when he's bad, is 'really bad'. Sure Pouliot's fumble of the puck at the end was regrettable, but after Neal stole the puck he was still on his back-hand.....what happened to the idea that sometimes it's the goalie who has to bail out one his d-men?....that shot basically went right through Markstom, who for all his size lets too many puck sift through him for my liking. I hope Pouliot doesn't change a thing for the next game.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

We file this post under "Sunk cost fallacy".

Make it Pedan and a 4th then. I wasn't saying the 3rd round pick we paid was still ours to use, but that it was another part of the cost of Pouliot if you go back far enough.

And of course the point was it's yet another example of Benning trading picks for prospects other teams have given up on, in this case it's the same thing all over again in the same transaction chain.

 

[Jessep]

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.

Neither side can prove or disprove there was interest/offers from other GM's. Other than speculation from sports writers, GM's rarely ever talk publicly about players they tried, and failed, to acquire via trade. Nor do they announce in advance they're going to make a trade offer for an available player. It's completely pointless to ask anybody to prove or disprove it happened. Obviously neither side can so it's just a dog chasing it's tail of "you prove there were other offers" and "you prove there wasn't other offers".

But simple logic tells me a team in a time crunch to reduce it's roster by putting a player with 'some' value on waivers they'd rather not lose for nothing isn't going to contact one GM and one GM only to see if a deal is there to be had. They'd put his name out there for as many offers as possible as quickly as possible. Which means it's very possible, even probable, more than one GM would have interest in acquiring said player relatively cheaply. Pedan and a 4th is cheap for a prospect with Pou's AHL numbers. He has a higher chance of NHL success than Pedan does imo.

 

[F A N]

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.

Way to pull a Donald Trump. So you tell us it's easy to crunch the numbers but you haven't done it for "these guys" but I ask you to nicely to please crunch the numbers and you tell me to do my own research?

I suck with numbers. You are implying that you're skilled at it and it's easy for you to do. Why would the google machine come up with YOUR calculations when you haven't done it? Let's see the numbers that you "crunch" that would "surprise" us.

 

[F A N]

You cannot make the claim that each player still had trade value aside from relying on the trades that were executed to confirm that value. It's a circular argument. Do you know of any other teams that made offers for Granlund/Baertschi/Pouliot at the time?

You cannot make the claim that each player had no trade value can you? Are you making the claim that Flames fans would have been happy with a 6th or 7th round pick for Granlund and Baertschi at the time of the trade as "better than losing them on waivers?" Are you making the claim that Penguins fans would have been happy with a 6th or 7th round pick for Pouliot as "better than losing him to waivers?" There were strong rumors that Pouliot was the centerpiece of a trade for Sheahan.

I have made a case that Waivers was a concern for Granlund (Treliving audio, linked in reply to one of your posts already. Do a search.).

And I provided you a reply that refuted your case. Do a search.

Pouliot was referred to as the Pens' "8th Dman". That's fringe. (Source: Penguins trade Derrick Pouliot to Vancouver for D Andrey Pedan, 4th round pick)

And who's the Pens' 7th Dman? Corrado? Ruhwedel? Who is Pens' 6th Dman? Hunwick? Cole? Are you saying that the right "asset management" move would be to waive Pouliot given that depth chart?

Regardless, Pouliot looks like a top 6 NHL Dman. Do you not agree?

As for Baertschi, here's an excerpt from Flame for Thought (one of their blog sites (referenced by theCanuckWay: Vancouver Canucks: Reflecting on Granlund, Baertschi trades)):

I'm not sure either of those blogs you referenced are "reputable" among the fans. Might want to check the credibility of your sources.

Now, I have made my case again and again

Only in your head.

Let's see your homework to the contrary (for once). Do you have anything that refutes that these players were not fringe NHL assets at the time of trade? Or, are you arguing to argue (as per usual)?

The argument isn't that they weren't fringe NHL assets. The argument was that they wouldn't have been available for the Canucks to pick up on waivers. You are totally confusing the argument.

What is the fallacy in stating that Benning traded for Granlund, Baertschi and Pouliot before they could hit waivers? Do you know what fallacy means?

I stated nothing like that. Pay attention. Do you know what fallacy means?

You have categorized my belief that Benning can do better on trades as an "unwarranted assumption". Meaning, either you think he cannot improve his trading acumen. Or, that he is a master trader and no other GM could have done better in his place, given the same circumstances. That is such an amusing statement made by you that I'm going to take a minute and reflect on its absurdity and humour. Well done! You've made me laugh. Thanks.

I did nothing of that sort. You are wrong in your interpretation. Completely wrong. You don't make me laugh but that's ok. There's no need to be funny. You can just be you. Some people do find absurdity funny so there's that. Good luck.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

Do you have a source that links a team offering a pick in exchange for Pouliot? We can't discount it out of hand, but then we can't assume it's the case either.

