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

[ProstheticConscience]

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

So what? He has still traded players for picks at the deadline a grand total of zero times.

 

[Jessep]

So what? He has still traded players for picks at the deadline a grand total of zero times.

So the 4th (that could have become a 1st) we got for Hansen doesn't count?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

So the 4th (that could have become a 1st) we got for Hansen doesn't count?

Well, considering the guy I quoted said we had assets that could be flipped at the deadline for picks, and not assets that could be flipped at the deadline for a prospect and throw-in mid-round pick, not in the context I was talking about, no.

Which still has nothing to do with Pouliot.

 

[racerjoe]

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?

Unless he becomes a legit top 4 guy we overpaid... and even then we probably still did. It's not that I don't think he has a chance to be a decent NHL player. Just that we shouldn't be paying for this type of asset. Maybe as a one off I would agree.

So the 4th (that could have become a 1st) we got for Hansen doesn't count?

Well considering that trade according to Benning wasn't done as a "trade deadline move" but as a "ED" I would say that is one less pick.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Unless he becomes a legit top 4 guy we overpaid... and even then we probably still did. It's not that I don't think he has a chance to be a decent NHL player. Just that we shouldn't be paying for this type of asset. Maybe as a one off I would agree.



Well considering that trade according to Benning wasn't done as a "trade deadline move" but as a "ED" I would say that is one less pick.

Nonsense...How do you come up with this ridiculous rate of exchange...If Pouliot becomes a top 4 this trade would be considered an absolute fleecing by Benning..considering what he gave up.

 

[Josepho]

If he actually becomes a Top 4 Defenceman, I'll have no problem admitting that this is a great trade.

But, "Top 4 Defenceman" is mildly subjective, and I feel like people are going to be jumping to conclusions early and exaggerating this guy's capabilities as a hockey player in an attempt to justify the trade -- eerily similar to what's gone on with Granlund the past two years.

 

[MS]

If he actually becomes a Top 4 Defenceman, I'll have no problem admitting that this is a great trade.

But, "Top 4 Defenceman" is mildly subjective, and I feel like people are going to be jumping to conclusions early and exaggerating this guy's capabilities as a hockey player in an attempt to justify the trade -- eerily similar to what's gone on with Granlund the past two years.

Now that Granlund has turned into a pumpkin, Pouliot seems to be the new cause célèbre for Benning-boosters to bleat loudly about while completely avoiding any discussion about Gudbranson and Eriksson and the litany of other Benning mistakes.

 

[Cupless44]

Now that Granlund has turned into a pumpkin, Pouliot seems to be the new cause célèbre for Benning-boosters to bleat loudly about while completely avoiding any discussion about Gudbranson and Eriksson and the litany of other Benning mistakes.

Personally I try to look at each move individually and judge it that way. All GMs deserve that even Benning.

I don't mind this move and the reasoning behind it. I think Pouliot is still improving as a player and there was still enough upside left to justify a 4th round draft pick. Now if you look at a move like Clendening that was just poorly devised from the get go.

 

[Melvin]

Personally I try to look at each move individually and judge it that way. All GMs deserve that even Benning.

That is the exact opposite way that a GM should be evaluated.

We do not know enough about the particulars of any transaction to judge it in a vacuum. What is important is the bigger picture, how the GM communicates his vision and then executes towards that vision. I could care less if he gets poor value on a trade here or there; I try to assess the broader trends.

 

[racerjoe]

Nonsense...How do you come up with this ridiculous rate of exchange...If Pouliot becomes a top 4 this trade would be considered an absolute fleecing by Benning..considering what he gave up.

Well if you followed along you would see the 3-4 for dmen who were available at the same time who carried the same value who could do the same job...

It is like paying money for tap water. You can get tap water for free pretty much everywhere.

 

[VanJack]

Not much doubt that the last two outings were Pouliot's worst.....but they coincide with the train-wreck games of his d=partner, Alex Edler, who's earning $5m a season while Pouliot is earning $800,000.......so if there are brickbats to be handed out, Edler deserves five times as many based on salary alone.

 

[Cupless44]

You misunderstood.

Of course all GMs should be judged on their overall body of work if you are evaluating their job performance.

That does not mean each trade or transaction cannot be judged as a single move. Even the best GMs win some...lose some.

It also doesn't mean that Benning can't get the best of a trade even if his overall body of work isn't the best. My point was I try to look at each move objectively

 

[Melvin]

You misunderstood.

Of course all GMs should be judged on their overall body of work if you are evaluating their job performance.

That does not mean each trade or transaction cannot be judged as a single move. Even the best GMs win some...lose some.

It also doesn't mean that Benning can't get the best of a trade even if his overall body of work isn't the best. My point was I try to look at each move objectively

You misunderstood as well.

Even when assessing an individual transaction, it should be evaluated within the context of how it relates to the GM's goal and vision. In a vacuum, saying a trade was "good" or "bad" is not only meaningless, but impossible to assess objectively without the details we all lack. I do not think we will ever have enough information about a particular transaction to "objectively" asses whether it was good or bad. All we can do is derive the intent of the GM, and talk about how the transaction fits into what we are doing.

