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

[I in the Eye]

Was Schneider for the 9th pick a good trade at the time, despite Horvat today? Even today, should Gillis have gotten a little more... was Schneider at the time worth more than just a 9th overall pick? Many still say yes, despite Horvat being Horvat... at the time, the argument goes, scheinder was worth more, and Gillis should have gotten more for this prime asset.

This is the same thing... except flipped upside down. Puiliot has been ok... he can end up a top 4 dman, and that doesn't change that at the time, Benning should have paid less. He was #2 in waiver priority... one team to leap frog. Another team willing to beat the price of a 4th? Call the bluff... puiliot is probably at best a weber or a Larson, it could reasonably be argued in negotiation. Puiliot for a 4th wasn't a good gamble. If he ends up a top 4 dman, it still wasn't a good gamble... the price at the time was still too high and Benning would have gotten lucky on a bad gamble. The player Benning should have targeted is forsling, who has a fighting chance to become a first pairing dman... not puiliot who has a fighting chance to become a 4th to 6th sheltered dman.

If a 4th can get a puiliot, a clendening should not be able to get a forsling.. Where Benning got unlucky on a bad gamble. And where was forsling drafted?

I'd rather gamble on the 4th... puiliot is worth more a clendening than a 4th. Or a Pedan.

 

[sting101]

Was Schneider for the 9th pick a good trade at the time, despite Horvat today? Even today, should Gillis have gotten a little more... was Schneider at the time worth more than just a 9th overall pick? Many still say yes, despite Horvat being Horvat... at the time, the argument goes, scheinder was worth more, and Gillis should have gotten more for this prime asset.

This is the same thing... except flipped upside down. Puiliot has been ok... he can end up a top 4 dman, and that doesn't change that at the time, Benning should have paid less. He was #2 in waiver priority... one team to leap frog. Another team willing to beat the price of a 4th? Call the bluff... puiliot is probably at best a weber or a Larson. Puiliot for a 4th wasn't a good gamble. If he ends up a top 4 dman, it still wasn't a good gamble... the price at the time was still too high and Benning would have gotten lucky. The player Benning should have targeted is forsling, who has a fighting chance to become a first pairing dman... not puiliot who has a fighting chance to become a 4th to 6th sheltered dman.

If a 4th can get a puiliot, a clendening should not be able to get a forsling. And where was forsling drafted?

I'd rather gamble on the 4th... puiliot is worth more a clendening than a 4th. Or a Pedan.

this is an odd post.

If you don't pay the 4th he goes elsewhere.

I find it hard to believe that Colorado starved for defense would have let this player go by.

What does Clendening and Forsling have to do with any of this 3 yrs later?

 

[I in the Eye]

this is an odd post.

If you don't pay the 4th he goes elsewhere.

I find it hard to believe that Colorado starved for defense would have let this player go by.

What does Clendening and Forsling have to do with any of this 3 yrs later?

If you don't pay the 4th, he might not be in the bag... and so what if he does go elsewhere. The pet project could be griffen reinhart (or other), for free. How special or unique or important of a player is puiliot?

Paying prospects and picks for reclamation projects are typically bad gambles. It's a strategy that needs to go... it already cost a forsling, who is considered in Chicago by some to be their #2 dman. Benning would have been better off if he wasn't going after and paying assets for the likes of the clendenings, or larsons, or puiliots.

 

[sting101]

If you don't pay the 4th, he might not be in the bag... and so what if he does go elsewhere. The pet project could be griffen reinhart (or other), for free. How special or unique or important of a player is puiliot?

Paying prospects and picks for reclamation projects are typically bad gambles. It's a strategy that needs to go... it already cost a forsling, who is considered in Chicago by some to be their #2 dman. Benning would have been better off if he wasn't going after and paying assets for the likes of the clendenings, or larsons, or puiliots.

But that's the point.

You pay for who you want. The price was a 4th and we got a player 2 years older than Forsling who has 7pts in 20 games while regaining confidence that was clearly shattered.

