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

[krutovsdonut]

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.

that is a fair comment i had not fully considered. if the pens didn't care about pedan and it was a case of the canucks forcing pens to take back his salary, then the pens could have just waived him once they got him. so i think there was some value in pedan as an ahl piece along with the 4th that made the pens do the trade.

 

[Jay Cee]

I think the real test is how the long term goes including the rest of the season. We have seen lots of dmen, especially the younger more offensively minded, show that they have game only to fade away long term. This could very well happen here.

 

[racerjoe]

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.

There a fair bit of good analysis a few pages ago from people both Pro and "Anti" trade.

 

[TheOtherGM]

There a fair bit of good analysis a few pages ago from people both Pro and "Anti" trade.

Yeah I've read through the whole thread.
There is some shift-by-shift and player discussion interspersed among post after post re-hashing the same arguments.
What did people think of his effort in the Ranger game?

 

[Jay Cee]

Oh I completely agree.

That’s a pretty inflammatory post considering what I said.

I guess if you pick the bolded words you selectively and misleadingly chose then that might be lolz.

 

[TheOtherGM]

That’s a pretty inflammatory post considering what I said.

I guess if you pick the bolded words you selectively and misleadingly chose then that might be lolz.

Is this in response to me?

 

[Jay Cee]

Guy I quoted.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Guy I quoted.

Oh OK. I just don't see you quoting anybody there.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i keep seeing half games lately so take this with that qualifier.

my biggest compliment is i want him on the ice if we are behind.

the best part of his game is transition. he is probably trying too hard with every pass, but enough of them work to make him very good.

to me, his offensive strength is creativity. he pops up in unexpected places and seems to be equally comfortable on the right or left side. if his team mates can learn to work with him popping up all over he may start to put up points. not sure he can do it alone as his shot and finish seems decidedly average, and he also does not impress on the point as any kind of a threat.

defensively, being physical is his last choice. he will either need to adjust to making the safe physical play or produce more offence.

 

[TheOtherGM]

That jives with what I've seen in limited viewings.
In a vaccuum, I am OK with him being a non-physical defender. Some of my all-time favourite Canuck defencemen wouldn't have been considered physical forces, yet they've been highly effective (thinking of Jyrki Lumme, for example). In the Ranger game I noticed him getting back to pucks quickly and (mostly) making the right play to get the puck out of trouble or out of the zone. If he plays with good Edler and not bad Edler, that can be a solid pairing because Eddie's not the guy he used to be on the attack, but he remains a physical player on D.

I now believe his transition and power play abilities should compensate for the shortcomings in his game.
It's not accidental some of these passes I see him make to move the puck up ice. On the PP I like his calmness at the point, and I'm not too bothered by his lack of a cannon as I view the future finishers as Boeser and Pettersson. It's not like he can't shoot at all. He just needs enough that the PK can't play off him and blanket the other options.
If the Canucks can eventually find a defenceman who does have that cannon, then Pouliot becomes the QB with three options.
It's his IQ/processing speed that makes him good at the point, and while he's not the fastest skater from A to B he does appear to have small-space agility to create a shooting or passing lane.

Am I wrong?
I am more than OK with someone who doesn't like Pouliot providing the other side of this coin. This is just what I personally am seeing right now.

 

[krutovsdonut]

That jives with what I've seen in limited viewings.
In a vaccuum, I am OK with him being a non-physical defender. Some of my all-time favourite Canuck defencemen wouldn't have been considered physical forces, yet they've been highly effective (thinking of Jyrki Lumme, for example). In the Ranger game I noticed him getting back to pucks quickly and (mostly) making the right play to get the puck out of trouble or out of the zone. If he plays with good Edler and not bad Edler, that can be a solid pairing because Eddie's not the guy he used to be on the attack, but he remains a physical player on D.

I now believe his transition and power play abilities should compensate for the shortcomings in his game.
It's not accidental some of these passes I see him make to move the puck up ice. On the PP I like his calmness at the point, and I'm not too bothered by his lack of a cannon as I view the future finishers as Boeser and Pettersson. It's not like he can't shoot at all. He just needs enough that the PK can't play off him and blanket the other options.
If the Canucks can eventually find a defenceman who does have that cannon, then Pouliot becomes the QB with three options.
It's his IQ/processing speed that makes him good at the point, and while he's not the fastest skater from A to B he does appear to have small-space agility to create a shooting or passing lane.

