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

[TruGr1t]

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.

I'm assuming anyone who ever actually, you know, watched Pouliot play hockey would come to the conclusion he's basically not a NHL-calibre player almost immediately.

 

[lousy]

I'm assuming anyone who ever actually, you know, watched Pouliot play hockey would come to the conclusion he's basically not a NHL-calibre player almost immediately.

That is easy to say now given how he turned out. But I am glad they took a chance on him for what it cost. I assume they knew more about Pouliots history, character and the way he thought the game because the connections they had with him. Plus not every players development is going to be linear.

Difference of opinion on what that is worth I guess.

 

[TruGr1t]

That is easy to say now given how he turned out. But I am glad they took a chance on him for what it cost. I assume they knew more about Pouliots history, character and the way he thought the game because the connections they had with him. Plus not every players development is going to be linear.

Difference of opinion on what that is worth I guess.

I have no issue taking the chance. The issue is the pattern. We constantly "take the chance" with bad players, and often actually give up assets for them. If we want to take chances on guys like Pouliot either get them on waivers, or sign them cheaply via FA. And you should be rotating them out quickly. It was apparent right away Pouliot sucks. So find another guy.

 

[tantalum]

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.

It had nothing to do with the depth of the team he was on. The Pens didn't have depth at the position or at least not good depth and they still don't. The fact they decided a guy on a 800k contract couldn't even serve in a 7/8 spot is telling on that team. It was because he wasn't good enough to sit in the press box.

This is the furthest thing from hindsight. This is a player that doesn't have the decision making (along with other abilities) to be any sort of regular player in the NHL (and some Pittsburgh articles speak towards attitude issues as well). In his final camp with the Pens he was awful (including the final pre-season game where I was in attendance). Put him in very protected minutes and he can maybe survive...you don't trade for players you need to protect like that. You sign them from the UFA bargain bin or claim them on waivers.

Same reason people who cautioned against getting excited over Vey weren't using hindsight. It is so very very rare for a team to actually have an over abundance of young players that are good enough but they just can't seem to get into the lineup. You have a young player ready to play you move a more expensive veteran or lesser player to get them in the lineup. You don't put them on waivers or trade them. Vey didn't get moved because the Kings had so much young depth they couldn't find a place for him. They moved him because he wasn't good enough. Same reason pouliot was moved...he wasn't good enough. These aren't prospects with limited pro action. They are, for the most part, known quantities. In practice, it isn't a very normal circumstance to have young players on cheap contracts that are deserving of ice being on the outside looking in. Especially in a cap environment and a cap strained team.

In all the moves Benning has made along these lines the only player that was deserving of ice but not getting it was Baertschi as there was a very real organizational bias against him. That isn't typical and it's worthwhile to note that Baertschi also isn't a world beating player.

 

[alternate]

Meh, no issue with the gamble on Pouliot. The things he does do well are so valuable and hard to acquire (puck moving, offensive instincts) that it is worth turning over every stone you can, especially when it's a huge organizational void. Same reason I have no issue with acquiring Larsen. When Poo was on his game, he'd put together a stretch of games where he was one of the 2-3 best blueliners we had at getting the puck out of our zone and through the neutral zone.

Unfortunately he turned like an oil tanker, and had some confidence issues that meant his game plummeted when mistakes happened. If his good periods could have been 60+ games a season, he'd have been a good #6...a return everyone would be happy with from a 4th round draft pick. Showed some glimpses, but just couldn't put everything together and find some long term consistency. I have no issues with these types of trades, and also agree that it's the right time to part ways.

 

[RobertKron]

Meh, no issue with the gamble on Pouliot. The things he does do well are so valuable and hard to acquire (puck moving, offensive instincts) that it is worth turning over every stone you can, especially when it's a huge organizational void. Same reason I have no issue with acquiring Larsen. When Poo was on his game, he'd put together a stretch of games where he was one of the 2-3 best blueliners we had at getting the puck out of our zone and through the neutral zone.

Unfortunately he turned like an oil tanker, and had some confidence issues that meant his game plummeted when mistakes happened. If his good periods could have been 60+ games a season, he'd have been a good #6...a return everyone would be happy with from a 4th round draft pick. Showed some glimpses, but just couldn't put everything together and find some long term consistency. I have no issues with these types of trades, and also agree that it's the right time to part ways.

Um. That’s not really a compliment.

 

[MS]

1) Pouliot was a terrible target. Couldn’t skate, couldn’t play defense, was horrific in previous stints in the NHL in Pittsburgh. They gave him every possible chance to make it and he blew it. And their fanbase - which is universally a pretty good tell - absolutely hated him.

