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

[F A N]

They also traded Pedan for him who was acquired for a 3rd before. Its not like Pouliot cost nothing, trying to spin it this way is just dishonest. While taking calculated risks does make sense here in there, trading picks away for failed prospects is not really a smart option. Those picks likely will never turn out to be something useful but they may as well ending up being a Madden and a Gaudette - but hey Pouliot didnt cost anything.

It makes little sense to say that taking calculated risks makes sense and at the same time saying that trading picks away for failed prospects is not really a smart option. If you're against trading picks for "failed" prospects then your position should be that the calculated risks involving draft picks for "failed" prospects isn't worth taking because presumably one has done the math and figure the risk worth taking. Logically it doesn't make sense either because presumably if you're not trading draft picks you're trading a player or prospect that you could have traded for a draft pick.

Take Brett Connolly, was he worth two 2nd round picks? No. But the Bruins could of kept Connolly as he did emerge as a pretty useful player.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Remember when people praised Benning for this trade and called it a win for him?

Bye Felicia.

On the Benning scale it was a win.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

I'm just receiving this wonderful news now.

Hallelujah!

 

[VanJack]

So you can add Pouliot to the list of failed d-men....Gudbranson, Clendening, Pedan and Larsen are a few other who come to mind. And they cost the Canucks Forsling, along with a second rounder; a third rounder, two fourth rounders and a fifth rounder.

You'd like to think that each of these failed experiments has made the Canuck braintrust sadder and wiser. But what's the likelihood of that?

 

[member 290103]

They didn’t qualify him last year either, right..he still came back.

Is it confirmed they are done with him?

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

They didn’t qualify him last year either, right..he still came back.

Is it confirmed they are done with him?

OMG - you're right.

I'm suddenly feeling a lot less giddy about this situation

 

[me2]

OMG - you're right.

I'm suddenly feeling a lot less giddy about this situation

They announced it too early if they intended to keep him. Normally they wouldn't say much about QOs for a low value player if they were considering keeping him around. This seems to be too much of a signal.

 

[StreetHawk]

They announced it too early if they intended to keep him. Normally they wouldn't say much about QOs for a low value player if they were considering keeping him around. This seems to be too much of a signal.

Announcing it this far in advance pretty much means he’s gone. If you want the guy around like they did last year you don’t make the announcement until the final 48 hours of the QO deadline in the hopes of getting deal done. Player doesn’t want to take less but may have to once they know that the QO is not coming.

I think Brock, Leivo, Motte and Hutton are the only ones I’m sure get their QO. Gaunce I think does not. Granlund will be interesting.

His fate is likely tied to what they do about Spooner and Schaller plus the recovery time of Roussell. If the first 2 get bought out and Roussell is in IR for all of October the Canucks likely need a body so likely qualify him. Or they try the Pouliot thing with him and get him lower than his $1.4 million.

Could see them say financially let’s just keep Schaller but buy out Spooner this they don’t require granlund.

 

[me2]

Buying out Spooner has some merit, but only if they are spending to the cap.

Buying out Schaller makes no sense, his cap hit in the minors is the same as his buyout hit due to his $500k signing bonus (how the hell a player like him got $1m and $500K signing bonuses with his $1.9m salary boggles the mind). Then you have more cap hit the next from the buyout, so it isn't worth it.

 

[tantalum]

I'm amused by the people continuing to stand behind the trade because, well, a 4th round pick was not likely to play 133 games as a canuck.

I look at it differently....a 4th round pick was just as likely to play 133 bad games for the canucks but there exists an off chance that the 4th round pick could be more. That was never an option for Pouliot. He had already proven he had no business being in the NHL before he was acquired. He was given chances...a lot of them. He just never showed the development you need to see for a NHL player.

People should be terrified it took this management and coaching regime 133 games to realize what most realized before the trade was even made.

 

[Melvin]

I'm amused by the people continuing to stand behind the trade because, well, a 4th round pick was not likely to play 133 games as a canuck.

I look at it differently....a 4th round pick was just as likely to play 133 bad games for the canucks but there exists an off chance that the 4th round pick could be more. That was never an option for Pouliot. He had already proven he had no business being in the NHL before he was acquired. He was given chances...a lot of them. He just never showed the development you need to see for a NHL player.

