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

[Jessep]

So in other words, management was going down a path they shouldn't have been, and you're going to excuse them for that.

Shouldn't a team that's trying to get younger keep their draft picks rather than trading them away? That's quite coherent.

I don't think they were going down the wrong path at all. Trading a picks for a 23 yr old is getting younger. It eliminated the 3 to 5 year wait later picks need to get NHL ready. If they ever do. Just like using the pick you'll win some, you'll lose some. But for a rebuilding team with no prospect pool to draw from trading for some young players isn't a bad option to get the rebuild started.

So no, a rebuilding team shouldn't be looking only at draft picks. You need to look at all options, what's needed, what's available, and weigh the odds of success.

 

[Jessep]

He's entering his Draft +6 season. At what point is he no longer a prospect? And he'll be 24 in 2 months...

So if we draft a player in the 4th round and it takes him five years of development to get NHL ready he's not a prospect in your book?

 

[Melvin]

So if we draft a player in the 4th round and it takes him five years of development to get NHL ready he's not a prospect in your book?

Almost certainly not.

 

[racerjoe]

I don't think they were going down the wrong path at all. Trading a picks for a 23 yr old is getting younger. It eliminated the 3 to 5 year wait later picks need to get NHL ready. If they ever do. Just like using the pick you'll win some, you'll lose some. But for a rebuilding team with no prospect pool to draw from trading for some young players isn't a bad option to get the rebuild started.

So no, a rebuilding team shouldn't be looking only at draft picks. You need to look at all options, what's needed, what's available, and weigh the odds of success.

Just so much wrong here... good prospects will take a lot less time. The easy way to look at it is again for the like 20th time, is this was an asset type we should have been able to get for free. We just paid money for tap water. sure it's clean water and we can drink it, but I could go to the sink and get it for free. You know what that water is never going to be? A nice craft beer, or a glass of wine.

So if we draft a player in the 4th round and it takes him five years of development to get NHL ready he's not a prospect in your book?

It's not that simple... but for a player that has been in the minors as long as him, would not be a prospect anymore but a professional hockey player.

 

[MS]

You earn the benefit of the doubt on these things. If Benning had a track record of quality trade negotiations and quality pro scouting ... maybe you trust him when he trades a 4th rounder for a guy seemingly about to be on waivers.

But the problem here is the pattern. Just constantly throwing picks away when it seems unnecessary, and where this move fits into that pattern is where people get upset. A 4th rounder for Larsen. Picks thrown into the Gudbranson deal. Picks thrown into the Sutter deal. Pick thrown into the Kassian-Prust deal. And others. All deals where we seem to have leverage but somehow we're the team throwing picks away to get the deal done, when the value is going against us already even without those picks.

In a little over 3 years on the job, Benning has basically given an entire draft worth of picks away in this fashion. And that's really, really bad.

 

[drax0s]

You earn the benefit of the doubt on these things. If Benning had a track record of quality trade negotiations and quality pro scouting ... maybe you trust him when he trades a 4th rounder for a guy seemingly about to be on waivers.

I don't actually know the answer here, but I see Brett Henning was apparently promoted to Director of Pro Scouting during that scouting shake-up in July 2017, but I can't find who was our Director of Pro Scouting when we made the Prust, Clendenning Gudbranson, Sutter, etc deals? Was that Weisbrod or Eric Crawford?

 

[Jessep]

Just so much wrong here... good prospects will take a lot less time. The easy way to look at it is again for the like 20th time, is this was an asset type we should have been able to get for free. We just paid money for tap water. sure it's clean water and we can drink it, but I could go to the sink and get it for free. You know what that water is never going to be? A nice craft beer, or a glass of wine.



It's not that simple... but for a player that has been in the minors as long as him, would not be a prospect anymore but a professional hockey player.

Again an assumption there was no other team interested in trading for him, or that Colorado wouldn't have taken him. It's entirely possible other teams were interested in Pouliot but didn't want to offer more than Benning did. But Pittsburgh would still have taken the best offer rather than losing him for nothing. There is absolutely no guarantee we would have got Pouliot for free.