You don't just throw a wall up and say yeah we philosophically won't trade picks for prospects. You make sharp evaluations that are good for your organization no matter the avenue and have the nuts to go out and get them.

There is a long list of offensive defenseman that took until their mid 20's or even late 20's to become forces. I liked this gamble said as much when we traded for him and i'm pleasantly surprised how quickly his confidence and game seem to be elevating.

 

[I in the Eye]

But that's the point.

You pay for who you want. The price was a 4th and we got a player 2 years older than Forsling who has 7pts in 20 games while regaining confidence that was clearly shattered.

You don't just throw a wall up and say yeah we philosophically won't trade picks for prospects. You make sharp evaluations that are good for your organization no matter the avenue and have the nuts to go out and get them.

There is a long list of offensive defenseman that took until their mid 20's or even late 20's to become forces. I liked this gamble said as much when we traded for him and i'm pleasantly surprised how quickly his confidence and game seem to be elevating.

As a general rule, you keep your own picks and prospects, until they are waiver eligible... and if you decide at that point can't make the team, try to get something for him.

Given where the team is at, nothing is more important than drafting and player development. There aren't any short cuts. Respect your drafting and player development system... respect the process.

If going against this general rule, it should be for an extraordinary circumstance... and puiliot isn't it. Benning literally paid for a loser... someone who couldn't win a spot. For sure, give losers second chances... ok, pay a non-first half of the draft pick if you believe in the loser. By all means, grab a has been or a never was off waivers, or pay a late round pick. A 4th is nothing special? Well, a puiliot is nothing special either. He was... but Al Bundy was captain of his high school football team. At stretches, weber and Larsen looked pretty good here. I think clendening never looked good? I'm glad puiliot is looking better than looking bad in his role. Given I want the Canucks to win on the backs of their youth, I hope he becomes a young Doughty.

 

[F A N]

Was Schneider for the 9th pick a good trade at the time, despite Horvat today? Even today, should Gillis have gotten a little more... was Schneider at the time worth more than just a 9th overall pick? Many still say yes, despite Horvat being Horvat... at the time, the argument goes, scheinder was worth more, and Gillis should have gotten more for this prime asset.

This is the same thing... except flipped upside down. Puiliot has been ok... he can end up a top 4 dman, and that doesn't change that at the time, Benning should have paid less. He was #2 in waiver priority... one team to leap frog. Another team willing to beat the price of a 4th? Call the bluff... puiliot is probably at best a weber or a Larson, it could reasonably be argued in negotiation. Puiliot for a 4th wasn't a good gamble. If he ends up a top 4 dman, it still wasn't a good gamble... the price at the time was still too high and Benning would have gotten lucky on a bad gamble. The player Benning should have targeted is forsling, who has a fighting chance to become a first pairing dman... not puiliot who has a fighting chance to become a 4th to 6th sheltered dman.

If a 4th can get a puiliot, a clendening should not be able to get a forsling.. Where Benning got unlucky on a bad gamble. And where was forsling drafted?

I'd rather gamble on the 4th... puiliot is worth more a clendening than a 4th. Or a Pedan.

For me, it was all about how the trade turns out. I've asked this many times, when did hockey trades get evaluated based on fans' perceived value at the time of the trade without regard to how the trade turned out? Brian Burke apparently had opportunities to acquire Vokoun and Kiprusoff. I specifically remember reports that San Jose wanted a 2nd for Kipper at the 2003 draft but Burke was only willing to offer a 3rd. Good job Brian Burke because he obviously didn't overpay and pay a price that nobody was willing to pay at the time of the trade? Is that how to evaluate deals? Seems stupid to me.

If you use the logic of those posters who to this day dislike the Granlund and Pouliot trades or even the Baertschi trade, then the Schneider trade was an absolutely terrible one. The Schneider trade was made before the Canucks even knew Horvat would be available to be selected. They also reportedly turned down the Oilers' offer which gave them the #6th overall pick (which almost certainly guaranteed them Horvat) and a high 2nd and perhaps more.

 

[Bleach Clean]

But that's the point.