People should be terrified it took this management and coaching regime 133 games to realize what most realized before the trade was even made.

These people don't understand probability, don't understand statistics, and don't understand opportunity cost. It's a failing of our education system.

 

[F A N]

Buying out Spooner has some merit, but only if they are spending to the cap.

I don't think the Canucks should buy out Spooner at all. Send him to Utica and give Utica fans a #1 playmaking C.

Agree on Schaller.

 

[tyhee]

A 4th round pick is just a shot in the dark. It wasn't like the trade cost anything. ...

The majority of 4th round picks don't play in the NHL. Otoh, Johnny Gaudreau and Jaccob Slavin do. It isn't correct to say the trade didn't cost anything. While it wasn't a good chance, the chance to get a really useful player has value.

Further, the added value of a Gaudreau or Slavin is large. The added value of a known marginal or bottom pair defenceman is extremely small and those players can be found cheaply every season. The Preds got their bottom defence pair (two former Canucks, one of whom was not well-thought of here) with no acquisition cost at all.

Most of the time making the kind of trade the Canucks made in acquiring Pouliot is inconsequential (next to no positive or negative), but when the player they missed would have been a good one, the consequences are huge (next to no positive, large negative.)

 

[Hit the post]

Buying out Schaller makes no sense, his cap hit in the minors is the same as his buyout hit due to his $500k signing bonus (how the hell a player like him got $1m and $500K signing bonuses with his $1.9m salary boggles the mind). Then you have more cap hit the next from the buyout, so it isn't worth it.

I wouldn't want him on the Comets. Send him to Kalamazoo.

 

[Zippgunn]

The Preds got their bottom defence pair (two former Canucks, one of whom was not well-thought of here) with no acquisition cost at all.

Carved in stone in my mind...

 

[F A N]

They announced it too early if they intended to keep him. Normally they wouldn't say much about QOs for a low value player if they were considering keeping him around. This seems to be too much of a signal.

Ya. Last year it was reported that they are still negotiating.

 

[F A N]

The Preds got their bottom defence pair (two former Canucks, one of whom was not well-thought of here) with no acquisition cost at all.

Which at one time was the Canucks' top pairing.

 

[Peter10]

It makes little sense to say that taking calculated risks makes sense and at the same time saying that trading picks away for failed prospects is not really a smart option. If you're against trading picks for "failed" prospects then your position should be that the calculated risks involving draft picks for "failed" prospects isn't worth taking because presumably one has done the math and figure the risk worth taking. Logically it doesn't make sense either because presumably if you're not trading draft picks you're trading a player or prospect that you could have traded for a draft pick.

Take Brett Connolly, was he worth two 2nd round picks? No. But the Bruins could of kept Connolly as he did emerge as a pretty useful player.

With "calculated risk" I meant players that are buried in the AHL and didnt get the chance in the NHL yet for example, not guys that failed big time already in the NHL despite getting a lot of chances. It is also something you should only do if you have collected quite a few picks and are in a position to deal him. It should not the recommended procedure trying to build your team like Benning did with the likes of Vey, Pedan, Granlund, Larsson and Pouliot.

Leivo was a calculated risk for example because he didnt cost much but had some promise to be a NHL regular. Pouliot was a failure because it was rather obvious from the beginning that this would turn into nothing. While the 4th rounder isnt really high value it is a waste of an asset even more so considering a 3rd was used earlier on Pedan who was included in the trade.

 

[F A N]

With "calculated risk" I meant players that are buried in the AHL and didnt get the chance in the NHL yet for example, not guys that failed big time already in the NHL despite getting a lot of chances. It is also something you should only do if you have collected quite a few picks and are in a position to deal him. It should not the recommended procedure trying to build your team like Benning did with the likes of Vey, Pedan, Granlund, Larsson and Pouliot.

But Vey was exactly a player that was burried in the AHL and didn't get a chance at the NHL level. Pedan was more or less just a prospect who has shown well and was further along in development. Granlund looked to be an NHL player who was acquired for a "failed prospect." Larsen wasn't a prospect.

Leivo was a calculated risk for example because he didnt cost much but had some promise to be a NHL regular. Pouliot was a failure because it was rather obvious from the beginning that this would turn into nothing. While the 4th rounder isnt really high value it is a waste of an asset even more so considering a 3rd was used earlier on Pedan who was included in the trade.