If I trade a 1st round pick for a half of a season of an elite player is it a good move? It depends, right? It depends on where the team is at and depends on your goals. You could not just evaluate it as pure value-for-value.

The 4th round pick for Pouliot shows a continuation of a certain strategy for Benning, and it is that strategy of which people are critical. I think that is completely fair.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

Now that Granlund has turned into a pumpkin, Pouliot seems to be the new cause célèbre for Benning-boosters to bleat loudly about while completely avoiding any discussion about Gudbranson and Eriksson and the litany of other Benning mistakes.

Ah, so he's not the player he was all last year. He's definitely the player that has struggled for the better part of 20 games. Gotcha.

 

[Melvin]

Ah, so he's not the player he was all last year. He's definitely the player that has struggled for the better part of 20 games. Gotcha.

Is Pouliot the same player he was all last year?

 

[Paulinvancouver]

I heard he pulled a couple stinkers in the last two games.

Hope he can turn it around. Road trips can help with that. Road games against your former team can definitely help with that.

 

[Jessep]

Well, considering the guy I quoted said we had assets that could be flipped at the deadline for picks, and not assets that could be flipped at the deadline for a prospect and throw-in mid-round pick, not in the context I was talking about, no.

Which still has nothing to do with Pouliot.

Wait now, is a 4th a throw in pick or a valuable asset? Because the complaint on the Pouliot deal is we gave up a valuable asset giving them a 4th. Yet us getting a 4th in the Hansen deal is just a throw in. You guys need to make up your mind on the value of a 4th rounder.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Wait now, is a 4th a throw in pick or a valuable asset? Because the complaint on the Pouliot deal is we gave up a valuable asset giving them a 4th. Yet us getting a 4th in the Hansen deal is just a throw in. You guys need to make up your mind on the value of a 4th rounder.

What the f*** are you talking about? The complaint was that we gave up Pedan and a 4th instead of the nothing that we could have given up when Pouliot hit waivers.

 

[MS]

Ah, so he's not the player he was all last year. He's definitely the player that has struggled for the better part of 20 games. Gotcha.

He's exactly the same player this year as last year. Just his shooting % has normalized and the arrival of players who can produce more competently in offensive minutes has reduced his opportunities ... just as everyone here tried to explain to you last year.

This belongs in the Granlund thread, however.

 

[Jessep]

What the **** are you talking about? The complaint was that we gave up Pedan and a 4th instead of the nothing that we could have given up when Pouliot hit waivers.

1 - assuming he hit waivers (no other offers for him)
2 - assuming Colorado didn't claim him

You didn't answer my question though: Is a fourth a throw in or is it a valuable asset? Judging by your previous statement it's just a throw in. Meaning we got Pouliot for a player nobody wanted for free and a throw in draft pick. Seems a cheap price to me.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

1 - assuming he hit waivers (no other offers for him)
2 - assuming Colorado didn't claim him

You didn't answer my question though: Is a fourth a throw in or is it a valuable asset? Judging by your previous statement it's just a throw in. Meaning we got Pouliot for a player nobody wanted for free and a throw in draft pick. Seems a cheap price to me.

In the context of the Hansen deal, it was a throw-in because the main piece coming to us was Goldobin, not the pick.

And sure, Pouliot was cheap. Why wouldn't he be? He was about to hit waivers as he couldn't carve out a spot in Pittsburgh, and the last couple of games we're seeing why. You are aware that his penchant for terrible giveaways are why Pens fans weren't sad to see him go, right? It's just too bad this player nobody wanted who went the other way is someone Benning wasted a higher draft pick on before all this, though. Yet another instance of his masterful way of turning something into nothing.

 

[Jessep]

In the context of the Hansen deal, it was a throw-in because the main piece coming to us was Goldobin, not the pick.

And sure, Pouliot was cheap. Why wouldn't he be? He was about to hit waivers as he couldn't carve out a spot in Pittsburgh, and the last couple of games we're seeing why. You are aware that his penchant for terrible giveaways are why Pens fans weren't sad to see him go, right? It's just too bad this player nobody wanted who went the other way is someone Benning wasted a higher draft pick on before all this, though. Yet another instance of his masterful way of turning something into nothing.

So now you're saying only the primary piece has value in a trade and anything else is just a throw-in?

 

[ChilliBilly]

well this is just the epitome of sad debates on this site.

I say this

no, I say this.

you didn't understand my point

no you didn't understand my point

no you didn't understand my point.

to infinity and beyond

I know this is a tad harsh, because this little debate pales in comparison to a few of the Y2K battles (sorry chris, i apologize for adding you to this debate but I am sure you understand) but my god some of these get tiresome. then again, thats why we are here at 4 am.

 

[elitepete]

Now that Granlund has turned into a pumpkin

I don't know why, but I laughed my f***ing ass off at this

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

It wasn't the first time he has traded a pick for a fourth year pro during this rebuild and it won't be the last. He is obviously going to continue on with this approach until someone stops him.

I don't think you can judge each of these pick trades in isolation anymore. you have to recognize the patter of destructive behavior for what it is.