2) part of being an NHL GM is understanding situations, understanding leverage, and using that leverage to create value. We had the 2nd priority in waiver claims at the time so basically the pick of whoever was on waivers. Pittsburgh had already confirmed he hadn’t made their team, had zero leverage, and were just looking to salvage anything for the asset. And everyone knew it. It’s a perfect place to have a bit of patience and there was an overwhelming chance we get the asset we wanted for free.

But Dim Jim plays poker with his cards facing outward so these are the results we get.

It’s absolutely comical to hear people saying ‘Benning had NO CHOICE but to trade a decent pick for this bad player about to be on waivers because maybe there was a chance the bad player would get traded to another team! Oh, and even though everyone here called this at the time ... HINDSIGHT!’

For the record, compare with Colorado (who had top waiver priority) and didn’t panic and trade a pick for their guy, and claimed an actual good defender in Patrik Nemeth who stepped straight into their top-4 and has been a quality player there for 2 years for free.

 

[pitseleh]

1) Pouliot was a terrible target. Couldn’t skate, couldn’t play defense, was horrific in previous stints in the NHL in Pittsburgh. They gave him every possible chance to make it and he blew it. And their fanbase - which is universally a pretty good tell - absolutely hated him.

2) part of being an NHL GM is understanding situations, understanding leverage, and using that leverage to create value. We had the 2nd priority in waiver claims at the time so basically the pick of whoever was on waivers. Pittsburgh had already confirmed he hadn’t made their team, had zero leverage, and were just looking to salvage anything for the asset. And everyone knew it. It’s a perfect place to have a bit of patience and there was an overwhelming chance we get the asset we wanted for free.

But Dim Jim plays poker with his cards facing outward so these are the results we get.

It’s absolutely comical to hear people saying ‘Benning had NO CHOICE but to trade a decent pick for this bad player about to be on waivers because maybe there was a chance the bad player would get traded to another team! Oh, and even though everyone here called this at the time ... HINDSIGHT!’

For the record, compare with Colorado (who had top waiver priority) and didn’t panic and trade a pick for their guy, and claimed an actual good defender in Patrik Nemeth who stepped straight into their top-4 and has been a quality player there for 2 years for free.

The hindsight point also loses all merit once we know the results of these types of trades. I don't have a problem with trading a pick to get these waiver eligible type players if you've got an eye for talent meaning you have to get your guy. But you have to get results to make the reasoning palatable with hindsight.

Benning has now flushed two seconds, a third, a fourth, and a fifth, as well as a good prospect in Forsling, in trades for these types of players, to ultimately acquire Sven Baertschi, who won't matter by the time the Canucks are competitive again. It's a disaster of a record.

 

[Fire Benning]

The concept of betting on players is more of a cumulative problem with Benning than specifically about Pouliot. Like over 5 years you're obviously going to make some bets that don't work out, that's inevitable, but every time Benning has bet on a player it hasn't worked out aside from Baertschi who could probably be declared as a 'marginal win'.

If Jimbo made a few savvy, solid, buy low moves for players that ended up being key pieces for the team and also made the Pouliot deal, it wouldn't really matter. But every time he's made moves like trading for Pouliot it's a swing and a miss, that cannot be chalked up to a fluke, that speaks to the big problem of tremendously poor talent evaluation.

 

[Fire Benning]

The concept of betting on players is more of a cumulative problem with Benning than specifically about Pouliot. Like over 5 years you're obviously going to make some bets that don't work out, that's inevitable, but every time Benning has bet on a player it hasn't worked out aside from Baertschi who could probably be declared as a 'marginal win'.

If Jimbo made a few savvy, solid, buy low moves for players that ended up being key pieces for the team and also made the Pouliot deal, it wouldn't really matter. But every time he's made moves like trading for Pouliot it's a swing and a miss, that cannot be chalked up to a fluke, that speaks to the big problem of tremendously poor talent evaluation.

If you fail one small assignment but nail all the midterms/final = not a big deal, you'll still easily get a good grade in the class

If you fail every assignment, project, paper, and exam = big problem, won't get the course credit

 

[ProstheticConscience]

The hindsight point also loses all merit once we know the results of these types of trades. I don't have a problem with trading a pick to get these waiver eligible type players if you've got an eye for talent meaning you have to get your guy. But you have to get results to make the reasoning palatable with hindsight.

Benning has now flushed two seconds, a third, a fourth, and a fifth, as well as a good prospect in Forsling, in trades for these types of players, to ultimately acquire Sven Baertschi, who won't matter by the time the Canucks are competitive again. It's a disaster of a record.

It's all based on the faulty premise that teams have lots of extraneous talent clogging up their systems and they can't find room on their rosters for them all.

Turns out they don't.

