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

[racerjoe]

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

It would probably change even if he tried this just less. It's probably ok to try it here or there on players you really believe in. but the number of trades like this we see is crazy.

 

[Diamonddog01]

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.

While I absolutely agree, and it view equally absurd to focus exclusively on 'process' as though it exists in a vacuum, I would not put the Clendenning trade in this category. That was for a prospect that was tracking well, not a late round pick. That now looks like Benning's worst trade, or at least tied with the Gudbranson trade. Apart from that yes - one must evaluate both the thought process and the results in any given trade.

 

[Melvin]

While I absolutely agree, and it view equally absurd to focus exclusively on 'process' as though it exists in a vacuum, I would not put the Clendenning trade in this category. That was for a prospect that was tracking well, not a late round pick. That now looks like Benning's worst trade, or at least tied with the Gudbranson trade. Apart from that yes - one must evaluate both the thought process and the results in any given trade.

I think I agree.

The reason why results are important is because we have too many missing variables to assess a transaction based on process alone. We must infer aspects of the process based on results.

It does look like after years of acquiring junk defensemen, this group of blind squirrels have finally found a nut. That is important and significant, and deserves merit.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

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."

Fair enough. I was only addressing the point that a team built through trades of 4th round picks and waiver pick ups can win the cup.
But it's also incorrect to say pouliot is a bad trade no matter how he plays.
Happy that DP is playing well, hope he keeps it up because there isn't much offense coming from the group of D, and relying solely on the F to score is not a sustainable winning method imo. Even if DP becomes only a bottom pairing D it's still a win for Benning.

 

[drax0s]

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?

So because teams have traditionally been built a certain way, we should too? I guess we need some face punchers and some more big, crease clearing dmen too, since that's how teams have been traditionally built too.

Acquiring older prospects blocked by depth seems to be a proven strategy in the mlb by the Brewers.

 

[Bleach Clean]

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?

You're wrong on two points. It's not my "thesis" that rebuilding teams favour the acquisition of picks. It's commonly understood across the league that this is the norm. That's the way it has always been. CHI, PIT and LA were built through the draft. Numerous other teams the same. Do I need to show them dealing off assets for picks for you to acknowledge this? Or, can we accept this as a historical fact and move forward?

Your second incorrect assertion is to favour the exception over the rule. It's not that these rebuilding clubs refused any picks whatsoever for reclamation projects. It's that each club's primary focus was to acquire and retain picks for the draft. That's the rule. Even if they had dealt a few picks to get certain young players, the focus was still on the draft.

Benning can proceed any way he chooses. It just will not be recognized as a rebuild based on any known precedent. Now if you want to contend that the Benning type of rebuild is common place, or that it represents past rebuilds, be my guest. I'm open to hearing a researched counter point.

 

[krutovsdonut]

So because teams have traditionally been built a certain way, we should too? I guess we need some face punchers and some more big, crease clearing dmen too, since that's how teams have been traditionally built too.

next they'll be telling us dmen take longer.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

Whenever I get tired of the airs that certain posts take on of philosophical perfection and rational rigour, I usually go read the first few pages of the Granlund thread. Now I'll go read the first few pages of the Pouliot trade thread. Some increasingly humorous material there.

 

[Bleach Clean]

So because teams have traditionally been built a certain way, we should too? I guess we need some face punchers and some more big, crease clearing dmen too, since that's how teams have been traditionally built too.

Acquiring older prospects blocked by depth seems to be a proven strategy in the mlb by the Brewers.

Benning can build his team in whichever way he chooses. Repeat: He can do whatever he wants.

However, if Benning wants to label his long-term strategy as a "rebuild", then this mode implies expectations akin to past rebuilds. Makes sense doesn't it? In fact, this is the biggest reason why I think Benning and Linden have been running away from the term "rebuild" ever since they have arrived. It's because they know that what they are doing does not represent a rebuild based upon any known precedent. They are effectively doing what they want to do regardless.

It's an argument about what is a rebuild, and based upon that understanding, how close or how far Benning and co. are from it. Don't want to rebuild? Don't call it one -- lest you have fans questioning what you are doing based upon said label.

 

[Cupless44]

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.

Some have to cling to their arguments and initials opinions no matter what, even when it begins to sound silly.