You pay for who you want. The price was a 4th and we got a player 2 years older than Forsling who has 7pts in 20 games while regaining confidence that was clearly shattered.

You don't just throw a wall up and say yeah we philosophically won't trade picks for prospects. You make sharp evaluations that are good for your organization no matter the avenue and have the nuts to go out and get them.

There is a long list of offensive defenseman that took until their mid 20's or even late 20's to become forces. I liked this gamble said as much when we traded for him and i'm pleasantly surprised how quickly his confidence and game seem to be elevating.

"You pay for what you want" is double-edged. It can be used to justify foolish trades just as it could justify good trades. Benning paid for what he wanted in Vey, Pedan, Larsen, Clendenning, Etem etc... Were these "sharp evaluations"? That idiom should never be used to justify moves, IMO. There has to be some conservatism, some rationale, in what you pay for. Otherwise, you're just throwing assets away hoping to get lucky.

To this day, there are still posters who don't understand that a trade should be judged as it happens _AND_ by its result. It's not one or the other, it's both. Why? Because a great trade can have poor results. A poor trade can produce great results. The process or method has a lot to do with how trades are perceived. If you believe that more good actions can yield more good results, by frequency, then method should matter. The trade values at the time of trade should matter. If you think that random action by the GM can yield the same frequency of good results, then I'd love to hear your theory as to why you think this?

Anyway, a rebuilding team seldom trades picks. That's not a "wall", it's just retaining the most vital assets to a rebuild. Sure, there are cases where those same assets could be moved -- but it should be the exception, not the norm. In Benning's tenure, it's the norm.

 

[sting101]

"You pay for what you want" is double-edged. It can be used to justify foolish trades just as it could justify good trades. Benning paid for what he wanted in Vey, Pedan, Larsen, Clendenning, Etem etc... Were these "sharp evaluations"? That idiom should never be used to justify moves, IMO. There has to be some conservatism, some rationale, in what you pay for. Otherwise, you're just throwing assets away hoping to get lucky.

To this day, there are still posters who don't understand that a trade should be judged as it happens _AND_ by its result. It's not one or the other, it's both. Why? Because a great trade can have poor results. A poor trade can produce great results. The process or method has a lot to do with how trades are perceived. If you believe that more good actions can yield more good results, by frequency, then method should matter. The trade values at the time of trade should matter. If you think that random action by the GM can yield the same frequency of good results, then I'd love to hear your theory as to why you think this?

Anyway, a rebuilding team seldom trades picks. That's not a "wall", it's just retaining the most vital assets to a rebuild. Sure, there are cases where those same assets could be moved -- but it should be the exception, not the norm. In Benning's tenure, it's the norm.

Good post. Can;t say in agree with your thesis that Benning being mostly bad at these types of deals should not have made this one though.

Your first point is really just a fancy way of saying it's worth it if it works out though. I wasn't making excuses just stating the fact that if we wanted Pouliot (so he didn't go to Colorado) then we had to buck up. It's really that simple. Throwing Vey Pedan Clendening and Etem into the mix without including our 1st line LWer (Baertschi) is a peculiar deflection. It really has very little bearing on whether this deal is good or bad in isolation.

As i said i liked this gamble at the time of the trade and so far it's paying off. A 4th was a good price for someone with DP's talent and the returns are looking good. I don't care about other posters who don't get your 2nd point. Unless you're including me in this statement?

As far as the "rebuild"? I don't think that's really been on the table until the last year for Management. They had this "Delicate Dance" theory of competing and retooling. Regardless Pouliot is 23 and if he can be a regular has 8-10 serviceable years left which fits either scenario.

 

[sting101]

As a general rule, you keep your own picks and prospects, until they are waiver eligible... and if you decide at that point can't make the team, try to get something for him.

Given where the team is at, nothing is more important than drafting and player development. There aren't any short cuts. Respect your drafting and player development system... respect the process.