 

[Melvin]

.... Moreover, I think people would be more lenient if Pouliot wasn't brought back last season. It was clear to everyone here that he sttunk, but somehow this great eye for talent we have was convinced he needed another season.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

.... Moreover, I think people would be more lenient if Pouliot wasn't brought back last season. It was clear to everyone here that he sttunk, but somehow this great eye for talent we have was convinced he needed another season.

It's not talked about as much, but the decision to not make *any* changes to the defense last summer was one of the stupidest, most incoherent moves I've ever seen any NHL front office make.

 

[Jyrki21]

If Jimbo made a few savvy, solid, buy low moves for players that ended up being key pieces for the team and also made the Pouliot deal, it wouldn't really matter.

I think this is exactly why a certain segment of the fans/media are still trumpeting trades like Granlund and Leivo as massive victories, to create the illusion that this is what has happened.

 

[tantalum]

It's all based on the faulty premise that teams have lots of extraneous talent clogging up their systems and they can't find room on their rosters for them all.

Turns out they don't.

Exactly. You can always point to exceptions.: guys that needed a change of scenery as a wake up call (Grabner...well he needed two consecutive wake up calls. A trade and being cut loose by the Panthers. And he's still not a great player). Late bloomers etc. But in general, if a team is moving a younger asset it's because they are either (1) going all in on a cup run (and then it's still usually picks and second/third tier prospects like Goldobin) or (2) believe that the younger player is not developing and has no NHL future. Young talent doesn't just get waived or moved for mid round picks in a cap world.

It's not talked about as much, but the decision to not make *any* changes to the defense last summer was one of the stupidest, most incoherent moves I've ever seen any NHL front office make.

Among the many many many MANY reason this management team should be fired this is at or near the top of the list.

Add it to the complete mismanagement of youth/picks that have resulted in a continued and complete absence of talent on the farm.

No clue how they are still employed. Jim has had a 5 year run and accomplished absolutely nothing. Aquilini has been scared into inaction by the media who for some reason don't think 5 years is long enough.

 

[Peter10]

Add it to the complete mismanagement of youth/picks that have resulted in a continued and complete absence of talent on the farm.

Isnt it ironic that while trying to fix the age gap Benning has created yet another one?

 

[tantalum]

Isnt it ironic that while trying to fix the age gap Benning has created yet another one?

It was expected or should have been. And people can dig back several years ago if they want but it is exactly what I said would happen way back when. The only way it doesn't happen, or rather the only way it can ignored is if you find multiple core players with your age gap strategy. But that was never going to happen as teams don't give away top cost controlled talent.

 

[Melvin]

It's not talked about as much, but the decision to not make *any* changes to the defense last summer was one of the stupidest, most incoherent moves I've ever seen any NHL front office make.

And it was something that almost everyone here was baffled about at the start of the season, that went exactly as predicted.

 

[FroshaugFan2]

Larsen can't be worse than Weber, right?

Holm can't be worse than Larsen, right?

Targeting Sbisa and Gudbranson in his biggest trades.

Letting Hamhuis walk for nothing.

Etc. etc.

Every time Benning tries to fix the defence he just ends up making it worse while often giving up significant assets. I honestly didn't mind the inactivity last year.

 

[MS]

Larsen can't be worse than Weber, right?

Holm can't be worse than Larsen, right?

Targeting Sbisa and Gudbranson in his biggest trades.

Letting Hamhuis walk for nothing.

Etc. etc.

Every time Benning tries to fix the defence he just ends up making it worse while often giving up significant assets. I honestly didn't mind the inactivity last year.

Yes.

Rather hilariously, completely ineptly doing nothing at all with the defense last summer still made it his best offseason by a mile in terms of defensive moves.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I have no issue taking the chance. The issue is the pattern. We constantly "take the chance" with bad players, and often actually give up assets for them. If we want to take chances on guys like Pouliot either get them on waivers, or sign them cheaply via FA. And you should be rotating them out quickly. It was apparent right away Pouliot sucks. So find another guy.

to whit,

cam barker, UFA 2012

ryan parent, the throw-in to dump shane o'brien in the mad rush to get under the cap after adding hamhuis and ballard

meanwhile,

pedan, cost a 3rd round pick + alex mallet

pouliot, cost a 4th round pick + pedan

sbisa, a piece of the kesler trade

gudbranson, cost mccann + 2nd round pick + swapping our 4th for their 5th

clendening, cost 18 year old forsling

and ironically, grabbing forsling for nothing is the appropriate kind of acquisition that benning should probably think about doing this summer.

 

[Bitz and Bites]

Larsen can't be worse than Weber, right?

Holm can't be worse than Larsen, right?

Targeting Sbisa and Gudbranson in his biggest trades.

Letting Hamhuis walk for nothing.