On a team long starved of defenceman with any offensive capability, a 4th round pick and a minor leaguer was well worth a calculated gamble on a player with talent, especially considering the Head Coach in Vancouver coached the defence for the Portland Winter Hawks and obviously knew the player and felt he could work with him.

GMs make some good trades and ones that don't work the way they hoped. All GMS. Just because Benning once traded a 2nd for Linden Vey doesn't mean he should never trade a draft pick ever again. Yes I would prefer to hang onto 1st to 3rd round picks each year but since when was every 4th and 5th round pick sacred? Each deal has to be judged individually and has to be judged over time like all trades do.

I do not say this as a Benning supporter because i don't consider myself one ( while he is the GM here I will form an opinion on each move objectively) I say this as someone who is tired of reading grasping arguments by those who cant seem to handle that their original opinion of the trade might just be wrong.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

@Ronning On Empty, you do know your process-GM gave up a first, 2 seconds, and 2 thirds for Braydon Coburn and Anders Lindback, right?

 

[Cupless44]

The "process" was fine on this specific trade.

A 4th round pick was sacrificed for an upside player the Coach knew very well and believed he could coach to be an effective puck moving defenceman. So far the returns are looking just fine.

While I agree that 2nd round picks should be held, can we please stop acting like not having a 4th or 5th round pick is the end of the world, or that no other teams ever trade them? There is more depth in the prospect system than ever before and more will still be added in the 2018 draft.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Acquiring older prospects blocked by depth seems to be a proven strategy in the mlb by the Brewers.

Its not a bad strategy if used in moderation. You can't build a winning team by only going after prospects that other teams give up on. But you can find some gems along the way.
It's the cost and frequency that I think posters disagreed on. Some prefer a rebuilding team to draft more and rely more on their own scouts. Some don't mind the gambles. Some have a lower tolerance on the risk (ie: trading a 2nd for vey is too risky, a 5th would be good value) and some have higher risk tolerance.
I don't think either side is wrong, just different philosophy.

 

[Addison Rae]

Whenever I get tired of the airs that certain posts take on of philosophical perfection and rational rigour, I usually go read the first few pages of the Granlund thread. Now I'll go read the first few pages of the Pouliot trade thread. Some increasingly humorous material there.

It's hilarious that your examples of posters being wrong is a trade for a borderline NHL player in Markus Granlund.

 

[PG Canuck]

I feel like this is going to be another Granlund like trade where Pouliot has a decent year offensively, one side rubs it in the others face, the other side says enjoy it while you can because it won’t last forever and next season comes and reality sinks in.

I hope Pouliot turns out good but have my doubts. His defensive game will always be his biggest issue so he needs to be insulated in every situation. His offensive abilities need to make up for that greatly.

 

[Melvin]

While I agree that 2nd round picks should be held, can we please stop acting like not having a 4th or 5th round pick is the end of the world, or that no other teams ever trade them?

Absolutely nobody acts this way, or comes close to acting this way. Certainly no one has come close to suggesting that other teams never trade them.

You do your otherwise valid argument a disservice when you infect it with this sort of disingenuous strawman junk.

You know damn well that nobody would complain about this trade were it the only kind of its ilk, and people struggle with the pattern of behaviour rather than this transaction in isolation.

Having said all that, this trade is looking good, and you absolutely must incorporate results into an evaluation of the process. The only time this would not be true would be if you actually had a complete picture of the process, which we would never have.

 

[Diamonddog01]

Its not a bad strategy if used in moderation. You can't build a winning team by only going after prospects that other teams give up on. But you can find some gems along the way.
It's the cost and frequency that I think posters disagreed on. Some prefer a rebuilding team to draft more and rely more on their own scouts. Some don't mind the gambles. Some have a lower tolerance on the risk (ie: trading a 2nd for vey is too risky, a 5th would be good value) and some have higher risk tolerance.
I don't think either side is wrong, just different philosophy.

This is a good summation of the divergent opinions. I didn't mind it initially, I thought it was an interesting and somewhat innovative strategy. And I'll admit I thought the DP trade was a poor one as a) it appeared this strategy wasn't particularly effective and b) I thought it was being employed too frequently, however I appear to be wrong in my original opinion of the trade. Still don't want this strategy to be used as much as it has been thus far however.

 

[DL44]

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?