Am I wrong?
I am more than OK with someone who doesn't like Pouliot providing the other side of this coin. This is just what I personally am seeing right now.

it's really hard for me to separate this guy from his baggage. if we had a fourth rounder pop out of nowhere and do this i'd be more comfortable projecting further development and upside. i really don't know what his ceiling is. this could be a short term push to prove the pens wrong and then meh, or i guess he could be a top pair guy who was truly just solidly jammed into a square hole in pittsburgh.

if i had to guess i'd say his best outcome is a tyson barrie, which is not bad, but not a qb. he lacks the tools to me to be a qb. you must have a credible point slap shot and wrist shot to maximize time, space and options or you need to be a better scrambler than he is. realistically i think his more probable peak is a top 4 dman 2nd unit pp guy who will tease but never quite realize on his offensive talent. i also think he's going to need to learn to play more physical to get there.

 

[Melvin]

That’s a pretty inflammatory post considering what I said.

I guess if you pick the bolded words you selectively and misleadingly chose then that might be lolz.

You called him a top 4 defenseman and then accused others of spinning information. It is a level of completely tone deaf lack of self awareness that is rare to see.

 

[krutovsdonut]

There was probably at least 3 equal guys on the waiver wire around the same time.

who?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I'm also interested in who the other 3 equal guys on the waiver wire were..?...

 

[racerjoe]

Ville Pokka, Viktor Loov, Ryan Murphy, Ryan Sproul were all comparable, as young dmen that went on waivers. I feel like I am missing a big one though. If you searched you may even find more. Those were just the ones that hit the waiver wire. We could have also looked to sign one...

 

[krutovsdonut]

Ville Pokka, Viktor Loov, Ryan Murphy, Ryan Sproul were all comparable, as young dmen that went on waivers. I feel like I am missing a big one though. If you searched you may even find more. Those were just the ones that hit the waiver wire. We could have also looked to sign one...

chuckle.

 

[sting101]

Ville Pokka, Viktor Loov, Ryan Murphy, Ryan Sproul were all comparable, as young dmen that went on waivers. I feel like I am missing a big one though. If you searched you may even find more. Those were just the ones that hit the waiver wire. We could have also looked to sign one...

Do you think those guy's would be playing 20min alongside Edler with Biega in the press box?

From my limited viewings of that list i think DP is a much better skater

 

[racerjoe]

Do you think those guy's would be playing 20min alongside Edler with Biega in the press box?

From my limited viewings of that list i think DP is a much better skater

No clue, but they haven't had the chance. All those guys were very similar to DP.

I admit he has played well, but he is still at this point just a depth 5-6 dman.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

That's not the crux of the argument. It's that "you pay for what you want" can lead to mixed, and often poor results when used as a primary motivation. Benning's record, even with the Baertschi+Granlund moves speaks to this (...because of Vey, Pedan, Clendenning etc...).

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.

A rebuilding club seldom "bucks up" picks for these types of moves. These are instead moves that re-tooling clubs make. So this goes back to what I in the Eye is saying: First, the general mode of the organization has to be established (Compete, Retool, Rebuild etc...). Then the moves are judged by that context. Given the mode of a rebuild, throwing picks around like Benning has does not fit. Is there a moratorium on trading picks within this context? No. They just aren't traded as frequently in such an environment. Usually a rebuilding club chooses to draft with them. And the reason for that is simple: Rebuilding teams general covet picks as their best rebuilding assets.

The appropriate phrase for what they have done is "a cloaked retool". They have been evasive regarding the very words they use to describe what they are doing because they know if they come out with it, they will be lambasted for following an out-of-touch strategy.

Lastly, a mid-round pick for a fringe NHL asset is not a "good price to pay". This is a situation where Benning's desire to attain Pouliot had him pay a price that would otherwise be considered peculiar to fans/media. Peculiar in a way one judges the actions of a rebuilding organization,that is.

 

[sting101]

That's not the crux of the argument. It's that "you pay for what you want" can lead to mixed, and often poor results when used as a primary motivation. Benning's record, even with the Baertschi+Granlund moves speaks to this (...because of Vey, Pedan, Clendenning etc...).

A rebuilding club seldom "bucks up" picks for these types of moves. These are instead moves that re-tooling clubs make. So this goes back to what I in the Eye is saying: First, the general mode of the organization has to be established (Compete, Retool, Rebuild etc...). Then the moves are judged by that context. Given the mode of a rebuild, throwing picks around like Benning has does not fit. Is there a moratorium on trading picks within this context? No. They just aren't traded as frequently in such an environment. Usually a rebuilding club chooses to draft with them. And the reason for that is simple: Rebuilding teams general covet picks as their best rebuilding assets.

