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

[krutovsdonut]

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.

i agree it's a pattern.

but destructive? you're going to need to flesh that out...

 

[krutovsdonut]

and karma is finally biting pouliot in the behind and he is being severely punished for stuff he was getting away with earlier. this happens just at the moment he seemed to be getting more rope. might not be coincidence he gets exposed facing the hottest blues player in ot.

whether or not he's been sheltered, he has now shown that he needs to be sheltered on a competitive team. since we aren't one, i would ordinarily be ok with continuing to try and get him to play through it and see. however, the return of stecher and tanev is going to close that window. i hope they are very careful with him the next couple of games.

 

[VanJack]

Even though Pouliot has hit a speed bump in the last couple of games, I'm still OK with the deal from the Canucks standpoint.....A 23-year old d-man who's a former high first rounder, is the worth the risk of giving up a fourth-rounder....Pedan is inconsequential since he wasn't making the Canucks blueline anyway.

Now Jimbo's deals for Etem which cost a sixth rounder; and another fifth in the Prust-Kassian deal with the Habs are a different animal. Yikes!

 

[Wo Yorfat]

I think anyone quoting former first rounder as if it matters should have their keyboards confiscated. Same kind of nonsense thinking got us Gudbranson.

 

[elitepete]

I think anyone quoting former first rounder as if it matters should have their keyboards confiscated. Same kind of nonsense thinking got us Gudbranson.

Brain confiscated*

 

[PG Canuck]

Even though Pouliot has hit a speed bump in the last couple of games, I'm still OK with the deal from the Canucks standpoint.....A 23-year old d-man who's a former high first rounder, is the worth the risk of giving up a fourth-rounder....Pedan is inconsequential since he wasn't making the Canucks blueline anyway.

Now Jimbo's deals for Etem which cost a sixth rounder; and another fifth in the Prust-Kassian deal with the Habs are a different animal. Yikes!

Fill me in on why draft position matters for Pouliot? It’s 2017 now.

 

[MS]

I think anyone quoting former first rounder as if it matters should have their keyboards confiscated. Same kind of nonsense thinking got us Gudbranson.

It's just the worst. Exact same as Gudbranson being lionized for being a '6'5 #3 overall pick!'

It has nothing to do with anything and is completely irrelevant 5 years after the fact. All that matters is how good the player is right now and whether he was drafted 8th or 80th or 180th it's all exactly the same.

 

[krutovsdonut]

calling a dman a 6'5" former third overall pick actually provides a fair bit of information. it tells you at 18 he had great but not necessarily elite fundamental skills, and at 18 looked like he might have a good hockey iq.

otoh, if someone was called a 6' former third overall pick dman you would draw the conclusion he has elite fundamental skills and looked at age 18 like he had a huge hockey iq.

conversely, you would know that a 6' 5" dman with elite skills and apparent hockey iq would be a former #1 pick.

whichever is the case your evaluation of the player today would be informed by that history. you would be less excited about a 6' 5" former #3 player urrently playing like gudbranson, than a 123rd overall player doing the same. you would assume the latter has developed significantly since his draft year and might continue to do so.

so i for one applaud the practice of referencing the draft position of players.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Even though Pouliot has hit a speed bump in the last couple of games, I'm still OK with the deal from the Canucks standpoint.....A 23-year old d-man who's a former high first rounder, is the worth the risk of giving up a fourth-rounder....Pedan is inconsequential since he wasn't making the Canucks blueline anyway.

Now Jimbo's deals for Etem which cost a sixth rounder; and another fifth in the Prust-Kassian deal with the Habs are a different animal. Yikes!

Pedan cost a 3rd round pick. I think we can conclude that Benning wasted a 3rd round pick on him.

I'll ask again: why is a team that's supposedly rebuilding trading away a draft pick for a Draft +6 replacement level player?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Pedan cost a 3rd round pick. I think we can conclude that Benning wasted a 3rd round pick on him.

I'll ask again: why is a team that's supposedly rebuilding trading away a draft pick for a Draft +6 replacement level player?

well i think we can conclude that benning's third round pick gamble on pedan didn't pan out.

but how do you conclude it was a "wasted" gamble as distinct from a 3rd round draft pick that also likely would not pan out?

what are your metrics for comparing trade outcomes to draft outcomes?

are you perhaps saying that third round draft picks that don't pan out are also wasted?

or are you saying there is a different standard for judging the outcome of trades for draft picks as distinct from exercised draft picks?

because right now your analysis seems totally incoherent.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Pedan cost a 3rd round pick. I think we can conclude that Benning wasted a 3rd round pick on him.