Process = Poor, in whose opinion? Yours?
If the process = We have liked Pouliot for a long time, and there is developmental upside we can tap, let's trade for him.... then it seems the Process = excellent.

Don't mistake thinking Pouliot was worth Pedan and 4th = not caring about a 4th round pick.

Because YOU didn't think it was good asset management, does NOT mean it wasn't.
Warning... Appeal to Authority: The professionals in charge seemed to think it was worth it.

Also a rebuild isn't an all or nothing approach. Not every transaction is or has to be a trade for a pick going only one way. Sometimes you trade a depth pick for a 23 yr old. Don't think you can find a single team that's rebuilt well that did not trade picks in their process to target players they felt fit their team.

Pouliot significantly changes the complexion of our group of young dmen.
Seems like he will be a middle 3 offensive defender for our team for the next decade. That's a nice asset to have for a cost of .... assets.

Or we can dismiss the Pouliot trade and pretend they just willy nilly lucked out on this one.

"why is the super scout GM trading picks in a rebuild?". Where is that rationale?

Maybe consider maybe the management feels like we have our high end elite prospects now and a decent cupboard of potential depth... so let's move forward and support them with some veterans with the goal of winning and pushing for the playoffs now because a competitive environment will breed and produce better character players than if they actively wasted a professional year of service of all our current players having a lineup of unsupported youth flounder around the ice.

So going forward... the plan is to break in players like they are Goldobin... create some depth above them that they have to break thru to earn a spot and earn to keep it.
You want Pettersson to do the same thing next yr. Dalhen. Juolevi.
Feel bad for Burmistrov and Weircoch who signed on for an opportunity to play for their next contracts..... but have become a safety net for our roster instead.

Sedins are obviously coming back next yr... Vanek may not be - definitely not for $2mil... but I'm off on a tangent now.

My point... Just cuz YOU don't understand the rationale of Pouliot for Pedan and 4th, does not mean there is a lack of it.

 

[Melvin]

I feel like this is going to be another Granlund like trade where Pouliot has a decent year offensively, one side rubs it in the others face, the other side says enjoy it while you can because it won’t last forever and next season comes and reality sinks in.

I hope Pouliot turns out good but have my doubts. His defensive game will always be his biggest issue so he needs to be insulated in every situation. His offensive abilities need to make up for that greatly.

It is funny that people still react this way to these small stretches of play.

Like a couple weeks ago people were crowing about baertschi, and now all of a sudden he is right back to his normal es point pace of 30/82. As predicted.

 

[krutovsdonut]

You're wrong on two points. It's not my "thesis" that rebuilding teams favour the acquisition of picks. It's commonly understood across the league that this is the norm. That's the way it has always been. CHI, PIT and LA were built through the draft. Numerous other teams the same. Do I need to show them dealing off assets for picks for you to acknowledge this? Or, can we accept this as a historical fact and move forward?

nobody is talking about dealing assets for picks. that's a different discussion.

and nobody is saying you don't build through the draft. every team does that including the canucks.

you need to justify your position that this is a bad trade regardless of outcome because these kind of trades are always bad for rebuilding teams.

to do that you need to substantiate the idea you are floating that teams that succeed never use draft picks or young assets to acquire logjammed/reclamation projects like pouliot.

so far you have done zero to substantiate that thesis. simply citing three teams that won the cup is meaningless unless you can also say "and they never made trades like the pouliot trade" or "and they never ever traded picks or prospects for older potentially logjammed/reclamation projects".

i think you also need to stop citing only the success stories for your preferred strategy and list all the teams that have attempted to rebuild using the strategy you advocate, and give a balanced analysis of how the strategy has worked. you also should give examples of teams consistently failing trying what benning is trying. i'd love to hear where the oilers, sabres, coyotes, panthers, and canes fit in terms of rebuild strategies.

otherwise, if you don't want to back up your bold blanket statement, you can do the easy thing and just analyse this trade on its own merits, and compare the chances of a 4th rounder, vs the chances of pouliot and anything else you want to bring to bear specific to this transaction.

 

[Cupless44]

It's hilarious that your examples of posters being wrong is a trade for a borderline NHL player in Markus Granlund.