So Suban is no longer a prospect, he's now a 3rd year pro. Yet many still ranked him among our top ten prospects this past summer. Until a player had played, and succeeded or failed in the NHL, he's still an NHL prospect in my book.

 

[BDG123]

He moves the puck and skates well. But too soon to really tell what we have with him. I like him right now on the powerplay though!

 

[Bleach Clean]

If anyone has an issue or grievance with this site or its moderation, go through the proper channels. Do not air them out in open forum. That is considered an out of bounds activity and may be subject to Warning/Infraction. Thank you.

 

[tyhee]

If anyone has an issue or grievance with this site or its moderation, go through the proper channels. Do not air them out in open forum. That is considered an out of bounds activity and may be subject to Warning/Infraction. Thank you.

This post caused me to look for what the rules are for what is an issue or grievance (and the rules of the forum generally) including what constitute issues and grievances which aren't fair game in the forums as well as what the proper channels are. I didn't see it on the main forums page. Could you let me know where to find it?

Thanks.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

You earn the benefit of the doubt on these things. If Benning had a track record of quality trade negotiations and quality pro scouting ... maybe you trust him when he trades a 4th rounder for a guy seemingly about to be on waivers.

But the problem here is the pattern. Just constantly throwing picks away when it seems unnecessary, and where this move fits into that pattern is where people get upset. A 4th rounder for Larsen. Picks thrown into the Gudbranson deal. Picks thrown into the Sutter deal. Pick thrown into the Kassian-Prust deal. And others. All deals where we seem to have leverage but somehow we're the team throwing picks away to get the deal done, when the value is going against us already even without those picks.

In a little over 3 years on the job, Benning has basically given an entire draft worth of picks away in this fashion. And that's really, really bad.

Yes he has given away a lot of picks which is bad for the players he got. However the picks he has been making our hitting which is really, really good. You forget the Sven for a 2nd which this trade most closely resembles. He was not Rutherford's pick and infact Rutherford basically traded him. Just like Sven was not Burke's pick. Both these players have faults in their games which explain slow pro development but their talent is undeniable. Great risk. I think you overvalue picks after the high second round.

 

[racerjoe]

Benning believed McCann would become a top 6 center, he believed the value of Gudbranson was a young top 6 center, perfect for the rebuild, and a high 2nd round pick.

That's just horrendous pro-scouting.

It's so terrible. What I will say is it shows what a dinosaur League this is where even now he seems to have some value around the league.

Again an assumption there was no other team interested in trading for him, or that Colorado wouldn't have taken him. It's entirely possible other teams were interested in Pouliot but didn't want to offer more than Benning did. But Pittsburgh would still have taken the best offer rather than losing him for nothing. There is absolutely no guarantee we would have got Pouliot for free.

So Suban is no longer a prospect, he's now a 3rd year pro. Yet many still ranked him among our top ten prospects this past summer. Until a player had played, and succeeded or failed in the NHL, he's still an NHL prospect in my book.

You missed the entire point of what I just said... Who cares if a team did any of that. The point is you shouldn't PAY for an Asset you can get for free. Did you miss my tap water analogy?

Re: Suban, slightly different as he was not a first round pick, but yes pretty much. He is at the very end of what anyone should consider a prospect.

Yes he has given away a lot of picks which is bad for the players he got. However the picks he has been making our hitting which is really, really good. You forget the Sven for a 2nd which this trade most closely resembles. He was not Rutherford's pick and infact Rutherford basically traded him. Just like Sven was not Burke's pick. Both these players have faults in their games which explain slow pro development but their talent is undeniable. Great risk. I think you overvalue picks after the high second round.