I'll ask again: why is a team that's supposedly rebuilding trading away a draft pick for a Draft +6 replacement level player?

Pedan was traded to the Canucks on 26 Nov 2014..The Canucks were still propping up the Sedins back then,there was no dedicated 'rebuild' back then ...Looks to me like it was a fill the age gap/get a player father along in his development type deal.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Pedan was traded to the Canucks on 26 Nov 2014..The Canucks were still propping up the Sedins back then,there was no dedicated 'rebuild' back then ...Looks to me like it was a fill the age gap/get a player father along in his development type deal.

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

 

[y2kcanucks]

well i think we can conclude that benning's third round pick gamble on pedan didn't pan out.

but how do you conclude it was a "wasted" gamble as distinct from a 3rd round draft pick that also likely would not pan out?

what are your metrics for comparing trade outcomes to draft outcomes?

are you perhaps saying that third round draft picks that don't pan out are also wasted?

or are you saying there is a different standard for judging the outcome of trades for draft picks as distinct from exercised draft picks?

because right now your analysis seems totally incoherent.

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

 

[deckercky]

There was a point when Pedan seemed to be putting it all together and that 3rd round pick seemed like a bargain. Then Pedan got a concussion and subsequently his development derailed.

Benning gambles on these near waiver eligible players because he's gambling on the same thing allowing Vegas to be successful with their expansion roster: There are solid players that aren't impactful for numerous reasons. Sometimes they surprise when given the opportunity.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

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

I've already stated that the 'rebuild on the fly' did not work,and a full rebuild wasn't possible with the Sedins when Benning was hired...I'm not defending management in 'everything' they've done...When you get into polar extremes of hating everything Benning has done (or,conversely loving everything he's done)..you completely lose your objectivity.

 

[krutovsdonut]

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

it's very weak and arbitrary reasoning to say you cannot ever trade a draft pick for a 23 year old prospect if your team needs to rebuild. you have to make a case for why this particular trade was bad in the context of the team's needs short term and long term.

whatever the reason we acquired pedan, he clearly still had development upside when we traded for him. he had in fact, up to that point, bucked the odds for a third round draft pick and was trending fairly well.

so you can't just say that pick was "wasted" unless you can explain why pedan was a worse gamble than a 3rd round draft pick, or articulate offsetting reasons that might otherwise indicate it was a bad idea. for example, one might argued it would be dumb to do if the canucks had been stacked with defensive prospects at the time, or one might argue it would be smart for the canucks to add a defensive prospect likely to ripen quicker than a 3rd round draft pick where they had a lack of prospects to work with.

i'd like to hear that analysis instead of "don't trade draft picks".

 

[vancityluongo]

calling a dman a 6'5" former third overall pick actually provides a fair bit of information. it tells you at 18 he had great but not necessarily elite fundamental skills, and at 18 looked like he might have a good hockey iq.

otoh, if someone was called a 6' former third overall pick dman you would draw the conclusion he has elite fundamental skills and looked at age 18 like he had a huge hockey iq.

conversely, you would know that a 6' 5" dman with elite skills and apparent hockey iq would be a former #1 pick.

whichever is the case your evaluation of the player today would be informed by that history. you would be less excited about a 6' 5" former #3 player urrently playing like gudbranson, than a 123rd overall player doing the same. you would assume the latter has developed significantly since his draft year and might continue to do so.

so i for one applaud the practice of referencing the draft position of players.

Sure, if someone uses the above rational interpretation of the historical drafted positions.

But people are parading Gudbranson's/Pouliot's draft position to indicate that they were once considered to have elite talent/upside, with the insinuation being that therefore that original pedigree carries on until a certain, somewhat arbitrary point. Which could be fair (ie. it would have been idiotic to give up on Jesse Puljujarvi two months ago), but most rational people claim that point is fairly early (D+2 or so), after which time a stagnation of any sort all but eliminates any former pedigree. Whereas others claim that pedigree is important until the D+5 (Pouliot) or D+7!! (Gudbranson) season, or until the player is traded from their favorite team (D+3 Shinkaruk); whichever comes first.

 

[Melvin]

Sure, if someone uses the above rational interpretation of the historical drafted positions.