The appropriate phrase for what they have done is "a cloaked retool". They have been evasive regarding the very words they use to describe what they are doing because they know if they come out with it, they will be lambasted for following an out-of-touch strategy.

Lastly, a mid-round pick for a fringe NHL asset is not a "good price to pay". This is a situation where Benning's desire to attain Pouliot had him pay a price that would otherwise be considered peculiar to fans/media. Peculiar in a way one judges the actions of a rebuilding organization,that is.

i 'm failing to see your first point (it's probably me i'm gassed tonight). Isn't this the very calculated gamble that every trade is based on? Of course it can lead to mixed or poor results and it can also net you a top 6 winger (Baertschi) for a late 2nd rounder? The context of the players availability has to be examined case to case not by a mantra or philosophy or you can close doors on opportunities to acquire an asset for your team at a discounted or even fair price tag.

I don't think they have been that elusive about the goal. I certainly think they thought they were gonna be significantly better than they were and i think they have had to reluctantly embrace the word rebuild because of how far they fell and fast but things have pretty much never changed when it comes to their actions other than the sell off at last years deadline.

 

[Bleach Clean]

i 'm failing to see your first point (it's probably me i'm gassed tonight). Isn't this the very calculated gamble that every trade is based on? Of course it can lead to mixed or poor results and it can also net you a top 6 winger (Baertschi) for a late 2nd rounder? The context of the players availability has to be examined case to case not by a mantra or philosophy or you can close doors on opportunities to acquire an asset for your team at a discounted or even fair price tag.

I don't think they have been that elusive about the goal. I certainly think they thought they were gonna be significantly better than they were and i think they have had to reluctantly embrace the word rebuild because of how far they fell and fast but things have pretty much never changed when it comes to their actions other than the sell off at last years deadline.

Sting101, even the "sell off" of last year brought in prospects as the primary acquisitions, not picks. Something they have always done throughout. They can reluctantly embrace whatever phrasing they choose, but they have never truly rebuilt this team. It's a retool.

Are you saying that Benning's fringe trades have been calculated? Or, have they been made out of desire/want? These are not the same thing. I didn't view the acquisition of Clendenning as calculated. Nor Pedan. Nor Vey -- even at the time those trades were made. I saw a GM that wanted certain fringe players and paid a good price to get them - beyond the best justified rationale to get them.

Benning's trade practice has to be evaluated on the whole first, and then case by case. As a whole, he has achieved mixed to poor results. On a case by case, Baertschi for a 2nd looks good. Granlund looks meh and Pouliot 'can' look good if he establishes himself as a top4 Dman -- we're not there yet. Why top4? Because a bottom pairing Dman is not a coveted asset. Do you disagree?

 

[sting101]

Sting101, even the "sell off" of last year brought in prospects as the primary acquisitions, not picks. Something they have always done throughout. They can reluctantly embrace whatever phrasing they choose, but they have never truly rebuilt this team. It's a retool.

Are you saying that Benning's fringe trades have been calculated? Or, have they been made out of desire/want? These are not the same thing. I didn't view the acquisition of Clendenning as calculated. Nor Pedan. Nor Vey -- even at the time those trades were made. I saw a GM that wanted certain fringe players and paid a good price to get them - beyond the best justified rationale to get them.

Benning's trade practice has to be evaluated on the whole first, and then case by case. As a whole, he has achieved mixed to poor results. On a case by case, Baertschi for a 2nd looks good. Granlund looks meh and Pouliot 'can' look good if he establishes himself as a top4 Dman -- we're not there yet. Why top4? Because a bottom pairing Dman is not a coveted asset. Do you disagree?

I actually do disagree. i see 5/6 defenseman as the same as 3rd line forwards and as evidenced by the returns every trade deadline for these level of players i think it backs this up. even more so 23 yr old one's.

i don't know where rebuild ever came into my conversation other than to say they never intended to and they continue to try and avoid the blow it all up method. There has been a shift in contracts this summer which was nice to see as 1-2-3 yr deals are much easier to liquidate after getting some short term help in areas. i fail to see the relevance of the term rebuild in any conversation regarding Benning and Linden. Even the couple times i heard Linden say it was in a context of you can call it a rebuild if you prefer......something along those lines.

Of course their calculated? Do you think he randomly just throws darts at his stupid player wall and then calls the GM's?.

