Player Discussion Derrick Pouliot, Pt. II: Will not be qualified (again)

[Bleach Clean]

Continue on with my favourite current topic.

EDIT:

Click to read more...

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Terrible title. How about "best offensive defenceman since Ehrhoff"?

 

[Bgav]

Pretty awesome trade.

Title should be "trust the process"

 

[WTG]

Damn good pick up from a money-puck perspective.

But Benning made this trade probably because Pouliot had connections with Travis Green. Much like how he acquired Dorsett/Vey for Willie Desjardins.

 

[krutovsdonut]

this player has been nothing but better than expected since he got here and has been steadily improving. he has greatly exceeded expectations. he just had a solid three point night.

i wonder what more pouliot needs to do so he doesn't get a salty thread title next time?

 

[racerjoe]

No clue how to reply on an old post in the new board... sure it probably isn't much harder.

Anyway, I have already stated, if my assessment of this player ends up being wrong, sure it could be a good trade. However with the evidence we have up to this point it is not. Yes we should be able to get a 3rd pairing dman for cheap/free. Much like we have in the past.

Re:thought exercise.

Sure if they had a magical box I could totally agree. However as far as we know he doesn't have said box, and they used the same things they have used in the past. Therefore I can pretty safely say it was the same process as the past trades.

 

[racerjoe]

this player has been nothing but better than expected since he got here and has been steadily improving. he has greatly exceeded expectations. he just had a solid three point night.

i wonder what more pouliot needs to do so he doesn't get a salty thread title next time?

He has been fine and is trending up. He needs to sustain it, and show that it can be sustained.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Damn good pick up from a money-puck perspective.

But Benning made this trade probably because Pouliot had connections with Travis Green. Much like how he acquired Dorsett/Vey for Willie Desjardins.

so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?

assuming it is true, that is wrong, how? green has zero incentive to bring a passenger aboard his first year of coaching.

 

[krutovsdonut]

He has been fine and is trending up. He needs to sustain it, and show that it can be sustained.

ok, so if he sustains his play until the next thread, a pouliot fan gets to start the next thread or at least provide the title? seem fair?

 

[WTG]

so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?

assuming it is true, that is wrong, how? green has zero incentive to bring a passenger aboard his first year of coaching.

I didn't say it was wrong...

 

[Cupless44]

No clue how to reply on an old post in the new board... sure it probably isn't much harder.

Anyway, I have already stated, if my assessment of this player ends up being wrong, sure it could be a good trade. However with the evidence we have up to this point it is not. Yes we should be able to get a 3rd pairing dman for cheap/free. Much like we have in the past.

Re:thought exercise.

Sure if they had a magical box I could totally agree. However as far as we know he doesn't have said box, and they used the same things they have used in the past. Therefore I can pretty safely say it was the same process as the past trades.

I think you need to start acknowledging Pouliot's role is a bit beyond what you are stating. He plays on the powerplay, leads the defence in scoring, plays 22 minutes a game and when Gubrandson comes back in the line up so they don't kill his trade value, it will not be Pouliot sitting, it will be Stecher, Hutton or Del Zotto. His coach doesnt consider him a 3rd paring defenceman. Neither should you.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I didn't say it was wrong...

there is a "but" in your post that implies that even though he has played well, the trade was made for a bad reason.

 

[WTG]

there is a "but" in your post that implies that even though he has played well, the trade was made for a bad reason.

The decision to trade for Pouliot wasn't driven by his underlying stats, but because of his familiarity with our current coaching staff.

I didn't imply that I think negatively of taking a player because of familiarity. Rather, that I think more highly of taking a player for "money-puck" reasons.

Probably messed up, I think I should have said "rather" instead of "but" to be more clear.

 

[thedean]

I can't believe this thread has any debate going on. This should basically be a celebration thread.

We traded inconsequential assets for what looked like would probably be an inconsequential asset, and the asset we acquired is blossoming!!!

I'm no Benning fan not even close but credit where credit is due, great job Jimbo.

Could not be more thrilled with the play of Pouliot. Hopefully Green is tapping into whatever made Pouliot such a high profile prospect once upon a time.

 

[Uhmkay]

No clue how to reply on an old post in the new board... sure it probably isn't much harder.

Anyway, I have already stated, if my assessment of this player ends up being wrong, sure it could be a good trade. However with the evidence we have up to this point it is not. Yes we should be able to get a 3rd pairing dman for cheap/free. Much like we have in the past.

Re:thought exercise.

Sure if they had a magical box I could totally agree. However as far as we know he doesn't have said box, and they used the same things they have used in the past. Therefore I can pretty safely say it was the same process as the past trades.

It is wrong.

If we traded a 4th for the player he is now, a player that already leads our dmen in points and is on pace to score over 30 in a year, this is already a win for us for a 4th rounder. He has also improved defensively and his confidence is growing each game.

If he continues to improve and we re-evaluate what his new ceiling could be compared to the doomsday talk that was going on at the time of the trade, then we absolutely ripped off the Penguins.

 

[Frankie Blueberries]

The decision to trade for Pouliot wasn't driven by his underlying stats, but because of his familiarity with our current coaching staff.

