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

[Melvin]

I didn’t call him a top 4 dman, clearly. I even doubled down and said I didn’t even know how the trade would look at all long term. Reading comprehension...try it.

You stated, in the Derrick Pouliot thread, without quoting anyone, that “a trade of a 4th round pick for a top 4 D should be considered a win.” I apologize if you were not intending to imply that Derrick Pouliot is a top 4 D, but I woul not chalk up my misinterpretation to a lack of reading comprehension. I am not sure what the point of your post was in any case. Perhaps there is a bunch of ignored posts that may have made it more clear. That feature does make things confusing sometimes...

 

[Jay Cee]

You stated, in the Derrick Pouliot thread, without quoting anyone, that “a trade of a 4th round pick for a top 4 D should be considered a win.” I apologize if you were not intending to imply that Derrick Pouliot is a top 4 D, but I woul not chalk up my misinterpretation to a lack of reading comprehension. I am not sure what the point of your post was in any case. Perhaps there is a bunch of ignored posts that may have made it more clear. That feature does make things confusing sometimes...

The argument was that it “was a bad trade at the time” so there is nothing to see here going forward. The trade could not possibly be a win even if Pouliot somehow became a top 4 dman long term like he has shown flashes of potentially being. I was saying gee that is kind of a crazy argument. Sometimes fans can’t pre determine what a trade must be the moment it happens, and sometimes people can see something in a player and shrewdly save him from failing out.

That’s all that I said and I don’t think we have a legit top 4 dman at all yet.

 

[Cupless44]

You stated, in the Derrick Pouliot thread, without quoting anyone, that “a trade of a 4th round pick for a top 4 D should be considered a win.” I apologize if you were not intending to imply that Derrick Pouliot is a top 4 D, but I woul not chalk up my misinterpretation to a lack of reading comprehension. I am not sure what the point of your post was in any case. Perhaps there is a bunch of ignored posts that may have made it more clear. That feature does make things confusing sometimes...

This story is far from told 21 games into Pouliot's career as a Canuck. There is enough talent and improvement showing in his game to suggest that Pouliot becoming a top 4 defenceman is still a legitimate possibility. And he if he tops out as a top 6 NHL defenceman who can help the powerplay that is still worth a 4th round pick

 

[Melvin]

The argument was that it “was a bad trade at the time” so there is nothing to see here going forward. The trade could not possibly be a win even if Pouliot somehow became a top 4 dman long term like he has shown flashes of potentially being. I was saying gee that is kind of a crazy argument. Sometimes fans can’t pre determine what a trade must be the moment it happens, and sometimes people can see something in a player and shrewdly save him from failing out.

That’s all that I said and I don’t think we have a legit top 4 dman at all yet.

Fair enough.

 

[Melvin]

This story is far from told 21 games into Pouliot's career as a Canuck. There is enough talent and improvement showing in his game to suggest that Pouliot becoming a top 4 defenceman is still a legitimate possibility. And he if he tops out as a top 6 NHL defenceman who can help the powerplay that is still worth a 4th round pick

I think context needs to be considered more carefully than this.

 

[TheOtherGM]

Factual context or assumed/speculated context?

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Okay, this guy's got a LONG way to go to be a top 4 dman on an even halfway respectable NHL team. Far too soft, far too mistake-prone, and far too much history with both those things. I have no idea how Benning got so fond of dmen who make terrible mistakes at crucial times.

Yet another in the "If he becomes something totally different, it'll be a great trade!" category for our man Benning.

And again very, very typical of certain people claiming trading draft picks for older prospects is a viable strategy to ignore the fact the player going the other way in this deal just happens to be an example of this strategy failing.

 

[Melvin]

Factual context or assumed/speculated context?

You're cute.

People in here get too wrapped up in trying to oversimplify every transaction by boiling it down to evaluating players as if they are static assets and then making an incredibly shallow and superficial analysis of who "won" based on this static asset fantasy.

