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

[Grub]

What has been a problem for the Canucks defense is their inability to create any offense. I think Pouliot gives us that.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

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

You are right the trade does not change. However the popular evaluation of the players could change. Perhaps the Canucks already had this evaluation when they made this trade. It is like the stock market some companies are mis evaluated while at the same time companies intrinsic value changes. In this case Canucks bought an undervalued asset and the asset's value is raising. It would likely take at least a high second for the Canucks to consider trading him now and they probably would still not be interested.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

I really hope Hollywood has a Sean Astin-style Rudy script in development on Pouliot's career, because I remember in the trade thread it being argued that it was impossible for a defenceman in his D+6 season to develop. Pouliot is doing the supposedly impossible! Incredible!

 

[Alan Jackson]

The Canucks look to have found themselves a player. At this point, Pouliot absolutely needs to stay in the lineup when 44 is back.

All signs point to a Gudbranson trade, and perhaps sooner than later.

 

[krutovsdonut]

while some may now maintain that both pouliot is a "bad trade" that somehow worked out well, i think benning has been playing the odds all along. etem was the same gamble. larsen was the same gamble. granlund was the same gamble. baertschi was the same gamble. clendenning was the same gamble. the odds just differed a little. to me these projects are part of a rebuild. you use the available roster spots you have to try and bring along a talented young player who you think might be able to do more with a bigger opportunity. some of those players you call "reclamation projects" and some are just "logjammed" but the logic is the same.

given it' s an odds based approach, it is probably fair to look at all those types of trades together the same way you assess a night at the roulette table, not one spin.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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

Looks the same. Further, you're still confusing process for result (especially now).

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?

Dealing mid-round picks for fringe assets is usually considered a bad value deal. That hasn't changed, then and now. Across all teams. This specific case does not overturn that general principle.

I'm not pro-tank. I'm pro-process.

I would like for you to debate this fact: Does a rebuilding team trade picks as a primary mode, or does it attempt to hoard them? If you say the former, please provide the precedent example. If it's the latter, then you agree with me. The alternative is that you just mindlessly support whatever luck-based thinking Benning applies in trades.

The trade was a very good one.

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.

Process = poor. Result = trending well. That's been the evaluation. He didn't need to be waiver wire bound for him to be considered a "fringe" asset. That's what he was at the time (verified by PIT blogs). And rebuilding teams do not generally pay picks for fringe pieces.

The funny thing about this trade is that it certainly separates the opinion of those that just don't care about asset value. That's why a certain segment of fans will prefer to wait and see on most every deal, even if the price paid seems bizarre from the outset. If the trade works out well, then it's "you were wrong, Benning is a winner" type drivel. If the trade does not work out, then it's "we're still waiting, be patient". Or, "he didn't pay that much". Or, "the pick has the same odds of working out". etc... It's not "why is the super scout GM trading picks in a rebuild?". Where is that rationale?

 

[member 290103]

Maybe time to change the name of this thread? Seems like some good reasons why they acquired this player.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Dealing mid-round picks for fringe assets is usually considered a bad value deal.

i see a lot of conclusionary statements in your analysis but this one seems to be the key.

why? and who exactly is this omnscient brain trust dispensing hockey wisdom in the form of vague generalities from upon high? how is that a substitute for hard analysis?

if you want to make assertions like that, shouldn't you back it up and explain exactly why you think a 4th round pick was a better gamble than p0uliot at the end of training camp? should you not address draft pick odds and player evaluation. should you not address the age issue and the opportunity of available roster space for development while you are it?

 

[racerjoe]

This trade very much reminds me of the Granlund trade.

Missed the game last night probably going to miss a few games over the next bit. Sounds like he played well. Not going to take anything away from him there.

However, like the Granlund trade and as RoE is trying to point out, that doesn't make this a good trade.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Not quite sure what every is trying to argue, but poohy might be one Dim Jim's best moves to date. Yes its nice to keep draft picks, but Pedan and a 4th for what is turning out to be a decent top 4 D man is a steal.

 

[krutovsdonut]

This trade very much reminds me of the Granlund trade.

Missed the game last night probably going to miss a few games over the next bit. Sounds like he played well. Not going to take anything away from him there.

However, like the Granlund trade and as RoE is trying to point out, that doesn't make this a good trade.

if we win the cup using this strategy will it not be a good cup?

 

[skyo]

if we win the cup using this strategy will it not be a good cup?

Nope - according to their logic - not a good Cup win, I mean it turned out ok, but it's not a good one.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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.