Why the Beartschi trade and not Vey? Or Clendening? Or the example I actually think fits best the Pedan trade? Burke not picking Beartschi seems like such a small portion of the trade.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

It's so terrible. What I will say is it shows what a dinosaur League this is where even now he seems to have some value around the league.
Pedan trade is good example Forsling is not. He was not a pick but a player. If we would have traded a 5th it would have been okay risk. Forsling already shined at wj's. Probably was worth a 2nd rounder when traded. If your point is all these trades for Vey Pedan Sven Pouliot were not worth the two seconds a third and a forth that is fair. I do not agree but it is fair. Saying we could have gotten these players for nothing is just wrong. They still had potential. Pedan and Vey were good risks. I do not think we need to do it anymore as we have our own prospects now. Give them a chance, but we had almost nothing when Benning started down this path. He did not want to wait 4 years for these picks to play, when he thought these four players were close to ready. It was a fair gamble. If Pouliot works out it is okay. Other picks in trades were wasted hopefully he is more hestitate in the future.


You missed the entire point of what I just said... Who cares if a team did any of that. The point is you shouldn't PAY for an Asset you can get for free. Did you miss my tap water analogy?

Re: Suban, slightly different as he was not a first round pick, but yes pretty much. He is at the very end of what anyone should consider a prospect.



Why the Beartschi trade and not Vey? Or Clendening? Or the example I actually think fits best the Pedan trade? Burke not picking Beartschi seems like such a small portion of the trade.

 

[racerjoe]

Pedan trade is good example Forsling is not. He was not a pick but a player. If we would have traded a 5th it would have been okay risk. Forsling already shined at wj's. Probably was worth a 2nd rounder when traded. If your point is all these trades for Vey Pedan Sven Pouliot were not worth the two seconds a third and a forth that is fair. I do not agree but it is fair. Saying we could have gotten these players for nothing is just wrong. They still had potential. Pedan and Vey were good risks. I do not think we need to do it anymore as we have our own prospects now. Give them a chance, but we had almost nothing when Benning started down this path. He did not want to wait 4 years for these picks to play, when he thought these four players were close to ready. It was a fair gamble. If Pouliot works out it is okay. Other picks in trades were wasted hopefully he is more hestitate in the future.

I was more or less just curious as to why you picked the Beartschi trade. As for the rest, like I said to Jessep, I am for the most part against paying assets for players types you can get for free. It is rare for me to want to give up assets for this type of player especially at this point when we should be holding onto picks.

 

[Jack Burton]

The press box just called and want Pouliot back. Gudbranson better heal up fast.

Signed... TEAM TANK

 

[Bleach Clean]

This post caused me to look for what the rules are for what is an issue or grievance (and the rules of the forum generally) including what constitute issues and grievances which aren't fair game in the forums as well as what the proper channels are. I didn't see it on the main forums page. Could you let me know where to find it?

Thanks.

Best place to start is to look at the bottom right of your screen for the "Forum Rules". Rule #10 in particular. If you have further questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[Jessep]

You missed the entire point of what I just said... Who cares if a team did any of that. The point is you shouldn't PAY for an Asset you can get for free. Did you miss my tap water analogy?

Re: Suban, slightly different as he was not a first round pick, but yes pretty much. He is at the very end of what anyone should consider a prospect.

You seem to be the one missing the point. You can turn on the tap, but what if nothing is there? As in somebody else took the water? Can you absolutely guarantee we would have got Pouliot for free? Maybe's mean nothing. Benning guaranteed getting him at a rather cheap cost. And I have to say, so far he was well worth it guaranteeing it.

 

[racerjoe]

You seem to be the one missing the point. You can turn on the tap, but what if nothing is there? As in somebody else took the water? Can you absolutely guarantee we would have got Pouliot for free? Maybe's mean nothing. Benning guaranteed getting him at a rather cheap cost. And I have to say, so far he was well worth it guaranteeing it.

THEN YOU GET A DIFFERENT GUY! I AM NOT SAYING HE WOULD HAVE FOR SURE BEEN THERE IN WAIVERS JUST THAT THERE WAS A TON OF GUYS WITH SIMILAR SKILL SETS ALL AVAILABLE FOR FREE!

Also read that slowly...