I didn't imply that I think negatively of taking a player because of familiarity. Rather, that I think more highly of taking a player for "money-puck" reasons.

Probably messed up, I think I should have said "rather" instead of "but" to be more clear.

How can you go off underlying stats if there are none to begin with? He wasn't really given a chance in the NHL and he plays a position where you need to get experience before you start to show what you're capable of.
Look, I get where you're coming from and the basis of your argument has merit (see Gudbranson), but I don't think it applies to the Pouliot deal.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

So far, so good on this one deal. If his play also manages to be the catalyst needed to deal Gudbranson, even better.

I was a bit dubious about the deal at the start, but I'm liking his progression.

 

[racerjoe]

ok, so if he sustains his play until the next thread, a pouliot fan gets to start the next thread or at least provide the title? seem fair?

i didn't name this one nore will I name the next. I have no claim on the thread title.

I think you need to start acknowledging Pouliot's role is a bit beyond what you are stating. He plays on the powerplay, leads the defence in scoring, plays 22 minutes a game and when Gubrandson comes back in the line up so they don't kill his trade value, it will not be Pouliot sitting, it will be Stecher, Hutton or Del Zotto. His coach doesnt consider him a 3rd paring defenceman. Neither should you.

I have acknowledged he is playing well. I think I said it in the post you quoted. I will consider him what he is until he proves otherwise by extended play. There is a ton of players who have not been able to sustain it.

It is wrong.

If we traded a 4th for the player he is now, a player that already leads our dmen in points and is on pace to score over 30 in a year, this is already a win for us for a 4th rounder. He has also improved defensively and his confidence is growing each game.

If he continues to improve and we re-evaluate what his new ceiling could be compared to the doomsday talk that was going on at the time of the trade, then we absolutely ripped off the Penguins.

This didn't tell me how I was wrong. There again is a lot of players who have looked good for short stints. That doesn't mean they are worth a draft pick.

 

[VancouverJagger]

All the Benning haters have to be cringing in their seats after his 3 point performance - soo many people were wound up on this trade when we made it "There goes Boy Wonder trading away our assets again!!" and now look where we are...........what do they have to say now?

 

[sandwichbird2023]

so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?

assuming it is true, that is wrong, how? green has zero incentive to bring a passenger aboard his first year of coaching.

Isn't that how we ended up trading a 2nd for vey, because Willy vouched for him?
A good GM takes the advise and analyse the player and comes to a correct decision. A bad GM blindly follows any advise given.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

All the Benning haters have to be cringing in their seats after his 3 point performance - soo many people were wound up on this trade when we made it "There goes Boy Wonder trading away our assets again!!" and now look where we are...........what do they have to say now?

That it's just one game? Or 2 months into the season? If that's all you need to make a conclusion about a player, then surely you must also think virtanen and his 2+ SEASONS of below average play is a bust, no?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Isn't that how we ended up trading a 2nd for vey, because Willy vouched for him?
A good GM takes the advise and analyse the player and comes to a correct decision. A bad GM blindly follows any advise given.

there's no basis for saying he blindly followed advice. assuming willie had input i am sure others did too.

vey busted. that's hockey. you can follow scouting and good inside advice on a player and it still doesn't always pan out.

vey played over 100 games for us. he now scores ppg in the khl and dominated in the ahl. calgary still thought enough of him to sign him when we walked.

he is the very definition of a near miss.

that's as good or better odds than you get with a 50th overall pick.

 

[krutovsdonut]

That it's just one game? Or 2 months into the season? If that's all you need to make a conclusion about a player, then surely you must also think virtanen and his 2+ SEASONS of below average play is a bust, no?

i've been watching him all season. i agree he has not proven he is even a #6 dman yet based simply on games played. but to suggest he is solidly trending to be at least that good, is not a stretch. he has shown consistent improvement game by game since putting on a canuck jersey.

i should also note that what has sparked this discussion today was simple measured praise for the guy after a 3 point game.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

there's no basis for saying he blindly followed advice. assuming willie had input i am sure others did too.

vey busted. that's hockey. you can follow scouting and good inside advice on a player and it still doesn't always pan out.

vey played over 100 games for us. he now scores ppg in the khl and dominated in the ahl. calgary still thought enough of him to sign him when we walked.

he is the very definition of a near miss.

that's as good or better odds than you get with a 50th overall pick.

If he didn't blindly follow WD's advise, then it's a mis-evaluation on Benning's part of the player. Either way it's not good.
But my post was more a reply to your question "so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?

assuming it is true, that is wrong, how?"

 

[krutovsdonut]

If he didn't blindly follow WD's advise, then it's a mis-evaluation on Benning's part of the player. Either way it's not good.
But my post was more a reply to your question "so he took the advice of someone who knew a player extremely well who vouched for him?

assuming it is true, that is wrong, how?"

well your "mis-evaluation" is my "near miss". i don't think it was a mistake for a scout to say vey was likely to be an nhl regular. i would take advice from the same guy again.

if you want an example of a mis-evaluation try clendenning. he never came close to sticking here or elsewhere.