Confirmed with Link: [VAN/PIT] Pedan and 2018 4th round pick for Derrick Pouliot

[Hit the post]

So back on topic, the Canucks posted a video of practice today (Pouliot mostly) and it would seem that he looks to be a lot more trim than in some of the photos posted of him on this thread. He's also quite a good skater and was passing right onto the tape with quick crisp passes. Looks alright at first glance...

 

[CanaFan]

the gospel of y2k is pronounced. yay verily, all the draft picks we traded together with the draft picks we could have gotten for the players we traded for, would have produced more value than the sum total of sutter, baertschi, granlund, goldobin, pouliot, dahlen, markstrom and gudbranson plus the draft picks we got back.

do i have it right? do i need to add to or subtract from that list?

Probably. You seem to have missed the busts (Vey, Clendening, Etem) and added players who weren't acquired for picks (Dahlen, Markstrom).

But I'm sure that was an accident, right?

 

[CanaFan]

are you kidding me?

What do you think?

 

[krutovsdonut]

Probably. You seem to have missed the busts (Vey, Clendening, Etem) and added players who weren't acquired for picks (Dahlen, Markstrom).

But I'm sure that was an accident, right?

i am only listing what he has left to show for his efforts. so yes, i am omitting all the busted gambles. that follows.

 

[vancityluongo]

So back on topic, the Canucks posted a video of practice today (Pouliot mostly) and it would seem that he looks to be a lot more trim than in some of the photos posted of him on this thread. He's also quite a good skater and was passing right onto the tape with quick crisp passes. Looks alright at first glance...

 

[krutovsdonut]

What do you think?

i think that if i continue this discussion i will get demerits.

 

[CanaFan]

i am only listing what he has left to show for his efforts. so yes, i am omitting all the busted gambles. that follows.

And how did Dahlen and Markstrom get in there?

 

[WTG]

 

[CanaFan]

i think that if i continue this discussion i will get demerits.

That's what I tried to warn you. Let's stay best buds.

 

[clunk]

Which begs the question, why would you trade young, SPEEDY assets for a big, slow, 'old time hockey', physical 'shutdown' d-man that can't move the puck that no longer is of much importance in today's game?

This front office is confusing af.... Lots of signs they have no clue what they're doing.

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Ok, now for the important stuff...... what #is he wearing? Stetcher has his #51. Has he practiced with the team yet?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Ok, now for the important stuff...... what #is he wearing? Stetcher has his #51. Has he practiced with the team yet?

#5

 

[Cogburn]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "nurture them" though. By what? Having Pouliot play 12 games as a call up instead of Chatfield? I just don't see how it makes any difference, including the "if we can win just one more game" argument. Players don't develop or not develop because the team wins 30 games instead of 29. They develop due to a myriad of other factors (coaches, internal drive, family, ice time, deployment, teammates, etc) but pure wins/losses is not one of them. I can see an argument for not putting Brock Boeser in a situation he isn't ready to handle to "nurture him". I cannot see one for playing Pouliot instead of some other AHLer or fringe NHLer as mattering at all to Boeser's development.



You're being inconsistent here. The odds of finding a Baertschi / Granlund level player in the 4th is not 0.3%. You calculated that number based on a "franchise player" i.e. Gaudrea, Hull, etc. The % of finding a significantly lower player like Baertschi/Granlund is well above 0.3% (1 in 333 picks).



I don't think you're being honest here. No one "howled" about the Burrows trade. That was exactly the type of trade that fans here want and support. You're not arguing in good faith by trying to mischaracterize a certain group of people.

Yes, they were upset about the Gudbranson trade, which was exactly what I'm saying is the problem. Upside (McCann and a high 2nd) for a 25 year old Dman who looked to have plateaued as a unremarkable #4/5 stay at home type. The Vanek signing was disliked because it creates a roadblock for our few young kids like Boeser, Virtanen, and Goldobin. If Benning eventually trades Vanek for a pick then I think most fans will like *that* part of the trade, though still not the potential blocking of a younger player.

Honestly your argument was much better without this last paragraph.

The elite players I'd listed and the point I made on that one is surround them with talent and the right kinds of players, and don't throw them to the wolves or use some weird one on one off schedule. Zetterberg and Datsyuk are two guys that weren't just thrown into it, and they certainly wouldn't have developed as well without the Yzermans and Lidstroms that were on Detroit.

Inconsistent is fine, but when ever I use that number, I'm more jumping into the "franchise" numbers I crunched last night. You said franchise, I'm not the one moving the goalposts, but we're not arguing that that 4th round pick would be a Baertschi/Granlund level player.

I'm not naming names, because for the life of me I can't remember who, but I made a note of some of the same people that complained about previous trades also complained about this years signings, and any trade Benning has done, even when they've worked out, including the brief sell off we had at last years deadline.