There is more to it than that. It matters what the players contract situation is. It matters what kind of position the team is in. Trading Boeser for Tavares right now would be an awful trade for us even though Tavares is strictly speaking a better player and superficially that trade would look great in a vacuum.

Context matters.

 

[F A N]

Okay, this guy's got a LONG way to go to be a top 4 dman on an even halfway respectable NHL team. Far too soft, far too mistake-prone, and far too much history with both those things. I have no idea how Benning got so fond of dmen who make terrible mistakes at crucial times.

You want him to ice a lineup with big, physical Dmen who has a history of simply chipping the puck out and not making too many mistakes instead?

Yet another in the "If he becomes something totally different, it'll be a great trade!" category for our man Benning.

So what? If there's a time to do it, it's now when you can afford a player like Pouliot the opportunity to play through his mistakes.

And again very, very typical of certain people claiming trading draft picks for older prospects is a viable strategy to ignore the fact the player going the other way in this deal just happens to be an example of this strategy failing.

Accumulating draft picks and keeping them until they prove they aren't NHL players can be a viable strategy too. Doesn't mean you don't draft plenty of busts. In 2010, Chicago had 4 2nd round picks. Only one of them played more than 1 NHL game. And their 1st round pick in that draft didn't play a single game for them and didn't return even a 7th round pick. Don't be confused.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

You want him to ice a lineup with big, physical Dmen who has a history of simply chipping the puck out and not making too many mistakes instead?

Being strong and decent defensively aren't mutually exclusive. You can be both, you know. Oh wait, you probably don't.

So what? If there's a time to do it, it's now when you can afford a player like Pouliot the opportunity to play through his mistakes.

Yeah, the thing is he's already had that chance on another team. Those mistakes he's "playing through"? He's been making those for a while. And like I said, we've already got a bumper crop of f*** ups on the blueline.

Accumulating draft picks and keeping them until they prove they aren't NHL players can be a viable strategy too. Doesn't mean you don't draft plenty of busts. In 2010, Chicago had 4 2nd round picks. Only one of them played more than 1 NHL game. And their 1st round pick in that draft didn't play a single game for them and didn't return even a 7th round pick. Don't be confused.

I'm not confused. I know keeping players you've drafted until they prove they aren't NHL players is a viable strategy, because so many NHL gms have been able to recoup draft picks from our man Benning, haven't they? Remember Vey? Or Pedan? Larsen, Holm, Etem had a draft pick thrown in on the deal...

And yes, of course draft picks don't always turn out. But as I've said on this forum many many times, trading draft picks for older prospects ALWAYS means you're getting someone the other team decided was expendable. And in case you weren't paying attention, the only time it's worked so far here has been Baertschi.

 

[TheOtherGM]

You're cute.

People in here get too wrapped up in trying to oversimplify every transaction by boiling it down to evaluating players as if they are static assets and then making an incredibly shallow and superficial analysis of who "won" based on this static asset fantasy.

There is more to it than that. It matters what the players contract situation is. It matters what kind of position the team is in. Trading Boeser for Tavares right now would be an awful trade for us even though Tavares is strictly speaking a better player and superficially that trade would look great in a vacuum.

Context matters.

Awwww, you're cute too Pookie.

I agree 100 per cent with everything you've said, aside from the extremely condescending opener.
But let's make sure the context is accurate.

Factual context that can be verified is how Derek was playing in Pittsburgh and what the roster numbers were when the Penguins traded him.
Just about everything else is not context, it's speculation. Yet definitive arguments are formed from speculation and presented as fact.

Speculation (not fact) that the Canucks could have acquired him for free. Completely unknowable unless you have an all-access pass to NHL front offices, particularly the one in Pittsburgh.
Speculation (not fact) that the Canucks could have had a similar defenceman for free. Because all of these defencemen roll off the same assembly line in Michigan and Vancouver's pro scouting discussions are accessible to all.

