Confirmed with Link: (June 26th, 2018) Canucks re-sign D Derrick Pouliot to 1-year Deal ($1.1M AAV)
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
Yes, Green might actually stumbled on a Pouliot pairing that actually works with Stecher. The pairings with Gudbranson and even Del Zotto at times last year were a nightmare. And moving Pouliot to his off-side didn't work that well either.
But I guess it doesn't hurt to remember that Pouliot is really just starting his second full season in the NHL, after bouncing up and down between the NHL and AHL with the Pens. Maybe he's finally starting to figure it out and live up to his top-10 draft ranking. Did I really just say that?
Really the only issue with the Pouliot and Stetcher pairing is they both lack size. Otherwise they are both relatively good at transitioning the puck.
There's also the fact that Stetcher is better than Gudbranson and Del Zotto.
krutovsdonut
eeyore
- Sep 25, 2016
- 16,845
- 9,517
i think this pairing is working due to strides by both lately, especially stecher.
starting to like pouliot's offensive game. There are flashes of his skating ability and flashes of his passing, but rarely both at the same time. However, he's still a nightmare defensively. He gets beat too easily one-on-one. If he's ever going to be a second pairing guy, he'll need a strong defensive partner.
PuckMunchkin
Very Nice, Very Evil!
mossey3535
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2011
- 13,326
- 9,830
Askel
By the way Benning should be fired.
I’ll never apologize for being an optimist.
We can dig up wrong predictions from all posters. I would rather be a slight optimist along the way when I can be... but some enjoy wallowing in misery all the time.
This is too true. So frickin true as Im so sick of all the negative nellys around here these days just waiting for things to go wrong so they can say ‘told ya so’
Billy Kvcmu
Registered User
Wow your pendulum has swung far the other way. Hold on though, imma gunna check with some of the other Benning apologists to see if you have been cleared for bitching about the neggies yet.
Well theres gotta be balance, Im no huge Benning supporter or nothing, like the Gudbranson and Eriksson disasters, but theres a toxic excitement from some of the anti Benning crowd who are just waiting for problems with our team to come up
Shareefruck
Registered User
1. The fact that "misery" keeps being brought up time and time again as something to avoid is telling. It means that you aren't just observing what's happening and letting that influence your reaction. Instead, you're deciding what reaction is desirable and letting that influence your observations. If you're doing the former, there's a decent chance reality might be negative. If it's negative, you can either acknowledge and learn to accept that reality (which can be therapeutic) or deny it (which is delusional but can be effective if you buy into your delusions hard enough). Neither one necessarily makes a person miserable, and if it does, you're kind of doing it wrong.
2. I can tolerate people choosing to be blindly optimistic as possible (even though I disagree with the mentality entirely) as long as they concede that their thoughts and predictions are no longer even attempting to be genuine, truthful, or impartial, and agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt. You can't have it both ways. If that's your mentality, then stop getting into debates with people or trying to defend your statements-- you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. There is no point in argument when one party admits to being willing to skew their perception to match their desired outcome. Just respond to every criticism of your views with "I'm just choosing to be an optimistic fan-- it doesn't have to make sense or be likely/realistic" instead of insisting that your views are right, and 99% of this back and forth nastiness can be easily avoided.
And no, suspecting that people who are negative might be biased doesn't serve as justification that makes it make any more sense.
2. I can tolerate people choosing to be blindly optimistic as possible (even though I disagree with the mentality entirely) as long as they concede that their thoughts and predictions are no longer even attempting to be genuine, truthful, or impartial, and agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt. You can't have it both ways. If that's your mentality, then stop getting into debates with people or trying to defend your statements-- you're wasting everyone's time, including your own. There is no point in argument when one party admits to being willing to skew their perception to match their desired outcome. Just respond to every criticism of your views with "I'm just choosing to be an optimistic fan-- it doesn't have to make sense or be likely/realistic" instead of insisting that your views are right, and 99% of this back and forth nastiness can be easily avoided.
And no, suspecting that people who are negative might be biased doesn't serve as justification that makes it make any more sense.
Last edited:
Askel
By the way Benning should be fired.
How about for being wrong, guess that would be weird to right
It's always amazing to me how the draft mistakes in so many U.S. markets just get glossed over by the media and fan-bases who care more about their NFL and College football teams than they do what's happening down the street at their NHL arena.
Pouliot was a prize pick by the Pens at eighth overall in 2012 after they traded Jordan Staal to Carolina to acquire their first rounder. After an 'up' and mostly 'down' four years in the Pens organization he was peddled to the Canucks for Andrey Pedan (KHL) and a fourth rounder.
