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

[ddawg1950]

Holy crap look who the cat dragged in. Haven't seen you around for a few years and then all of a sudden there you are.... sporting 44 likes. (nobody loves me )

Definitely a gamble playing against pretty bid odds; but the odds are much worse that we end up regretting this trade.

This will most likely end up on the "meh" heap.

The cat lies. Crawled in on my aging knees.

And I agree, the most likely outcome is the shrug and the meh.

 

[CanaFan]

I think it just has gotten to the point of us VS them, when everyone cries foul to even suggesting that in the past.

It’s gotten that way for some people for sure. Not a fan of it personally.

 

[Hit the post]

Yeah, let's clearly let all our hopes rest on one player. Sounds solid.

Why not deal away Subban + draft pick for another Pouliot type of player?

(ie., it's the SAME thing I have trouble with Benning's deals - he gives away assets which weakens his greatest strength [drafting]).

 

[Nick Lang]

Why not deal away Subban + draft pick for another Pouliot type of player?

(ie., it's the SAME thing I have trouble with Benning's deals - he gives away assets which weakens his greatest strength [drafting]).

Has it ever occurred to you you can't just make other teams accept garbage trades. How does it help us to give away Subban and a fourth instead?

 

[Hit the post]

Has it ever occurred to you you can't just make other teams accept garbage trades. How does it help us to give away Subban and a fourth instead?

I just used him as an example. Never said the job (GM) was easy else any schmuck like me could do the job (which I never said I could). That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Anyhow, back to the point of my post.....Benning dealt Shinkaruk for Granlund straight up without adding a pick. That's the type of move I find more palatable (though I'll be honest, I didn't like the trade at first). Might be just me, but I have this GREAT aversion to Benning dealing picks (which again, I state weakens his greatest strength drafting - something which I can never even hope to replicate). I just don't think Pouliot is that great an acquisition to be giving up a pick - not a major gripe (there are far more other greater issues that Benning has done that I have a problem with).

 

[Peter10]

Possibly? Ive heard this argument, but haven't seen a young potential (albeit slim) PPQB player hit waivers recently?

Does that really matter? And I think we all remember how Bennings last designated PPQB worked out...

 

[MS]

Agreed, those percentages do not look great at all however, I think the problem people have with the deal is that can have a Pouliot (or similar) player for free via waivers all the time and then you keep the pick with its small chance of turning into something usefull. If the picks doesnt work out, its no issue as this is to be expected for 4th rounder and you still have to stop gap player you got for free. By the dealing the 4th you rob yourself of this small chance getting something good and you still dont have anything more than a borderline NHLer who does nothing at all to help your team either short or long term.

Bang on.

Getting into the issue of odds of Pouliot making it vs. odds of the pick making it is missing the point.

Pouliot is a waiver-wire asset, just the same as Sproul or Pokka or whoever. The whole point of getting a washed-out prospect like this is that it should be for FREE, and you should be keeping the pick, and you should still have the longshot odds on both. It's just a complete waste of a pick.

Again, it comes down to Benning not being able to negotiate and play poker with other GMs. Pouliot clearly wasn't making their team, and was being cut and waived tomorrow. We have the 2nd waiver selection. Everything is telegraphed and we have all the leverage - all we have to do is sit and wait and get him for free.

And if Pittsburgh does trade him elsewhere? So what. Then you either keep Wiercioch on the roster or claim another similar player like Sproul.

This obviously isn't that big of a deal in the bigger scheme of things. But this GM paying a pick for a player he could probably have gotten for free because of 'pedigree' is symptomatic of so many larger problems in the organization, and why we'll never get ahead with this GM bleeding assets.

 

[Hit the post]

Well we don't know if Pouliot would've been for sure put on waivers by the Pens; what is pretty certain though is that Pouliot will be on the opening day roster short of him running over Green's dog. No way will Benning risk losing him off of waivers in that short of time (pretty awful optics).

So much for meritocracy....

 

[VanillaCoke]

Since they were willing to trade him before the roster deadline its a pretty good assumption that he would have been waived.

Green has already stated Pouliot wont be in the lineup for Opening night.

 

[Shareefruck]

There is a bit of hypocrisy going on here, I'm surprised you can't see it.

Ya? Please tell me all about it. It’s soooo fascinating to hear you, Lang, Krutov, and Bonose psychoanalyse all of the big bad Benning meanies around here. You guys are really giving us what for.