Probably true though that a depth NHLer is more useful than a career minor leaguer

 

[Bleach Clean]

Its not a bad strategy if used in moderation. You can't build a winning team by only going after prospects that other teams give up on. But you can find some gems along the way.
It's the cost and frequency that I think posters disagreed on. Some prefer a rebuilding team to draft more and rely more on their own scouts. Some don't mind the gambles. Some have a lower tolerance on the risk (ie: trading a 2nd for vey is too risky, a 5th would be good value) and some have higher risk tolerance.
I don't think either side is wrong, just different philosophy.

MRGC, I was with you right until the last line. While there may be disagreement about the tolerance of Benning's GM practice, and there is, I believe one side is wrong in this debate: And it's the one that aligns what Benning has done with tenants of a rebuild. He is not, nor has he ever been, "rebuilding". Not in any sense based upon past precedent (which is all we have to reference).

I feel that the fans that are categorizing his work as a rebuild are arguing for a never-before-seen form of a rebuild. As if Benning is setting a new base template for what a rebuild should be... even though his work more aptly represents a re-tool regardless.

Otherwise, I largely agree with your post and feel like it serves as a clarification on where fans stand on this deal (and those like it).

Some have to cling to their arguments and initials opinions no matter what, even when it begins to sound silly.

...

I say this as someone who is tired of reading grasping arguments by those who cant seem to handle that their original opinion of the trade might just be wrong.

But you see, the original opinion of this trade cannot be wrong if people still disagree with the process of this deal (among others like it). The result does not overturn that perception. Just as the process does not negate the result. If I feel that Benning made a good trade with Baertschi and he flops from here on out, do I overturn my initial opinion that he seemingly made a good trade? No. He made a good trade per process, and the result was poor. Do you understand?

 

[DL44]

MRGC, I was with you right until the last line. While there may be disagreement about the tolerance of Benning's GM practice, and there is, I believe one side is wrong in this debate: And it's the one that aligns what Benning has done with tenants of a rebuild. He is not, nor has he ever been, "rebuilding". Not in any sense based upon past precedent (which is all we have to reference).

I feel that the fans that are categorizing his work as a rebuild are arguing for a never-before-seen form of a rebuild. As if Benning is setting a new base template for what a rebuild should be... even though his work more aptly represents a re-tool regardless.

Otherwise, I largely agree with your post and feel like it serves as a clarification on where fans stand on this deal (and those like it).





But you see, the original opinion of this trade cannot be wrong if people still disagree with the process of this deal (among others like it). The result does not overturn that perception. Just as the process does not negate the result. If I feel that Benning made a good trade with Baertschi and he flops from here on out, do overturn my initial opinion that he seemingly made a good trade? No. He made a good trade per process, and the result was poor. Do you understand?

Retool then?

How about we call it... Status unquo

 

[Melvin]

MRGC, I was with you right until the last line. While there may be disagreement about the tolerance of Benning's GM practice, and there is, I believe one side is wrong in this debate: And it's the one that aligns what Benning has done with tenants of a rebuild. He is not, nor has he ever been, "rebuilding". Not in any sense based upon past precedent (which is all we have to reference).

I feel that the fans that are categorizing his work as a rebuild are arguing for a never-before-seen form of a rebuild. As if Benning is setting a new base template for what a rebuild should be... even though his work more aptly represents a re-tool regardless.

Otherwise, I largely agree with your post and feel like it serves as a clarification on where fans stand on this deal (and those like it).





But you see, the original opinion of this trade cannot be wrong if people still disagree with the process of this deal (among others like it). The result does not overturn that perception. Just as the process does not negate the result. If I feel that Benning made a good trade with Baertschi and he flops from here on out, do overturn my initial opinion that he seemingly made a good trade? No. He made a good trade per process, and the result was poor. Do you understand?

You do not know enough of his process to evaluate it definitively. You are missing a lot of data, and making a possibly improper evaluation based on incomplete data.

All we can do as fans is infer the process based on the data that we have. Perhaps counter intuitively, the results are part of the data that we must use. If their process includes a black box method of projections for players, it would be impossible to evaluate this without the results.

 

[Ryan Miller*]

I really hope Kolden Bannaran and Ronning on Empty have stumbled across some fundamental ontological deadlock, about whose nature they have no choice but to lock horns forever in an endless debate, their posts on hockey so philosophical as to become pure ether and never be seen again.