You can disagree that Pouliot was worth a fourth round pick and disagree with the methodology Benning seems to use to acquire former top-end draft picks.
I totally get that.
But recognize that real life events may not match the way they unfolded in your head.

That's all Bun Bun.

 

[VanJack]

Figured it wouldn't take too long for that Edler-Pouliot pairing to hit the skids......Pouliot trying to play his off-side doesn't help, but Edler has just been awful in the past few games.....that shorthanded goal by Ladd with Edler basically skating in cement at the point was hard to watch......I think Pouliot was better on the left side paired with a natural right-shot d-man like Biega.....but other posters might see it otherwise.

 

[Jessep]

I'm not confused. I know keeping players you've drafted until they prove they aren't NHL players is a viable strategy, because so many NHL gms have been able to recoup draft picks from our man Benning, haven't they? Remember Vey? Or Pedan? Larsen, Holm, Etem had a draft pick thrown in on the deal...

And yes, of course draft picks don't always turn out. But as I've said on this forum many many times, trading draft picks for older prospects ALWAYS means you're getting someone the other team decided was expendable. And in case you weren't paying attention, the only time it's worked so far here has been Baertschi.

Being expendable doesn't equal bust, or even useless. The teams moving these players tend to be strong playoff teams, or teams deep at a particular position. They do come with some risk, but there's as much (if not more) risk in using those later picks. It's a gamble either way. The advantage to these older prospects is two fold: 1 - you've seen them playing against men and 2 - They can be inserted into the NHL now rather than the lengthy wait when using a 3rd or 4th or 5th round picks etc. When you're light on prospects waiting 3 to 5 years for later picks to develop is not a luxury you can't always afford.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I actually do disagree. i see 5/6 defenseman as the same as 3rd line forwards and as evidenced by the returns every trade deadline for these level of players i think it backs this up. even more so 23 yr old one's.

On their own, a bottom pairing D or a bottom6 F is not an asset worth chasing. Raised value in a specific context (TDL) does not belie this fact. Smart GMs supplement their roster in FA/Waivers for these positions, instead of paying picks/futures. Now granted, injuries can change this need for a team that is trying to compete, but we're not dealing with such a situation here.

...
Of course their calculated? Do you think he randomly just throws darts at his stupid player wall and then calls the GM's?.

The difference in what you would calculate and what Benning calculates is he is trying to fill a roster for his coach, address short term needs as well as some longer term needs. For probably you and definitely me i hated much of these moves because i felt like all moves and efforts needed to be put towards a core around Horvat and his age grouping then address needs because you might just get lucky and stumble into a Hutton or a Gaudette or a Arvidsson or Bratt or Wood in later rounds that injects a more valuable piece than someone else's redundancies, reclamations or problems. Mostly the rationale has been poor.

Jimbo was never gonna be that patient i guess and that is my big frustration and many others to harsher degrees. He still blows off Forsling by saying we have Stecher and Pouliot so he's no big loss. Vey was Willies pet everyone knows that. I'm certain willie was impressed by him in the AHL on that line with Pearson and Toffoli and thought he could be something good at the NHL level. Pedan was strange... was a crazy overpayment for a ECHL bound player. Obviously Jimbo thought all those tools he had would overcome the deficiencies to his game. Wrong

Anyways ROE i've gotta tap out on this one but i will say i think as a whole(his trades) i agree it has been mixed to poor, but this is the Derrick Pouliot thread and in this thread we generally side to talking about this player and this acquisition. I think this was a good gamble to make and that i would much rather watch 23 yr old Derrick Pouliot a player i have followed for some time and believe has a tremendous upside try and ressurect his career than the minute chance we acquire something better with a 4th round draft pick. I wasn't even a big fan of the Baertschi trade but that was a steal in hindsight so i'm not gonna completely shut the door to Benning doing something. With this deal many of the same factors apply if you really dive into their careers

Oddly enough, I was a fan of the Baertschi trade as it was made. Not a fan of this deal in principle. I think it's because I'm looking back at the wreckage of squandered picks while you're looking at it as a fan of the prospect. I'm hung up on the big picture while you're fixed on the player alone. So I see it as continued bad management practice, despite Pouliot tracking well. I can't shake the process for the player.