Gudbranson has been a bad trade for us not because of what he brings or doesn't bring to the table, but because we have had one injury plagued season out of the guy. McCann can't be evaluated as a first round pick at the time of the trade. We derailed that kid, or he derailed himself, depending on whose narrative you believe. The only reason he saw daylight was because of Florida's injuries at center. As for Vanek, some roadblock, two of three made it on to the team, and the third didn't have a stellar training camp either way.

But I digress, my argument is faltering because I can no longer work up the interest/ire to keep going, and that paragraph was all over the place. Honestly I think you have some well reasoned arguments as well, but we seem to have differing philosophies as to how the team should be run. That is the source of our disagreement. I just didn't like my interpretation of your comment about losing a chance at an elite player or a franchise player with that pick. Even as a 6 D, I think Pouliot presents more value to our team now, and in the future, then that 4th round pick would. We've clarified our positions concerning that idea. I stand by that. I would rather focus on bringing our prospects into a functional, if not winning, team. Take our time, and bring some of our top young talent onto a team that has a structure and a plan, have some players to compliment them, and not pull a Toronto or Edmonton team under their former management groups.

All the best though, back to work for me.

 

[krutovsdonut]

And how did Dahlen and Markstrom get in there?

i listed every player benning acquired by trade as my understanding of the y2k theory is all the assets we gave up for those assets could have been used to acquire draft picks instead.

i am envisioning a ledger sheet approach here. everything benning has to show for his trades, compared to y2k's alternate reality where those assets are instead all used to acquire draft picks (and we just sign ufas or pluck guys off waivers until the prospects take over).

 

[Hit the post]

Even as a 6 D, I think Pouliot presents more value to our team now, and in the future, then that 4th round pick would.

Out of context I couldn't DISAGREE with that more. How hard is it to get a left side #6 D in this league? I wouldn't say very hard. Now a player with offensive skills, I could understand (ie., Pouliot I would surmise).

 

[CanaFan]

The elite players I'd listed and the point I made on that one is surround them with talent and the right kinds of players, and don't throw them to the wolves or use some weird one on one off schedule. Zetterberg and Datsyuk are two guys that weren't just thrown into it, and they certainly wouldn't have developed as well without the Yzermans and Lidstroms that were on Detroit.

Inconsistent is fine, but when ever I use that number, I'm more jumping into the "franchise" numbers I crunched last night. You said franchise, I'm not the one moving the goalposts, but we're not arguing that that 4th round pick would be a Baertschi/Granlund level player.

I'm not naming names, because for the life of me I can't remember who, but I made a note of some of the same people that complained about previous trades also complained about this years signings, and any trade Benning has done, even when they've worked out, including the brief sell off we had at last years deadline.

Gudbranson has been a bad trade for us not because of what he brings or doesn't bring to the table, but because we have had one injury plagued season out of the guy. McCann can't be evaluated as a first round pick at the time of the trade. We derailed that kid, or he derailed himself, depending on whose narrative you believe. The only reason he saw daylight was because of Florida's injuries at center. As for Vanek, some roadblock, two of three made it on to the team, and the third didn't have a stellar training camp either way.

But I digress, my argument is faltering because I can no longer work up the interest/ire to keep going, and that paragraph was all over the place. Honestly I think you have some well reasoned arguments as well, but we seem to have differing philosophies as to how the team should be run. That is the source of our disagreement. I just didn't like my interpretation of your comment about losing a chance at an elite player or a franchise player with that pick. Even as a 6 D, I think Pouliot presents more value to our team now, and in the future, then that 4th round pick would. We've clarified our positions concerning that idea. I stand by that. I would rather focus on bringing our prospects into a functional, if not winning, team. Take our time, and bring some of our top young talent onto a team that has a structure and a plan, have some players to compliment them, and not pull a Toronto or Edmonton team under their former management groups.

All the best though, back to work for me.

Fair enough. Disagree on some of this but I can see the thinking behind most of it. Regardless I enjoyed the discussion

 

[CanaFan]

i listed every player benning acquired by trade as my understanding of the y2k theory is all the assets we gave up for those assets could have been used to acquire draft picks instead.

i am envisioning a ledger sheet approach here. everything benning has to show for his trades, compared to y2k's alternate reality where those assets are instead all used to acquire draft picks (and we just sign ufas or pluck guys off waivers until the prospects take over).

Hmmm. I don't think he (or anyone) ever said *always* acquire draft picks with assets but you'd know better than I. Still don't think Benning has anything to do with Markstrom though...

 

[krutovsdonut]

Hmmm. I don't think he (or anyone) ever said *always* acquire draft picks with assets but you'd know better than I. Still don't think Benning has anything to do with Markstrom though...

agree on markstrom. my mistake. i get the kesler and luongo and schneider trades mixed up on the timeline.

i don't think you can judge benning's value recovered in trading record without including all the trades. if you took some out that you liked that would skew the remaining results against him.