That's misrepresenting my position. I care about results, I just don't disregard process to only care about results. You do.

Explain to me why "the process" matters in evaluating the trade? There's a player you really like you go out and get him.

Process absolutely matters in trade because a higher frequency of good actions should lead to a higher frequency of good results. It stands to reason right? The analysis that is completely beholden to result, to the tune of an indefinite "wait and see", does not care if the GM makes seemingly bad move after bad move because the result is the only thing that matters. For example, it does not matter if Benning trades for a 3.5m defensive Dman that is a shot differential black hole because he hasn't played here yet. Regardless of people watching him in FA. Regardless of fans/media having 100+ games of data/records of his bottom-pairing play. He hasn't played here and bizarre trades don't matter so "wait and see".

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.

That's fine for Benning. I mean, we don't write his cheques, he can think and do what he wants to do. That said, being a General Manager is a very public work sphere. He's going to get judged on his actions. So when he makes a bizarre move there's going to be criticism. In that vein, criticizing his very liberal use of picks is fair game.

You're basing everything on your own thinking. Your "process" when you lack information. You don't know what the Canucks saw in Pouliot.

Not exactly. My thinking is grounded in the precedent of past rebuilding teams that target picks for acquisition, not deal them for fringe assets. That is publicly available information. I don't care what the Canucks saw in Pouliot. Nor do I care what they saw in Vey, Clendenning, Larsen etc... The process of dealing picks for fringe assets is not a rebuilding club's mode. Once in a while, I can understand it. But to do this over and over again - it signals a process, a clear intention. For that, there will be criticism.

I imagine that it's one of the reasons Benning hasn't been extended. The media is painting the picture of a mixed record overall. With his trade record as a whole, I can understand that perception of him.

 

[Nomobo]

I want to learn more about the "process ", is there a manual somewhere?

 

[HSD19]

Looked good last night both defensivley and offensively... let's see if he can sustain it. There were points last year where it was the same discussion in regards to GranLund.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Not quite sure what every is trying to argue, but poohy might be one Dim Jim's best moves to date. Yes its nice to keep draft picks, but Pedan and a 4th for what is turning out to be a decent top 4 D man is a steal.

I don't think he can be regarded as a top4 Dmen just yet.

This trade result is trending in the right direction, yes. Would you further support dealing picks for fringe assets based on Benning's total trade record?

i see a lot of conclusionary statements in your analysis but this one seems to be the key.

why? and who exactly is this omnscient brain trust dispensing hockey wisdom in the form of vague generalities from upon high? how is that a substitute for hard analysis?

if you want to make assertions like that, shouldn't you back it up and explain exactly why you think a 4th round pick was a better gamble than p0uliot at the end of training camp? should you not address draft pick odds and player evaluation. should you not address the age issue and the opportunity of available roster space for development while you are it?

It's called precedent. No hockey god necessary. Historically, rebuilding teams collect picks as a primary function. Now, if you want to debate precedent, CHI, PIT, FLA and others rebuilt their teams using this methodology. I'd like to hear your justification for the precedent of a Benning model. Does it exist?

Draft pick odds have not, to this point, accounted for the change in odds given a higher frequency in picks. That will have to be calculated for that discussion to go anywhere. In past discussions, the trade off has been understood to be upside for surety. The fringe asset is more 'sure' to have a role in the NHL while the draft pick offers better upside potential. So the re-tooling club would favour the asset closer to the NHL. This team is rebuilding right, so...?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I want to learn more about the "process ", is there a manual somewhere?

Yes, Stevie Y has it for the time being.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

if we win the cup using this strategy will it not be a good cup?

It wouldn't be "not a good cup" because a team built like that won't win the cup. I'll let you go back and collect ALL the players traded for 4th round picks in the last 10 years, add all the waiver wire (or near waiver wire) pick ups, put them on the same team and see if that's a cup worthy team.

 

[krutovsdonut]

It's called precedent. No hockey god necessary. Historically, rebuilding teams collect picks as a primary function. Now, if you want to debate precedent, CHI, PIT, FLA and others rebuilt their teams using this methodology. I'd like to hear your justification for the precedent of a Benning model. Does it exist?

it's your thesis not mine. you are asserting as a fact this is the wrong thing to do. you need to back it up.

for example, did those teams you mention make no trades of draft picks or younger prospects for reclamation projects and/or complimentary help?

if they did not, is there any evidence that is the only way to proceed?