The aspect of these types of moves that I cannot abide is the continued marginalization of picks, and the refusal to acknowledge how pick frequency affects draft conversion. The "minute chance" attached to mid-round picks can be standard deviations better given more mid-round picks. It's something astute GMs seem to understand. For most everything else here though, I think we are on the same page.

 

[Bleach Clean]

The argument was that it “was a bad trade at the time” so there is nothing to see here going forward. The trade could not possibly be a win even if Pouliot somehow became a top 4 dman long term like he has shown flashes of potentially being. I was saying gee that is kind of a crazy argument. Sometimes fans can’t pre determine what a trade must be the moment it happens, and sometimes people can see something in a player and shrewdly save him from failing out.

That’s all that I said and I don’t think we have a legit top 4 dman at all yet.

Just curious, who do you think was making this argument? Particularly, the part in bold?

It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me.

 

[2011 still hurts]

Derrick "Better than Drew Doughty, Erik Karlsson and Paul Coffey combined" Pouliot gets 3 points tonight

 

[rune74]

Just curious, who do you think was making this argument? Particularly, the part in bold?

It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me.

Well IMO, you are wrong. It looks like a good trade now doesn't it.

 

[F A N]

Yeah, the thing is he's already had that chance on another team. Those mistakes he's "playing through"? He's been making those for a while. And like I said, we've already got a bumper crop of **** ups on the blueline.

You are wrong. Penguins fans will tell you that Pouliot didn't consistently get the opportunities that he is getting now.

I'm not confused. I know keeping players you've drafted until they prove they aren't NHL players is a viable strategy, because so many NHL gms have been able to recoup draft picks from our man Benning, haven't they? Remember Vey? Or Pedan? Larsen, Holm, Etem had a draft pick thrown in on the deal...

You're confused. That wasn't my argument at all.

And yes, of course draft picks don't always turn out. But as I've said on this forum many many times, trading draft picks for older prospects ALWAYS means you're getting someone the other team decided was expendable. And in case you weren't paying attention, the only time it's worked so far here has been Baertschi.

Getting someone the other team decided was expendable means absolutely nothing. Technically speaking, you can argue that every player a team trades is a player a team decided was expendable.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Derrick "Better than Drew Doughty, Erik Karlsson and Paul Coffey combined" Pouliot gets 3 points tonight

for one night at least he was indeed like a young drew doughty. apart from the goal and assists he also made a number of shifty moves and was physical in his own end. he is definitely feeling it.

what a treat this guy has been to watch emerge.

pouliot is now about to force one of our top 6 out of the lineup even though i think all of them are playing roughly to expectations. he's starting to see 20 minutes a night which he has earned off other guys. he's also showed he can play both sides.

that is impressive.

 

[F A N]

It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me.

What is odd is that some posters here base their opinion on what they consider to be "the process" and do not care about the results. When did trades in any sport not consider the results or place a higher relevance to it? That's like evaluating trades based on the more popular thinking at the time. I don't know of any management team or leader who is evaluated based solely or mostly on their perception of their decisions at the time. When St. Louis traded Rundblad for Ottawa's draft pick to use in selecting Tarasenko, I don't remember anyone calling it a steal. It was considered a fair trade at best for St. Louis. Who is calling the trade anything other than an absolute great trade? Explain to me why "the process" matters in evaluating the trade? There's a player you really like you go out and get him. And if he turns out the way you think it would, it doesn't matter that everyone else didn't think the way you did and thought you made a terrible trade, you would have made a great trade.

I remember when the Kyle Turris was still in Phoenix and obviously available. Most didn't think he would develop into a 1st line C or high end 2nd line C and didn't want to overpay for him. Even when the trade was made, I don't remember too many here (if there was any) who thought that the Canucks could have easily and should have beaten Ottawa's offer.