If going against this general rule, it should be for an extraordinary circumstance... and puiliot isn't it. Benning literally paid for a loser... someone who couldn't win a spot. For sure, give losers second chances... ok, pay a non-first half of the draft pick if you believe in the loser. By all means, grab a has been or a never was off waivers, or pay a late round pick. A 4th is nothing special? Well, a puiliot is nothing special either. He was... but Al Bundy was captain of his high school football team. At stretches, weber and Larsen looked pretty good here. I think clendening never looked good? I'm glad puiliot is looking better than looking bad in his role. Given I want the Canucks to win on the backs of their youth, I hope he becomes a young Doughty.

See i completely disagree with this loser statment.

Derrick Pouliot was in an oganization competing for Stanley Cups and won the last 2 of them. He was 21/22 and 22/23 when this occurred.

He's an offensive player on a team that was full of offence. His overall game wasn't good enough by the time he became waiver eligible on the best team in hockey. It's a good gamble especially with Travis Green here.

 

[racerjoe]

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.

There was probably at least 3 equal guys on the waiver wire around the same time. On top of that our very own Suban had actually posted better stats at the AHL level the last few years. Plus we signed a guy we still have who is exactly what we got in this trade. A guy who looks really good when sheltered, puts up great possession stats in those times, but can't translate that when given a bigger role.

See i completely disagree with this loser statment.

Derrick Pouliot was in an oganization competing for Stanley Cups and won the last 2 of them. He was 21/22 and 22/23 when this occurred.

He's an offensive player on a team that was full of offence. His overall game wasn't good enough by the time he became waiver eligible on the best team in hockey. It's a good gamble especially with Travis Green here.

That organization though had massive issues the last two years with injuries on the back end and DP still couldn't crack the team. Their coach also coached him in Junior so who cares about Green.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

There was probably at least 3 equal guys on the waiver wire around the same time. On top of that our very own Suban had actually posted better stats at the AHL level the last few years. Plus we signed a guy we still have who is exactly what we got in this trade. A guy who looks really good when sheltered, puts up great possession stats in those times, but can't translate that when given a bigger role.



That organization though had massive issues the last two years with injuries on the back end and DP still couldn't crack the team. Their coach also coached him in Junior so who cares about Green.

Mike Johnson said in a recent article that management told him he was not allowed to bring Pouliot up. That he was not an option. Johnson went on to say Pouliot was same player as he was in junior and thought the only difference between him and Dumba Reilly was opportunity. Think article was in province. There is also Pens posters who said Pouliot was playing well when Shultz was brought in. His underlying stats show that. Maybe he did not fit into what Sullivan wants. That happens, Pouliot is starting to have a large enough sample size to judge him here and not worry about Pittsburgh. He is here arguing about transaction cost 2 months after is beyond pointless especially when the cost was so low. I like Stecher Hutton Pouliot as a good transition core. The way game is all six dman need to be able to do that.

 

[racerjoe]

Mike Johnson said in a recent article that management told him he was not allowed to bring Pouliot up. That he was not an option. Johnson went on to say Pouliot was same player as he was in junior and thought the only difference between him and Dumba Reilly was opportunity. Think article was in province. There is also Pens posters who said Pouliot was playing well when Shultz was brought in. His underlying stats show that. Maybe he did not fit into what Sullivan wants. That happens, Pouliot is starting to have a large enough sample size to judge him here and not worry about Pittsburgh. He is here arguing about transaction cost 2 months after is beyond pointless especially when the cost was so low. I like Stecher Hutton Pouliot as a good transition core. The way game is all six dman need to be able to do that.

I would be interested in reading that if you have it. Sounds like a good article.

 

[Jay Cee]

Sorry, if someone trades a 4th round pick for a top 4 Dman that is what you call a big win. The spin is out of control. Just call wins wins and losses losses when they happen. No need to spin stuff so badly. Besides, the jury is still very much out on his deal.

 

[racerjoe]

Sorry, if someone trades a 4th round pick for a top 4 Dman that is what you call a big win. The spin is out of control. Just call wins wins and losses losses when they happen. No need to spin stuff so badly. Besides, the jury is still very much out on his deal.

Yes a 4th for a top 4 guy would be a good trade.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

I would be interested in reading that if you have it. Sounds like a good article.