I try to imagine if the Canucks had traded a top young center like Staal for a perceived draft bust like Pouliot, and then dumped him for equivalent of a late draft pick. Heck, some people are in open revolt because Oli Juolevi is currently still in the minors at age 20.
The moral of the story. It's certainly a lot easier to 'swing and miss' in the draft as a GM in almost every U.S. market.
Pouliot was a prize pick by the Pens at eighth overall in 2012 after they traded Jordan Staal to Carolina to acquire their first rounder. After an 'up' and mostly 'down' four years in the Pens organization he was peddled to the Canucks for Andrey Pedan (KHL) and a fourth rounder.
I try to imagine if the Canucks had traded a top young center like Staal for a perceived draft bust like Pouliot, and then dumped him for equivalent of a late draft pick. Heck, some people are in open revolt because Oli Juolevi is currently still in the minors at age 20.
The moral of the story. It's certainly a lot easier to 'swing and miss' in the draft as a GM in almost every U.S. market.
I’m not sure what you’re saying but I’ll try to answer:
I’m sorry we didn’t make the playoffs, it would have been fun.
ProstheticConscience
Check dein Limit
Uh yeah. Also winning the Stanley Cup three times in the last ten years helps with that. When you swing and miss on top ten picks it helps when you can recover and still put a winning team on the ice. When you whiff on high picks that you really, really need to be successful and your team's still in the dumpster years later, it's just a little bigger problem.
And what if you are the one who is wasting everyone's time including your own on certain arguments? Thing is people have different perspectives. If you are arguing with someone where you think there is no point and wasting your time and his or her time, then that's on you if you continue to argue. People have different perspectives in life. Your tolerance of other people is as relevant as other people saying they tolerate you. If "Benning haters" can post negative posts that doesn't add substance to the discussion, why can't "Benning apologists" post positive posts that doesn't add substance to the discussion?
I think the bottom line is that every team makes mistakes drafting. We just tend to focus on our own team. I mean look at the Bruins. Passed three times on Barzal. But hit home runs with Pasta and McAvoy.
To be fair, we’ve probably been one of the poorer drafting teams in the NHL but in recent years I think we’ve improved. Still some misses but a couple of home runs too. It’s just really hard sometimes to project how 17 year old kids will develop.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Shareefruck
Registered User
I apologize for the length.
It has nothing to do with pejoratives like apologists or haters or assumptions about bad arguments-- both can reasonably engage in disputes, when their professed motivation is truth (whether you believe them or not). But that is the absolute prerequisite for any argument to make any sense and be worth having, EVEN if the starting point of either party is considered insubstantial, worthless or disingenuous from the other's perspective. Because their professed motivations are at least consistent with the purpose of argument, the potential for fruitfulness still exists, no matter how unlikely. You can at least work with that and move the argument forward.
However, when someone willingly, intentionally, and self-admittedly approaches it with a mentality that starts with the desired outcome and works backwards from that, that potential is inherently compromised. Argument is completely antithetical to how they're choosing to approach it. If that's the case, you need to, at the very least, be upfront about that before a dispute so that both parties can agree that continuing to argue about it is pointless. That's not meant to be an insult to people who choose to approach it that way, it's just the natural dilemma/contradiction that arises from it.
There is a huge difference between someone who is organically a "Benning apologist" because that's just their genuine impression of the job he's doing and someone who deliberately chooses to be fanatical about something for the sake of optimism/supportiveness. It makes sense for the former to get into arguments (even when their arguments are bad), but the latter is wasting everyone's time, because it's clear (to themselves and everyone else) that truth isn't what they're ultimately interested in.
That's true of the negative side as well, except we're talking about the difference between a genuine "Benning Hater" and someone who admits that their INTENT/end goal is negativity (I'm not aware of anyone who's professed to this, other than people who outright tell you that they're a troll).
You can have assumptions and skepticism about people's biases and secret motivations that they're denying (though it's an easy trap to be unfairly dismissive and make incorrect assumptions in order to protect your own view), but when someone outright comes out and tells you their motivations, that's pretty clear-cut.
Think of it this way. If, hypothetically, I just came right out and told you that "I'm just the way I am because I want to be as negative as possible about the team because I have a vendetta against it", it would make no sense for me to turn around and insist that I'm making impartial, truthful assessments, or for you to waste your time arguing with me about them. It would also be unfair for me not to be upfront about that caveat before every dispute-- that's on me to make clear and nip at the bud rather than sending mixed messages, not on you to figure out half-way through. The exact same thing is true for a fan who professes to being motivated by a desire for optimism and supportiveness.
Last edited:
Ad
Latest posts
-
Canucks News, Rumours, and & Fantasy GM | A True Playoff Team- Latest: BenningHurtsMySoul