The Turris example is to point out the flaws in your thinking. You're basing everything on your own thinking. Your "process" when you lack information. You don't know what the Canucks saw in Pouliot. He is obviously a guy that the Canucks' scouts have targeted for a while. While, assessments can change, we are still talking about making a decision based on the information at hand. You are not privy to that information. You cannot fully evaluate the decision based on your own personal viewing (you can obviously disagree with the trade). The idea that you can't call it a great trade or a steal regardless of how Pouliot turns out is ridiculous and stupid thinking.

Even in real life. I remember during the tech bubble, Warren Buffet was thought to be out of touch and his company's stock was dropping because he didn't invest in tech stocks that were seeing the most gains in stock price. Or take the guy in the movie Big Short. You didn't see what these guys saw and so you declare their decisions to be bad ones based on "the process." But what is the process? What's in your own mind? You are completely ignoring the "process" the Canucks management, Buffet etc. went through. I made this example before, it's like Burke thinking Kiprusoff wasn't worth a 2nd round pick at the draft. Had his "process" led to the conclusion that he surely was, history would have changed.

 

[F A N]

for one night at least he was indeed like a young drew doughty. apart from the goal and assists he also made a number of shifty moves and was physical in his own end. he is definitely feeling it.

what a treat this guy has been to watch emerge.

pouliot is now about to force one of our top 6 out of the lineup even though i think all of them are playing roughly to expectations. he's starting to see 20 minutes a night which he has earned off other guys. he's also showed he can play both sides.

that is impressive.

Ya he seems to be getting better every game. Hate to see him out of the lineup.

 

[looseneditforyou]

Just curious, who do you think was making this argument? Particularly, the part in bold?

It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me.

It wasn't that they didn't care, it was that we didn't see the deal as a bad value. They appear to be correct so far, and your position on the trade appears to have been incorrect. No one minds that, but we do mind that the pro-tank posters are so beholden to a believing in a particular set of causes for the course of the team in recent years that any fact that contradicts them is just ignored or transmogrified into something that isn't a fact. Jim Benning made what looks like a good trade. Some people liked it all along, and maybe they were astute and maybe they were unduly optimistic. You were wrong, and maybe you were stupid and maybe you were unduly pessimistic. Who cares?

 

[skyo]

apart from the goal and assists he also made a number of shifty moves and was physical in his own end. he is definitely feeling it.

what a treat this guy has been to watch emerge.

pouliot is now about to force one of our top 6 out of the lineup even though i think all of them are playing roughly to expectations. he's starting to see 20 minutes a night which he has earned off other guys. he's also showed he can play both sides.

that is impressive.

With a CF 51.61% tonight for Pouliot, has matched Schultz and Zaitsev point total all with 10 pts a piece so far, yeah it's been a pleasant surprise for the quiet DP to see him get confidence.

 

[Verviticus]

Well IMO, you are wrong. It looks like a good trade now doesn't it.

it looks like exactly the same trade it was when it was finalized. trades dont really change, unless you consider the superposition of the hodgson/kassian sulzer/gragnani trade to be changing depending on source

 

[DL44]

The trade was a very good one.

Just curious, who do you think was making this argument? Particularly, the part in bold?

It was a bad trade at the time, IMO. Can a bad trade have a good result? Absolutely. These two ideas can co-exist for 1 trade. The reason the first part is such a bone of contention is that fans that wholly base their opinion on results only do not care about process. Meaning, they don't care if their GM seemingly makes a bad value deal. It's all 'wait and see'. That's something that seems very odd to me.

Fans play the wait and see game... GM's go based on their experience and take advantage of other teams' predicaments.

Still dont get peoples' apprehension of seeing this as a very good trade.... other than sticking to their initial takes on thinking he was a waiver wire player that would of dropped to us for free.
Our GM made the trade to ensure he was a Canuck.. and its paid off.

We win. Goodbye Pedan + a 4th...

The trade should be a non-topic by now.