Etc. etc.

Every time Benning tries to fix the defence he just ends up making it worse while often giving up significant assets. I honestly didn't mind the inactivity last year.

The last paragraph basically sums up the Jim Benning era completely.
Instead of Benning,FA could have just hired a GM from another sport who knew nothing about hockey to just re-sign the current players (or cheap free agents when necessary)and given our allotted 7 picks to the scouting staff each year and the team would be better off right now.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

It had nothing to do with the depth of the team he was on. The Pens didn't have depth at the position or at least not good depth and they still don't. The fact they decided a guy on a 800k contract couldn't even serve in a 7/8 spot is telling on that team. It was because he wasn't good enough to sit in the press box.

This is the furthest thing from hindsight. This is a player that doesn't have the decision making (along with other abilities) to be any sort of regular player in the NHL (and some Pittsburgh articles speak towards attitude issues as well). In his final camp with the Pens he was awful (including the final pre-season game where I was in attendance). Put him in very protected minutes and he can maybe survive...you don't trade for players you need to protect like that. You sign them from the UFA bargain bin or claim them on waivers.

Same reason people who cautioned against getting excited over Vey weren't using hindsight. It is so very very rare for a team to actually have an over abundance of young players that are good enough but they just can't seem to get into the lineup. You have a young player ready to play you move a more expensive veteran or lesser player to get them in the lineup. You don't put them on waivers or trade them. Vey didn't get moved because the Kings had so much young depth they couldn't find a place for him. They moved him because he wasn't good enough. Same reason pouliot was moved...he wasn't good enough. These aren't prospects with limited pro action. They are, for the most part, known quantities. In practice, it isn't a very normal circumstance to have young players on cheap contracts that are deserving of ice being on the outside looking in. Especially in a cap environment and a cap strained team.

In all the moves Benning has made along these lines the only player that was deserving of ice but not getting it was Baertschi as there was a very real organizational bias against him. That isn't typical and it's worthwhile to note that Baertschi also isn't a world beating player.

outstanding post. quoted for truth

in a cap world, it is a total necessity to replace pricier older players with good young players. i mean look at LA the year they traded vey to us-- they'd made the third round the year before and were a pretty expensive team. so they let rob scuderi, who was on their first pair, go and gave more responsibility to muzzin and martinez. at no point did they say, well we have doughty and voynov, plus all these good vets like scuderi, willie mitchell, regehr, matt greene, no room for muzzin or martinez let's flip them for picks.

whereas back in the old days, when detroit could just spend as much money as it wanted, you could make a decent expansion team out of the guys they gave away because they had no room for them: mike knuble - mike sillinger - dallas drake - johan garpenlov - kevin miller - paul ysebaert - shawn burr - greg johnson - randy mckay - brent fedyk - tim taylor - wes walz - yves racine - jason york - aaron ward - bobby dollas - bob boughner - jamie pushor, all guys traded away for pieces that did not even play on the '97, '98, or '02 cup teams, or were bit parts.

so that's not even counting keith primeau (traded for shanahan), ray sheppard (traded for larionov), steve chiasson (traded for vernon), slava kozlov (traded for hasek), dan mcgillis (traded for maltby), anders eriksson (traded for chelios), who were traded for valuable things.

detroit could just give away that entire roster of useful players. but in a world where you can't fit in larry murphy when his team sours on him, you need to have a stable of jason yorks and bob boughners waiting to come up. in a world where you can't just buy a brett hull and luc robitaille, having guys like knuble, drake, sillinger slotting in your middle six are arguably the difference between winning the cup or getting bounced in the second round.

 

[tradervik]

Defensemen obtained by Benning (drafted, FA, or trade) who played for the Canucks:
2014: Clendening, Sbisa
2015: Bartkowski, Fedun, Pedan, Tryamkin
2016: Gudbranson, Larsen, Stecher
2017: Del Zotto, Holm, Pouliot, Sautner
2018: Hughes, Rafferty, Schenn, Teves

My ranking:
Excellent: Hughes*
Good: Stecher
Okay: Tryamkin
Meh: Schenn, all the AHL guys
Awful: Sbisa, Bartkowski, Gubranson, Del Zotto, Pouliot

It's even worse when you consider the assets surrendered to obtain some of these players + the contracts.

 

[VanJack]

The only guy you left off the list was Patrick Wiercioch, who never played a minute with VanCity. I have no idea who in the pro scouting department is responsible for looking at d-men and recommending trades or UFA signings, but whoever it is needs a new line of work.

Canucks pursuit of d-men via trades or free agency has been consistently awful. And guys like Pouliot, Gudbranson, Larsen and Clendening cost them either picks or prospects they could ill-afford to squander.