Oh come on, how am I supposed to respond to that? I'm not sure what is going on with you here. You and a few others do that preaching as well is all I meant. I'm honestly surprised this conversation has gone this bad without any moderation.

I think it just has gotten to the point of us VS them, when everyone cries foul to even suggesting that in the past.

Here's what I don't understand about the way you choose to approach this.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and we can debate hypocrisy on a case by case basis if you want, but two wrongs obviously don't make a right. The fact that Y2KCanucks does it isn't a valid defense for it and doesn't absolve you of going along with it yourself. Personally, I think CanaFan is one of the ones least guilty of getting involved in the mudslinging, but that's besides the point.

Posts like these:
"This is very accurate, the impatient Benning detractors should take note."

.. Are clearly passive aggressive/toxic and contribute to this "Us vs. Them" bull**** that you purport to be sick of. Do you disagree? It's one thing to point out that it happens on both sides, because it does (not by everyone that this gets lobbed at, mind you), but 'liking' that post like you did, seems pretty damn questionable, to me, on your part (I've noticed that happening before as well). You must see that yourself, so why do you do stuff like that? I would have no problem with your posts, if not for stuff like that.

 

[drax0s]

Why not deal away Subban + draft pick for another Pouliot type of player?

(ie., it's the SAME thing I have trouble with Benning's deals - he gives away assets which weakens his greatest strength [drafting]).

Because we're looking for a PPQB? Why would we deal away a potential PPQB for another potential PPQB? Would I deal Subban for a potential 1C (with issues) and add a 4th? Maybe?

Does that really matter? And I think we all remember how Bennings last designated PPQB worked out...

Okay, so this is part of my problem with some posters on this forum. You specifically stated we can find a player like "Pouliot (or similar) player for free via waivers all the time". When I say I haven't seen a young, potential PPQB hit waivers recently suddenly "Does that really matter?".

Yes it matters. If your argument against this trade is that "we can find a young PPQB on waivers all the time" - then we damn well need to be able to find a young PPQB on waivers all the time. It's just like if I made some ridiculous claim that 'Benning can trade Vanek for a 1st" - I need to back up that claim somehow.

So again - back up your claim. When was the last time a young potential PPQB was put on waivers?

 

[MS]

Well we don't know if Pouliot would've been for sure put on waivers by the Pens; what is pretty certain though is that Pouliot will be on the opening day roster short of him running over Green's dog. No way will Benning risk losing him off of waivers in that short of time (pretty awful optics).

So much for meritocracy....

He was absolutely going to be waived if Pittsburgh couldn't trade him. He didn't make their team, their GM said he wasn't good enough, all their fans knew he wasn't going to be on the squad.

When a player is so obviously not going to be making a team and so obviously waiver bait, you sit and wait and you'll probably get your guy. However, this GM has the patience and attention span of a small child, and this is why he constantly ends up bleeding assets in situations where he should have all the leverage and a good GM would be bleeding the other guy.

 

[rune74]

Here's what I don't understand about the way you choose to approach this.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and we can debate hypocrisy on a case by case basis if you want, but two wrongs obviously don't make a right. The fact that Y2KCanucks does it isn't a valid defense for it and doesn't absolve you of going along with it yourself. Personally, I think CanaFan is one of the ones least guilty of getting involved in the mudslinging, but that's besides the point.

Posts like these:
"This is very accurate, the impatient Benning detractors should take note."

.. Are clearly passive aggressive/toxic and contribute to this "Us vs. Them" bull**** that you purport to be sick of. Do you disagree? It's one thing to point out that it happens on both sides, because it does (not by everyone that this gets lobbed at, mind you), but 'liking' that post like you did, seems pretty damn questionable, to me, on your part (I've noticed that happening before as well). You must see that yourself, so why do you do stuff like that? I would have no problem with your posts, if not for stuff like that.

I get what you are saying, I have to question though, why you only seem to notice if "I" do it. There has been some extremely nasty posts in this thread, that may not call a person stupid or something along those lines, but clearly indicate that's the meaning. If you don't say it you didn't do it is not a good excuse. We are on 40 pages here on a 4th round draft pick.

The post I liked, was not for the end part so much but for the beginning because I also thought it was very accurate. I don't agree with the end part and perhaps I should have used my like better there. Note I didn't say that.