Ed Willis November 18th Province article. Hope i remember it right

 

[racerjoe]

Ed Willis November 18th Province article. Hope i remember it right

Thanks!

I will concede that early point.

On a totally different note, I was wrong on that being a good article... I personally just don't like they way he writes some things, not to take away from your early point.

 

[me2]

For me, it was all about how the trade turns out. I've asked this many times, when did hockey trades get evaluated based on fans' perceived value at the time of the trade without regard to how the trade turned out? Brian Burke apparently had opportunities to acquire Vokoun and Kiprusoff. I specifically remember reports that San Jose wanted a 2nd for Kipper at the 2003 draft but Burke was only willing to offer a 3rd. Good job Brian Burke because he obviously didn't overpay and pay a price that nobody was willing to pay at the time of the trade? Is that how to evaluate deals? Seems stupid to me.

If you use the logic of those posters who to this day dislike the Granlund and Pouliot trades or even the Baertschi trade, then the Schneider trade was an absolutely terrible one. The Schneider trade was made before the Canucks even knew Horvat would be available to be selected. They also reportedly turned down the Oilers' offer which gave them the #6th overall pick (which almost certainly guaranteed them Horvat) and a high 2nd and perhaps more.

Gillis did well to turn that down since Edmonton did not have the 6th overall.

 

[F A N]

Gillis did well to turn that down since Edmonton did not have the 6th overall.

You are right. I meant 7th overall. But it doesn't change my point. 7th overall would have most likely guaranteed Horvat being available.

 

[Peter10]

You are right. I meant 7th overall. But it doesn't change my point. 7th overall would have most likely guaranteed Horvat being available.

I could be wrong but didnt Gilman deny that they had a better offer than the 9th? I thought it was implied that the 7th was rather what they asked for from EDM but didnt get and that the Oilers may have been one of the teams regretting later on that they didnt make the deal?

 

[F A N]

I could be wrong but didnt Gilman deny that they had a better offer than the 9th? I thought it was implied that the 7th was rather what they asked for from EDM but didnt get and that the Oilers may have been one of the teams regretting later on that they didnt make the deal?

Not sure what's true. But they did ask more from Edmonton didn't they? The ask from Edmonton wasn't just 7th overall.

 

[Peter10]

Not sure what's true. But they did ask more from Edmonton didn't they? The ask from Edmonton wasn't just 7th overall.

That is likely but its also likely they asked for more than the 9th from the Devils and just negotiated their way to the 9th.

 

[tantalum]

A side note...while Pedan was a throw in from the canucks perspective he actually wasn't a complete throw in for the Pens. They valued the fact he had already been through waivers and they could assign him to the AHL.

 

[Melvin]

Sorry, if someone trades a 4th round pick for a top 4 Dman that is what you call a big win. The spin is out of control. Just call wins wins and losses losses when they happen. No need to spin stuff so badly. Besides, the jury is still very much out on his deal.

Oh I completely agree.

 

[Gaunce4gm]

We wanted offence from the backend. Now we have Pouliot doing just that and we are complaining. Good god the trade was fine.


Trade Gudbranson

Edler-Pouliot
Hutton-Tanev
MDZ-Stecher
Biega

 

[TheOtherGM]

I would love to see a bit more analysis of Pouliot's play and a bit less re-hashing of the same arguments about the deal.
I think 36 pages in we all know where we stand one way or another on the deal.

I tried to pay close attention to him yesterday vs the Rangers and came away quite impressed.
He seems to process the game at a high level and I saw him make at least one pass that few defenders can make. He is flashing potential every game, and if he were our own draft pick or the circumstances of his arrival were different, I think the majority would be thrilled with his play.

Defensively he is a work in progress, but he is better than I expected in that area.

And really, I don't quite understand why his defensive play, which is far from atrocious, is used as some sort of 'see, he sucks' knock on him.
We didn't acquire a ready-made Norris defenceman or anything close. We acquired a project puck-moving defenceman who has some imperfections to his game in his own zone.