Again there is lots of 5-6 dmen available at any time. I think one of the posts you quoted I may have even said a few of them. I think there was three guys in particular that all seemed to be good option if you are getting them for free.

 

[Cupless44]

THEN YOU GET A DIFFERENT GUY! I AM NOT SAYING HE WOULD HAVE FOR SURE BEEN THERE IN WAIVERS JUST THAT THERE WAS A TON OF GUYS WITH SIMILAR SKILL SETS ALL AVAILABLE FOR FREE!

Also read that slowly...

Again there is lots of 5-6 dmen available at any time. I think one of the posts you quoted I may have even said a few of them. I think there was three guys in particular that all seemed to be good option if you are getting them for free.

Pouliot has some things to clean up in his defensive game but he has been steadily improving and has some skill. I think he has a legitimate chance to become a top 4 defenseman. If he does, then we really should not be hearing complaining about the cost of a 4th round pick. I do not think there were a ton of guys on waivers with top 4 potential.

 

[racerjoe]

Pouliot has some things to clean up in his defensive game but he has been steadily improving and has some skill. I think he has a legitimate chance to become a top 4 defenseman. If he does, then we really should not be hearing complaining about the cost of a 4th round pick. I do not think there were a ton of guys on waivers with top 4 potential.

If he becomes a legit top 4 sure it was a good move, I just haven't seen that just yet. I agree he has improved, but I don't see a guy I think should be a real top four guy. I think as I stated there was number of guys we could have claimed of waivers that could be doing just as good a job. That is not to say he hasn't been playing well, just that we could have gotten the same and still had a fourth... and if it matters extra depth with Pedan.

 

[alternate]

Extra depth with Pedan...more like an extra contract slot taken up. That's the thing with waivers that doesn't get considered enough, they cost you a contract slot. Giving up the fourth guarantees you get the guy you covet (rather than just A guy) and you get some additional benefit of moving out a contract to maintain some roster flexibility.

Pouliot has been up and down a bit since we've acquired him, but the overall trend is going in the right direction. Considering how important offence and puck moving from the backend is, I'm fine with Benning moving as many mid round picks as he has to to address our lack there of.

 

[Hit the post]

This post caused me to look for what the rules are for what is an issue or grievance (and the rules of the forum generally) including what constitute issues and grievances which aren't fair game in the forums as well as what the proper channels are. I didn't see it on the main forums page. Could you let me know where to find it?

Thanks.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/help/terms

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Extra depth with Pedan...more like an extra contract slot taken up. That's the thing with waivers that doesn't get considered enough, they cost you a contract slot. Giving up the fourth guarantees you get the guy you covet (rather than just A guy) and you get some additional benefit of moving out a contract to maintain some roster flexibility.

Pouliot has been up and down a bit since we've acquired him, but the overall trend is going in the right direction. Considering how important offence and puck moving from the backend is, I'm fine with Benning moving as many mid round picks as he has to to address our lack there of.

Yeah, god forbid he actually use those picks to draft his own players or anything...

 

[ChilliBilly]

my 10 cents ... while i have objected to bleeding picks on trades, this trade was clearly Poohy for a draft pick, a non-important player thrown in to reduce contract slots.

So far he has been a pleasant surprise vs the cost. He has held his own (for the acquisition cost and the salary that is) when we have had a ton of of injuries. I just don't understand where many think we could have had an equivalent player through waivers. I hate to say this, but I think DimJim used good judgment on this one.

 

[sting101]

my 10 cents ... while i have objected to bleeding picks on trades, this trade was clearly Poohy for a draft pick, a non-important player thrown in to reduce contract slots.

So far he has been a pleasant surprise vs the cost. He has held his own (for the acquisition cost and the salary that is) when we have had a ton of of injuries. I just don't understand where many think we could have had an equivalent player through waivers. I hate to say this, but I think DimJim used good judgment on this one.

i agree.

When you can acquire a player with this level of skill for a 4th that's a good gamble and it seems to be paying off.

Kinda funny looking back at the comments about how bad DP was at hockey. Never underestimate a change of scenery.