I really don't care if you are a benning detractor or a benning supporter as I am neither. I am a fan of this team and I go with what we have and decide what I do and don't like. Not on anyones team and I don't follow anyone's opinions unless I agree with some of them that doesn't even mean I will agree with them every time.

This trade in itself is minor, it will be great if it works out and it's a gamble. I think the amount of the gamble is the same as that of what a 4th round pick would bring.

 

[Peter10]

Because we're looking for a PPQB? Why would we deal away a potential PPQB for another potential PPQB? Would I deal Subban for a potential 1C (with issues) and add a 4th? Maybe?


Okay, so this is part of my problem with some posters on this forum. You specifically stated we can find a player like "Pouliot (or similar) player for free via waivers all the time". When I say I haven't seen a young, potential PPQB hit waivers recently suddenly "Does that really matter?".

Yes it matters. If your argument against this trade is that "we can find a young PPQB on waivers all the time" - then we damn well need to be able to find a young PPQB on waivers all the time. It's just like if I made some ridiculous claim that 'Benning can trade Vanek for a 1st" - I need to back up that claim somehow.

So again - back up your claim. When was the last time a young potential PPQB was put on waivers?

Adam Clendening just on top of my head. Philip Larsen was on waivers too when he was with the Oilers and this is the guy who Benning wanted to run the powerplay. And yeah it doesnt really matter, thats like me saying when was the last time a young potential 25 goal scorer was put on waivers. The definition of powerplay quarterback is something you can stretch all you want - what is it for you? Is it a guy who is going to put up 20-25 points on the PP or is it a guy like Larsen or a Raphael Diaz or Alex Sulzer? Because the last 3 are probably the ceiling for Pouliot. And those guys are dime a dozen indeed.

 

[y2kcanucks]

So did the Canucks turn down your application or are you still in the interview process? Sounds like you're just the man to turn things around!

Ahh cute appeal to authority. Sounds like you approve of the job Benning has done. I wish you were my employer. I could fail miserably at my job and still get raises.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Had no problem with your post. I just enjoyed being told by the other guy that some of us should “take note”. It was like my grade 3 teacher was showing us how magnets worked or something equally astounding. I wanted to show him my appreciation.

Take note! This is a rebuild man. In rebuilds you glut the team with veterans, you acquire older prospects who have busted with their drafted teams, and you trade away draft picks. That's just how it is. And maaaaannnn don't hold Benning accountable for failing miserably at his stated objective...none of that matters. All that matters is...he's learning.

f*** I can't keep doing this.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He was absolutely going to be waived if Pittsburgh couldn't trade him. He didn't make their team, their GM said he wasn't good enough, all their fans knew he wasn't going to be on the squad.

When a player is so obviously not going to be making a team and so obviously waiver bait, you sit and wait and you'll probably get your guy. However, this GM has the patience and attention span of a small child, and this is why he constantly ends up bleeding assets in situations where he should have all the leverage and a good GM would be bleeding the other guy.

5th round pick --> rights to philip larsen

 

[Hit the post]

He was absolutely going to be waived if Pittsburgh couldn't trade him. He didn't make their team, their GM said he wasn't good enough, all their fans knew he wasn't going to be on the squad.

When a player is so obviously not going to be making a team and so obviously waiver bait, you sit and wait and you'll probably get your guy. However, this GM has the patience and attention span of a small child, and this is why he constantly ends up bleeding assets in situations where he should have all the leverage and a good GM would be bleeding the other guy.

I'd seriously hope you're wrong else it would be the 2nd time Benning has had all of the leverage over Rutherford and come up on the short-end of the stick.

In terms of waiver priority, wouldn't the Canucks be pretty high up? Vegas certainly don't need any more D (heck, I believe they already got too many). That doesn't leave too many teams with a higher priority claim than the Canucks right?

 

[drax0s]

Ahh cute appeal to authority. Sounds like you approve of the job Benning has done. I wish you were my employer. I could fail miserably at my job and still get raises.

That's not an appeal to authority . I was commenting on how you really seem to have an apparently impeccable track record at predicting things related to hockey and hockey ops and I'm surprised you haven't been picked up to help turn the ship around.

Maybe you should start a blog with your thoughts and opinions to get some more coverage.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Here's what I don't understand about the way you choose to approach this.