 

[Knight53]

[/QUOTE]
*Signs Gudbranson to a 4.5x6 contract sometime in January*

 

[VanJack]

Problem with extreme positions is that no one actually ends up listening. But maybe that's not the objective.

Pouliot has some value. Every move by Benning isn't bad.

There's a real discussion going on about the relative values of the assets that were moved. And both sides are making at least reasonable arguments.

So let me get this straight....Pittsburgh hosted the 2012 draft and dealt Jordan Staal to Carolina for the express purposes making a splash by moving up in the draft and selecting Pouliot at eighth overall....less than five years later they jettison him for a Utica d-man in Pedan and a fourth rounder. This from a GM who's coming off back-to-back Cups.

Try and imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and Benning ends up dealing Oli Juolevi for a minor-league d-man and a fourth rounder...the bloodhounds would be baying at the moon. But that's the NHL draft for you.....sometimes sh#@#@t happens, even in the top-10 of the first round.

 

[iceburg]

So let me get this straight....Pittsburgh hosted the 2012 draft and dealt Jordan Staal to Carolina for the express purposes making a splash by moving up in the draft and selecting Pouliot at eighth overall....less than five years later they jettison him for a Utica d-man in Pedan and a fourth rounder. This from a GM who's coming off back-to-back Cups.

Try and imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and Benning ends up dealing Oli Juolevi for a minor-league d-man and a fourth rounder...the bloodhounds would be baying at the moon. But that's the NHL draft for you.....sometimes sh#@#@t happens, even in the top-10 of the first round.

Pitts definitely grew lukewarm on Pouliot. And that should be factored in to the value assessment. That doesn't mean he has no value or won't establish himself in the NHL. It just means that he wasn't good enough to fit in Pitts top 8 at this stage (on a team going for a 3rd cup in a row) and they weren't willing to lose him for nothing.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

*Signs Gudbranson to a 4.5x6 contract sometime in January*

We recently resigned the guy to a 1 year deal, and apparently tried to trade him to Florida for a deal that was nixed by the returning party's NTC. Benning does not show any particular myopic fascination with big, slow, dinosaur players. If he has a "type", it's butter-soft and inconsistent tweener wingers.

It's fun to mock our perpetually bewildered looking GM but FFS try and keep your jokes timely.

OT: This bit from a recent PitB article jumped out...

Pouliot was 21 at the start of the 2015-16 season, though he turned 22 by the time he got called up to the Penguins. When he did finally play, he was dominant in puck possession. Not just good — dominant.

In his 22 NHL games, Pouliot led the Penguins in corsi percentage, with his team taking 58.51% of the shot attempts when he was on the ice at 5-on-5. That was while he was paired with two of the Penguins’ defencemen who had the lowest corsi percentage on the season, Ben Lovejoy and Ian Cole.

You can fine-tune that number if you like: he also led the Penguins in fenwick percentage, shots-on-goal percentage, and scoring chance percentage, all as calculated by Natural Stat Trick. That’s all at 5-on-5, where only Lovejoy started a lower percentage of shifts in the offensive zone, so it doesn’t appear that he was given easier minutes.

According to those analytics, Pouliot drove puck possession in 2015-16 better than any other Penguins’ defenceman, albeit in a small sample size of just 22 games.

I'm firmly in the "I don't really trust Benning's eye when it comes to reclamation projects, especially on defense" camp, but this suggests there might be more to Pouliot than his underwhelming career in Pittsburgh suggests.

Or not. I have no idea. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Hit the post]

Pitts definitely grew lukewarm on Pouliot. And that should be factored in to the value assessment. That doesn't mean he has no value or won't establish himself in the NHL. It just means that he wasn't good enough to fit in Pitts top 8 at this stage (on a team going for a 3rd cup in a row) and they weren't willing to lose him for nothing.

Like some "foundational center" wasn't good enough for the Pens but a Bonino was?

(I know he was dealt for cap purposes...)

 

[iceburg]

Like some "foundational center" wasn't good enough for the Pens but a Bonino was?

(I know he was dealt for cap purposes...)

lol...that would definitely be a redo.

 

[y2kcanucks]

the gospel of y2k is pronounced. yay verily, all the draft picks we traded together with the draft picks we could have gotten for the players we traded for, would have produced more value than the sum total of sutter, baertschi, granlund, goldobin, pouliot, dahlen, markstrom and gudbranson plus the draft picks we got back.

do i have it right? do i need to add to or subtract from that list?

Where do Sutter, Dahlen, and Markstrom come from? Markstrom especially since he was a Gillis acquisition.

Dahlen I was fine with. He was a recent draft pick so it's not like we acquired a prospect who was on the verge of busting. And Sutter? Benning grossly overpaid for him. Not sure how he's brought into this discussion though. Typical of a Benning supporter though. Muddy the waters with non-sequiturs.