The difference in what you would calculate and what Benning calculates is he is trying to fill a roster for his coach, address short term needs as well as some longer term needs. For probably you and definitely me i hated much of these moves because i felt like all moves and efforts needed to be put towards a core around Horvat and his age grouping then address needs because you might just get lucky and stumble into a Hutton or a Gaudette or a Arvidsson or Bratt or Wood in later rounds that injects a more valuable piece than someone else's redundancies, reclamations or problems. Mostly the rationale has been poor.

Jimbo was never gonna be that patient i guess and that is my big frustration and many others to harsher degrees. He still blows off Forsling by saying we have Stecher and Pouliot so he's no big loss. Vey was Willies pet everyone knows that. I'm certain willie was impressed by him in the AHL on that line with Pearson and Toffoli and thought he could be something good at the NHL level. Pedan was strange... was a crazy overpayment for a ECHL bound player. Obviously Jimbo thought all those tools he had would overcome the deficiencies to his game. Wrong

Anyways ROE i've gotta tap out on this one but i will say i think as a whole(his trades) i agree it has been mixed to poor, but this is the Derrick Pouliot thread and in this thread we generally side to talking about this player and this acquisition. I think this was a good gamble to make and that i would much rather watch 23 yr old Derrick Pouliot a player i have followed for some time and believe has a tremendous upside try and ressurect his career than the minute chance we acquire something better with a 4th round draft pick. I wasn't even a big fan of the Baertschi trade but that was a steal in hindsight so i'm not gonna completely shut the door to Benning doing something. With this deal many of the same factors apply if you really dive into their careers

 

[Jessep]

Sting101, even the "sell off" of last year brought in prospects as the primary acquisitions, not picks. Something they have always done throughout. They can reluctantly embrace whatever phrasing they choose, but they have never truly rebuilt this team. It's a retool.

Are you saying that Benning's fringe trades have been calculated? Or, have they been made out of desire/want? These are not the same thing. I didn't view the acquisition of Clendenning as calculated. Nor Pedan. Nor Vey -- even at the time those trades were made. I saw a GM that wanted certain fringe players and paid a good price to get them - beyond the best justified rationale to get them.

Benning's trade practice has to be evaluated on the whole first, and then case by case. As a whole, he has achieved mixed to poor results. On a case by case, Baertschi for a 2nd looks good. Granlund looks meh and Pouliot 'can' look good if he establishes himself as a top4 Dman -- we're not there yet. Why top4? Because a bottom pairing Dman is not a coveted asset. Do you disagree?

I see all of those as rebuilding moves. Starting with no prospect pool, those moves simply sped the process up several years acquiring young talent already having some development. Something those draft picks would require also, with no guarantee of success either. Scouting doesn't end at the junior draft. They continue to keep tabs on players through junior and the AHL after they've been drafted. It's how they target players when it comes to trades. They don't make these deals blindly.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Of course it's calculated, but calculated to achieve his goals and not yours.

At the time of those deals he was trying to fill in this age gap and bring in young players to bolster a flagging roster, and you could make a case for each of those deals.
Vey as a young player caught in a numbers game, trying to crack a deep Stanley Cup calibre roster. Good AHL performer.
Pedan stuck in a very deep New York Islanders system with physical tools for days.
Clendenning trying to crack a deep Stanley Cup calibre roster in Chicago.

You can mark two of those down as pro scouting fails, so that's on Benning and whoever told him those players were good.
I supported the Pedan acquisition then and fully understand it now, even thought it didn't work out. If that kid had been a hit, he would have added a huge element to the defence.

The thing about chatting on message boards is, we have zero idea what is going on behind the scenes, so we form concrete opinions based on speculation and our own biases.
So I'll do that.
I believe Benning took the job knowing ownership expected him to keep the Canucks in the playoffs. Probably not the way he wanted to go, but he wanted control of his own NHL team and signed on, believing he could succeed.
Clearly he couldn't succeed. I don't know many GMs who could have. At some point there seems to have been a tangible shift in the thinking of ownership/management and I believe Benning is now doing what he would have wanted to do in the first place, enduring a handful of down years to re-stock the prospect cupboard.
You can argue about his signings, the Gagners and Erikssons, but if you do you have to concede that a roster consisting entirely of young players is not conducive to good development.
There does need to be some level of insulation, and these players he's signed may have been signed as much for their work off the ice as their work on it.

 

[Jay Cee]

You called him a top 4 defenseman and then accused others of spinning information. It is a level of completely tone deaf lack of self awareness that is rare to see.

I didn’t call him a top 4 dman, clearly. I even doubled down and said I didn’t even know how the trade would look at all long term. Reading comprehension...try it.