We can only be responsible for our own actions, and we can debate hypocrisy on a case by case basis if you want, but two wrongs obviously don't make a right. The fact that Y2KCanucks does it isn't a valid defense for it and doesn't absolve you of going along with it yourself. Personally, I think CanaFan is one of the ones least guilty of getting involved in the mudslinging, but that's besides the point.

Posts like these:
"This is very accurate, the impatient Benning detractors should take note."

.. Are clearly passive aggressive/toxic and contribute to this "Us vs. Them" bull**** that you purport to be sick of. Do you disagree? It's one thing to point out that it happens on both sides, because it does (not by everyone that this gets lobbed at, mind you), but 'liking' that post like you did, seems pretty damn questionable, to me, on your part (I've noticed that happening before as well). You must see that yourself, so why do you do stuff like that? I would have no problem with your posts, if not for stuff like that.

just so you know, i avoid engaging with your posts because you do exactly what you are complaining about in a patronizing way i find particularly irritating. canafan does it constantly in a different style as well. pretending your poop doesn't have an odour is beneath you.

the problem here is that veteran posters have learned the passive aggressive technique of patronizing/condescending/insulting in relation to ideas or loosely defined groups of thinkers instead of insulting posters. i actually think it's worse than flat out insulting each other. the rules turn us into a bunch of mannered women in a jane austen novel throwing completely deniable passive aggressive barbs at each other while we pretend we're all sipping tea and discussing the wallpaper. it leads to plenty of decent posters leaving this place early or being banned because the penalties you get called for here until you learn how the refs call the game are completely ridiculous given the stuff that gets thrown around legally by veteran posters.

anyway, this thread is kind of a benchmark for me. it's been a year. there are some very intelligent hockey fans here, but we're still having the same inconclusive extended debate about this team we had last year.

i'm going to try and stick to watching hockey and the progress of the players we have, rather than debating how best to manage the team. we'll see how that goes.

 

[y2kcanucks]

That's not an appeal to authority . I was commenting on how you really seem to have an apparently impeccable track record at predicting things related to hockey and hockey ops and I'm surprised you haven't been picked up to help turn the ship around.

Maybe you should start a blog with your thoughts and opinions to get some more coverage.

Yup, maybe I should. I mean, it would be hard to do a worse job than Benning and Linden have done. And even if I did I'm sure there would be plenty of people in this market who would make up BS excuses for me.

 

[vancityluongo]

There was a time when some of the biggest Benning detractors were actually complimenting him for spending minor assets to get players he wanted. In contrast to a guy like Nonis, moves like Dorsett for a 3rd were welcomed, because even though better players like Spaling were available as free agents, at least Benning was proactively trying to shape his roster based on his vision. This was fine, until he continued overpaying over and over again. Compounding that is that most of the overpayments for his guys ending up being terrible valuations of the players, even if they had been acquired at fair market price.

So while a 40 page thread on Pouliot seems intense, it's certainly not being judged as a standalone move. There's probably 50-50 odds that he's waived by the end of the year, and also 50-50 odds that if he is he doesn't get claimed and can be that rock solid #1 guy for Utica, similar to what Bobby Sanguinetti was. A fourth round pick for that player is not a problem at all, but like everyone else above has said; there was no need to spend it at all.

 

[ATypicalCanadian]

 

[drax0s]

Adam Clendening just on top of my head. Philip Larsen was on waivers too when he was with the Oilers and this is the guy who Benning wanted to run the powerplay. And yeah it doesnt really matter, thats like me saying when was the last time a young potential 25 goal scorer was put on waivers. The definition of powerplay quarterback is something you can stretch all you want - what is it for you? Is it a guy who is going to put up 20-25 points on the PP or is it a guy like Larsen or a Raphael Diaz or Alex Sulzer? Because the last 3 are probably the ceiling for Pouliot. And those guys are dime a dozen indeed.

You still haven't shown that a young PPQB is available for free on waivers every day. Sure, we can snag up 31 year old Diaz or 33 year old Sulzer and patch that hole temporarily but that's a hole we'll just have to patch up again in a year or two. Clendening and Larsen are also obviously not options because we tried them already?

They obviously seem to want someone to run their 1st Powerplay other than ol' "shot-blocked" Edler.

 

[drax0s]

Yup, maybe I should. I mean, it would be hard to do a worse job than Benning and Linden have done. And even if I did I'm sure there would be plenty of people in this market who would make up BS excuses for me.

Cool, let me know when your site is set up and update me on your progress. I'm really curious to see how well you do out there now that you're focused on it.