But you're really just offering your own assessment. What you consider to be a calculated risk is hardly objective.

Objectively, Pouliot was a former top 10 pick who was playing on a Stanley Cup winning team. He has shown some promise in the NHL with strong underlying possession numbers under Johnston. Perhaps a real opportunity with a coach who is familiar with Pouliot would turn his career around? It's a calculated risk. I also don't remember Penguins fans calling it a major steal and laughing at us for making the deal. Most thought it was a minimal return for a player that was no longer in the team's plan that their GM was trying to get whatever he can for. Most Penguins fans thought that he would be lost on waivers if put on there. So clearly, the Penguins fans base felt that some other team would give Pouliot a chance. So by saying was just a failure you're not being objective.

 

[Peter10]

But Vey was exactly a player that was burried in the AHL and didn't get a chance at the NHL level. Pedan was more or less just a prospect who has shown well and was further along in development. Granlund looked to be an NHL player who was acquired for a "failed prospect." Larsen wasn't a prospect.



But you're really just offering your own assessment. What you consider to be a calculated risk is hardly objective.

Objectively, Pouliot was a former top 10 pick who was playing on a Stanley Cup winning team. He has shown some promise in the NHL with strong underlying possession numbers under Johnston. Perhaps a real opportunity with a coach who is familiar with Pouliot would turn his career around? It's a calculated risk. I also don't remember Penguins fans calling it a major steal and laughing at us for making the deal. Most thought it was a minimal return for a player that was no longer in the team's plan that their GM was trying to get whatever he can for. Most Penguins fans thought that he would be lost on waivers if put on there. So clearly, the Penguins fans base felt that some other team would give Pouliot a chance. So by saying was just a failure you're not being objective.

You gave yourself the explanation, spending assets for players that are likely to be available on waivers is bad asset management and not a calculated risk, even more when your team has one of the highest waiver priorities. A calculated risk would have been picking him up on waivers and not spending assets for player who is very likely to fail.

 

[F A N]

You gave yourself the explanation, spending assets for players that are likely to be available on waivers is bad asset management and not a calculated risk, even more when your team has one of the highest waiver priorities. A calculated risk would have been picking him up on waivers and not spending assets for player who is very likely to fail.

You're looking at things black and white and consequently wrong. There's no guarantee that Pouliot would be on waivers. Pittsburgh could have traded him to some other team. Acquiring him for a 4th round draft pick + Pedan is a calculated risk. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't a calculated risk.

 

[tantalum]

It was a pretty shitty calculation then....

There shouldn't have been a "calculated risk" on this player. The upside just wasn't there. There was never a chance he would turn into a NHL player.

 

[lousy]

It was a pretty ****ty calculation then....

There shouldn't have been a "calculated risk" on this player. The upside just wasn't there. There was never a chance he would turn into a NHL player.

That is a very hard line stance to take. Players like this who could not make it because of the depth of his current team are well worth the chance if it does not cost too much. What makes you think there was absolutely no upside? Removing all hindsight.

I am okay with a GM trying to bolster a roster with players in a logjam team who might turn out, for late round picks.

 

[Peter10]

That is a very hard line stance to take. Players like this who could not make it because of the depth of his current team are well worth the chance if it does not cost too much. What makes you think there was absolutely no upside? Removing all hindsight.

I am okay with a GM trying to bolster a roster with players in a logjam team who might turn out, for late round picks.

Lots of people here predicted pretty much this, there is no hindsight here. He had failed in Pittsburgh who had a depleted defence already, expecting him to magically turn it around at this age wasnt really playing the odds.

 

[Phenomenon13]

I'm amused by the people continuing to stand behind the trade because, well, a 4th round pick was not likely to play 133 games as a canuck.

I look at it differently....a 4th round pick was just as likely to play 133 bad games for the canucks but there exists an off chance that the 4th round pick could be more. That was never an option for Pouliot. He had already proven he had no business being in the NHL before he was acquired. He was given chances...a lot of them. He just never showed the development you need to see for a NHL player.

People should be terrified it took this management and coaching regime 133 games to realize what most realized before the trade was even made.

He never should have reached 133 career games....