 

[krutovsdonut]

It wouldn't be "not a good cup" because a team built like that won't win the cup. I'll let you go back and collect ALL the players traded for 4th round picks in the last 10 years, add all the waiver wire (or near waiver wire) pick ups, put them on the same team and see if that's a cup worthy team.

we can scroll back and people were saying the exact same thing in relation to pouliot. "it will not be a good trade if pouliot turns out ok because pouliot will not be a good player."

 

[racerjoe]

if we win the cup using this strategy will it not be a good cup?

Show me a team that has won the cup, or is even a contender using this strategy.

I said it before and I will say it again. Most of these trades are bad. Most of the time you can pick up very similar assets for free. He will have to sustain his good play (yes it is currently good) for much longer for him to be an outlier in these cases.

 

[WTG]

Imagine if this management group came out and said that "we looked at his underlying stats and believe Pouliot can turn into a good player" Imagine how much the perception of the trade would change

 

[skyo]

Yes, Stevie Y has it for the time being.

That would be awesome to manage a team that just drafted Stamkos and Hedman prior to getting hired, future #1 Dman & #1C all put in place for ya.

SteveY had a way better position to start than the tire fire Canucks team that had the aging Sedins locked up for multiple years and basically zero prospects in the cupboards. At least Benning has drafted numerous superb prospects that are developing now and acquired some younger guys like Grans/Dahlen/Goldy/Pouliot that are further along in their development.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

The Pouliot/Pedan and a 4th trade could go down as one of the best that GM Benning has ever made (considering what he gave up) ..For all of the pissing and moaning about 'the waste of a high 4th',...thats not even a topic of conversation now.

At this point,he's not coming out of the lineup (besides the twins,probably the best passer on the team)...his TOI is going up,and the coach has praise for him...Hutton or Stecher will be taking a seat in the press box when Gudbranson comes back..Its starting to be a bit of a crowd back there on D,and one has to wonder what happens next year if Juolevi is ready for the show ?

 

[alternate]

You can't just separate "process" and "player evaluation." You're not trading a pick for a random entity that meets a certain statistical criteria; you're trading for a specific individual. Judging "process" without allowing time to assess "evaluation" makes no sense.

IMO too much emphasis is put on the "franchise altering" potential of most picks. Sure, any pick could be the next Datsyuk, but by the same logic, any mid round pick dealt for a "fringe prospect" could be the next Patrick Sharp. Other than Dorsett, the picks traded by Benning have been for players who are still developing.

Benning has made 28 picks in four drafts. That's 7 per year, a full contingent. Some feel a rebuilding team should be making extra picks every year, not just the allotted 7. Fair enough, I don't necessarily disagree. Still, at least the acquired picks that Benning deals do still have "boom" potential...sure you've mostly given up the "franchise altering" upside of the pick, but you've also insulated yourself from zero organisational return on the investment.

Even some of Benning's most scrutinised "age gap" transactions are a good balance of short and long term needs. Vey didn't work out, but he was a PPG AHLer and is now a top scorer in the KHL...clearly there is some hockey ability there, he just didn't have the toolbox to stick in the NHL. More skill/IQ less toolbox is something people want to see more of.

The same process that brought in Vey also brought in Baertschi. If Benning drafted Baertschi with a 2nd, everyone would consider it a good pick. So Benning used 2 2nds to get Baertschi as a medium to long term piece, and Vey as a stop gap for two seasons. So basically a hit rate of 50%. Last time the Canucks drafted a Baertschi level player in the second round was Mason Raymond in 2005. Before that, Chubarov in 1998. That's two NHL quality players in 15 years of drafting (up to Demko in 2014). Of course a big part of that is how few 2nd rounders we've actually used over that time period, but Benning isn't trading them for Derek Roy or the like.

Same on defence. Offense from the blueline is so valuable. Clendenning was a miss, but he's played NHL games for four different organizations since he was here, so there's obviously something about his game worth looking at. Larsen (5th)/Pedan(3rd)/Pouliot(4th)...if that turns into one 30 point, top 4, strong transition defender, is it worth it? Pouliot still has to show his recent play is a development step and not just a hot streak, but I'd say it is. If hypothetically Benning had drafted with those third/fourth/fifth rounders and Pouliot had been the result, we're likely looking at that as a good draft for the Canucks.

That imo is what gets overlooked by this "process" talk. Benning has added medium to long term pieces with these deals that are contributing now as the new core takes shape, and could even be parts of it going forward.