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.

Forget about getting Pouliot for free. Forget about COL taking him. Let's talk about the asset value given up for fringe players. Do you think it's a common expectation that teams give up mid-draft picks for fringe assets? Or, is this unique to Benning? This is where the 'valid' argument starts/stops. I've seen too many posters hide behind the fact that they believe Pouliot would not have made it to waivers. I say, OK, let's treat him as a fringe prospect then. Does that garner a mid-draft pick?

If you argue that it often does, then Forsling for Clendenning is just as valid as Pouliot for a 4th. A fringe asset garners a mid-round pick. If you concede that fringe players should not garner picks, then you have already condemned Benning's action. If you say that it's case by case, then fine, please provide evidence that a 4th was necessary in this case. Remember that Benning has garnered a reputation for bleeding picks -- which is why it's surprising to me that even fans of this deal so readily accept the same action here? He seems to be doing the same thing over and over again.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Neither side can prove or disprove there was interest/offers from other GM's. Other than speculation from sports writers, GM's rarely ever talk publicly about players they tried, and failed, to acquire via trade. Nor do they announce in advance they're going to make a trade offer for an available player. It's completely pointless to ask anybody to prove or disprove it happened. Obviously neither side can so it's just a dog chasing it's tail of "you prove there were other offers" and "you prove there wasn't other offers".

But simple logic tells me a team in a time crunch to reduce it's roster by putting a player with 'some' value on waivers they'd rather not lose for nothing isn't going to contact one GM and one GM only to see if a deal is there to be had. They'd put his name out there for as many offers as possible as quickly as possible. Which means it's very possible, even probable, more than one GM would have interest in acquiring said player relatively cheaply. Pedan and a 4th is cheap for a prospect with Pou's AHL numbers. He has a higher chance of NHL success than Pedan does imo.

I disagree that a 4th round pick from a 'rebuilding club' for a fringe asset is "cheap". YMMV.

Actually, we can prove there was interest from other clubs. We hear rumblings of this all the time from insiders, writers, media etc... This is as much as any fan can "prove" their assertion by citing a source. We'll never fully know, I agree, but it's never pointless to endeavor to provide sources to speculation/assessments. It grounds a discussion far more than "I believe X because simple logic tells me...".

For me it is a little bit different. They are the TYPE of asset you can get for free. Good teams shouldn't be trading for serviceable players, they should be picking them up for free on waivers or signing them in the off season. I don't remember off the top of my head but there was 2-3 dmen who to me were equal interesting that did make it to waivers.

I think Sproul was in a similar situation IIRC. The trade for Puempel (who could be argued to be a Reid Boucher level prospect) more closely represents what I would expect a rebuilding club to do. Not give up pick frequency. But again, I think that's because my sensibility about this type of transaction more aligns with your own: I do not think rebuilding teams should be bleeding picks. Whether that's for an asset we think can be had for free, or if it's for a fringe asset quickly losing favour with his club. The general aversion to bleeding picks is ever present.

 

[shottasasa]

Do you have a source that links a team offering a pick in exchange for Pouliot? We can't discount it out of hand, but then we can't assume it's the case either.





Forget about getting Pouliot for free. Forget about COL taking him. Let's talk about the asset value given up for fringe players. Do you think it's a common expectation that teams give up mid-draft picks for fringe assets? Or, is this unique to Benning? This is where the 'valid' argument starts/stops. I've seen too many posters hide behind the fact that they believe Pouliot would not have made it to waivers. I say, OK, let's treat him as a fringe prospect then. Does that garner a mid-draft pick?

If you argue that it often does, then Forsling for Clendenning is just as valid as Pouliot for a 4th. A fringe asset garners a mid-round pick. If you concede that fringe players should not garner picks, then you have already condemned Benning's action. If you say that it's case by case, then fine, please provide evidence that a 4th was necessary in this case. Remember that Benning has garnered a reputation for bleeding picks -- which is why it's surprising to me that even fans of this deal so readily accept the same action here? He seems to be doing the same thing over and over again.

I didn’t concede that projects (not fringe players) should not garner picks. It is a case by case basis but in general I am not ok with giving up higher picks, but can stomach a gamble for a mid round pick. The reason I thought Forsling for Clendening was bad, was because in his draft +1 year Forsling was tracking very well, he wasn’t just a future draft pick at that point.

And how exactly should I provide evidence that a 4th was necessary in this case? The only thing we have to go on is what was paid by Benning.