But people are parading Gudbranson's/Pouliot's draft position to indicate that they were once considered to have elite talent/upside, with the insinuation being that therefore that original pedigree carries on until a certain, somewhat arbitrary point. Which could be fair (ie. it would have been idiotic to give up on Jesse Puljujarvi two months ago), but most rational people claim that point is fairly early (D+2 or so), after which time a stagnation of any sort all but eliminates any former pedigree. Whereas others claim that pedigree is important until the D+5 (Pouliot) or D+7!! (Gudbranson) season, or until the player is traded from their favorite team (D+3 Shinkaruk); whichever comes first.

It is somewhat useful data that ceases to be relevant once we have better data, like actual performance over the five years since being drafted.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Sure, if someone uses the above rational interpretation of the historical drafted positions.

But people are parading Gudbranson's/Pouliot's draft position to indicate that they were once considered to have elite talent/upside, with the insinuation being that therefore that original pedigree carries on until a certain, somewhat arbitrary point. Which could be fair (ie. it would have been idiotic to give up on Jesse Puljujarvi two months ago), but most rational people claim that point is fairly early (D+2 or so), after which time a stagnation of any sort all but eliminates any former pedigree. Whereas others claim that pedigree is important until the D+5 (Pouliot) or D+7!! (Gudbranson) season, or until the player is traded from their favorite team (D+3 Shinkaruk); whichever comes first.

gudbranson does still have elite talent/upside. it's just a very rapidly shrinking window that shows no signs of opening. he also has decent hockey skills that set him apart from a lot of big #7 dmen who only get a look into lineups because of size and toughness. he is absolutely a #6 quality dman and he can play #4 minutes just fine if you are prepared to sacrifice some offence. with the right partner to cover for his lack of transition skills he can be a #4 guy all the time.

and for all the criticism gudbranson gets, it is all predicated on him being a disappointment based on his draft position. we'd be wetting ourselves if pedan had improved and turned into gudbranson and his path was a #7 who evolved into a solid #6 who looked able to handle extra minutes in tough games instead out a touted top 2 who was not a #6 who saw top 4 minutes in rough games. his pedigree is used against him far more often to justify criticism than to blow smoke up his behind.

 

[y2kcanucks]

I've already stated that the 'rebuild on the fly' did not work,and a full rebuild wasn't possible with the Sedins when Benning was hired...I'm not defending management in 'everything' they've done...When you get into polar extremes of hating everything Benning has done (or,conversely loving everything he's done)..you completely lose your objectivity.

And your statement that rebuilding despite the Sedins being here was wrong. You fail to acknowledge that.

 

[y2kcanucks]

it's very weak and arbitrary reasoning to say you cannot ever trade a draft pick for a 23 year old prospect if your team needs to rebuild. you have to make a case for why this particular trade was bad in the context of the team's needs short term and long term.

whatever the reason we acquired pedan, he clearly still had development upside when we traded for him. he had in fact, up to that point, bucked the odds for a third round draft pick and was trending fairly well.

so you can't just say that pick was "wasted" unless you can explain why pedan was a worse gamble than a 3rd round draft pick, or articulate offsetting reasons that might otherwise indicate it was a bad idea. for example, one might argued it would be dumb to do if the canucks had been stacked with defensive prospects at the time, or one might argue it would be smart for the canucks to add a defensive prospect likely to ripen quicker than a 3rd round draft pick where they had a lack of prospects to work with.

i'd like to hear that analysis instead of "don't trade draft picks".

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

 

[krutovsdonut]

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

nice deflection.

 

[LeftCoast]

Pouliot still has some upside. He's had some good games, good periods, good shifts, and bad ones. In the last couple of games he's made some really noticeable gaffs in the defensive zone, and pairing with Edler is not working. But Ben Hutton has had a similar season, is only 8 months older and earns $2M more. So if we are going to have a puck moving LH defenceman who can be an adventure in his own zone at times, do you chose the 24 year old making $2.8M or the 23 year old making $800K?

I don't know - probably Hutton at this point, but it's not an obvious decision. Hutton has more trade value.

I think when Stecher comes back, Pouliot will likely sit. Gudbransson will hopefully be traded before the deadline, but what about Hutton?

 

[racerjoe]

I've already stated that the 'rebuild on the fly' did not work,and a full rebuild wasn't possible with the Sedins when Benning was hired...I'm not defending management in 'everything' they've done...When you get into polar extremes of hating everything Benning has done (or,conversely loving everything he's done)..you completely lose your objectivity.

Yeah it would have been near impossible for this team to finish bottom 3 two years in a row with the twins... you would have to be very bad at your job to do that eh?

 

[y2kcanucks]

nice deflection.

Wasn't deflecting anything. Why not answer the question?