 

[racerjoe]

I think Sproul was in a similar situation IIRC. The trade for Puempel (who could be argued to be a Reid Boucher level prospect) more closely represents what I would expect a rebuilding club to do. Not give up pick frequency. But again, I think that's because my sensibility about this type of transaction more aligns with your own: I do not think rebuilding teams should be bleeding picks. Whether that's for an asset we think can be had for free, or if it's for a fringe asset quickly losing favour with his club. The general aversion to bleeding picks is ever present.

I think Pokka and one other were guys this board was intrigued by that hit waivers that I would consider similar to Pouliot. It just doesn’t make sense to for a team in our situation to waste picks when players like them can be had for free.

 

[Dab]

Clearly this guy needs to play no more than 12 minutes a night in very sheltered minutes. He’s simply getting too much ice time right now. I know there is a lot of politics around this player but Is Subban really a worse option? Perhaps he’s worth a look.

 

[Cupless44]

I think Pokka and one other were guys this board was intrigued by that hit waivers that I would consider similar to Pouliot. It just doesn’t make sense to for a team in our situation to waste picks when players like them can be had for free.

A factor in going after Pouliot over any other defenceman on waivers like Pokka is that thevCanucks had a particular interest in this player. Aside from his skill set the coach of the Canucks coached the defence as as assistant in Portland so knew Poiliot well. Green also consulted with his coaching mentor from Portland, Mike Johnston, who had Pouliot in Portland and for 2 years in Pittsburgh. Johnston still really believed in Pouliot and told the Canucks he was never really given a full chance in Pittsburgh. Johnston went as far as to say that he wanted to play Pouliot in Pittsburgh but was told by upper management he had to leave in in the AHL for seasoning.

So I do not think you can just compare Pouliot to other players on waivers in regards to the Canucks interest level and the priority they placed on getting Pouliot.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Clearly this guy needs to play no more than 12 minutes a night in very sheltered minutes. He’s simply getting too much ice time right now. I know there is a lot of politics around this player but Is Subban really a worse option? Perhaps he’s worth a look.

No way. If they believed even the tiniest bit in Subban, he'd have gotten at least a look by now.

 

[VanJack]

Granted it's always irritating when Jimbo throws a draft-pick on to the pile in most of his deals, including a fourth rounder and Pedan for Pouliot...but I'm less hung up about it this year.....Benning has lots of assets this year he can convert into picks at the trade deadline.

 

[racerjoe]

A factor in going after Pouliot over any other defenceman on waivers like Pokka is that thevCanucks had a particular interest in this player. Aside from his skill set the coach of the Canucks coached the defence as as assistant in Portland so knew Poiliot well. Green also consulted with his coaching mentor from Portland, Mike Johnston, who had Pouliot in Portland and for 2 years in Pittsburgh. Johnston still really believed in Pouliot and told the Canucks he was never really given a full chance in Pittsburgh. Johnston went as far as to say that he wanted to play Pouliot in Pittsburgh but was told by upper management he had to leave in in the AHL for seasoning.

So I do not think you can just compare Pouliot to other players on waivers in regards to the Canucks interest level and the priority they placed on getting Pouliot.

Sure it's a factor, but that doesn't make it right. The decision to add assets to get him is still wrong. he looks to be better than most thought, but still the type of guy you can get for FREE. That is the main thing. you can get this TYPE of guy for free.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Granted it's always irritating when Jimbo throws a draft-pick on to the pile in most of his deals, including a fourth rounder and Pedan for Pouliot...but I'm less hung up about it this year.....Benning has lots of assets this year he can convert into picks at the trade deadline.

How many years does Benning have to not do that before people will stop thinking he will?

 

[MS]

Granted it's always irritating when Jimbo throws a draft-pick on to the pile in most of his deals, including a fourth rounder and Pedan for Pouliot...but I'm less hung up about it this year.....Benning has lots of assets this year he can convert into picks at the trade deadline.

Who are these 'lots of assets'?

 

[Melvin]

How many years does Benning have to not do that before people will stop thinking he will?

Three trade deadlines and we have acquired ... one(?) draft pick?

 

[Jessep]

How many years does Benning have to not do that before people will stop thinking he will?

There's been only one year he hasn't tried to move assets at the trade deadline. That year we were in playoff position,

 

[Cupless44]

Sure it's a factor, but that doesn't make it right. The decision to add assets to get him is still wrong. he looks to be better than most thought, but still the type of guy you can get for FREE. That is the main thing. you can get this TYPE of guy for free.

While I agree Benning has made a few too many of these types of transactions, I still think every transaction has to be judged individually, on its own merit.

It's early, but this transaction is looking quite positive for Benning and Vancouver. Are you telling me if Pouliot is a late bloomer, continues to grow in confidence, continues to improve, even to the point where at 25 and beyond he is a solid, puck moving top 4 defenceman, you will be complaining 3 years from now that we gave up a career minor leaguer and a 4th round draft pick?