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

[y2kcanucks]

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.

Just remember, if I fail, come up with any excuse for me. Just tell everyone that I'm learning.

 

[Peter10]

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.

It seems you didnt read my full post. Clendening was a "young potential PPQB" on waivers, Philip Larsen once was a "young potential PPQB" on waivers. I mentioned Diaz and Sulzer as likely comparables as to what Pouliot might turn out.

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

Because of a combination of all of these things:
A) I'm not reading through the 40 pages, I'm periodically checking up on the thread and replying to the most recent thing that I notice in the last few pages.
B) I would only make a comment like that if I notice a recurring trend, which I have with you. You're also one of the more recognizable guys here who post most frequently, which makes it more noticable.
C) Obviously I'm going to feel more inclined to speak up when the questionable behavior is unfavorable towards my views, which I'm sure is something you can't help but do as well, and there's some give and take there that's to be expected. However, I'm also not going to defend or support people who share my views when they're guilty of the same thing. I'll agree if I feel it's called out deservingly.
D) My post had more to do with jumping back and forth between simultaneously supporting toxic behavior and scoffing at it, rather than just plain old unapologetic toxicity (which I agree, is everywhere). I did not notice anyone else in the last few pages who did that.
E) I do call out other posters for toxic phrasing all the time. You've seen it. I don't make a big ranty wordy thing about it because there's less to say about it. Obviously we disagree to some extent on who is actually guilty of it from the negative side. I think that sometimes trashing ideas rudely and insensitively (which I think is fair behavior) gets mistaken for toxic narrative spinning and agenda-based meta-arguing (which is the real thing that I have a problem with). There are some cases that you see as definitive examples of that but I see as grey areas.
F) You don't appear to be a lost cause/obvious troll about it and actually argue that you want to be fair/above it, so the subject is more relevant to you than others who just want to get into the mudslinging. I just think it's irksome when you sometimes nod along with some of the more obviously antagonistic us vs. them posts by guys like Bonose, Ryan Miller, and Bowlduck.

 

[drax0s]

Just remember, if I fail, come up with any excuse for me. Just tell everyone that I'm learning.

Hey, I've forgiven you for wanting to trade the Sedins for peanuts. Maybe you are learning?

 

[drax0s]

It seems you didnt read my full post. Clendening was a "young potential PPQB" on waivers, Philip Larsen once was a "young potential PPQB" on waivers. I mentioned Diaz and Sulzer as likely comparables as to what Pouliot might turn out.

I get what you're saying, but you're missing the point. We have a hole on our roster for a PPQB and have had one for a while. There are no players on waivers the Canucks could've picked up to fix that. Larsen and Clendening didn't fit. Diaz and Sulzer are too old (and hardly PPQBs - I mean 0.1PPG? Really?).

They effectively have 4-5 options:

1. Not fill the hole.
2. Draft and develop a PPQB (ETA 2+ years), questionable chance of panning out (depending on pick used)
3. Fill the roster slot with a FA acquisition (expensive and likely with high term)
4. Fill the roster slot with a temporary player on waivers (few available options or older, "not very good" player - requiring replacement in a year)
5. Take a flyer on one passed over by depth in another organization.

 

[Shareefruck]

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.

For the record, I think it's entirely fair game to be insulting towards ideas and ways of thinking or express aggressive frustration that others don't see something the way that you do-- In no way is that one of the things I'm referring to when I mention toxicity. I think what's toxic is to take those feelings and use it to directly instigate, act snarky, or paint psycho-analytical narratives about those who disagree with you, and their motivations.

I try not to be guilty of that, I don't THINK I often am, although when I get emotionally invested in an argument, I don't think I'm above falling into that trap. But when it happens, it should be called out directly, and we should all agree to try to nip it at the bud and acknowledge it when it happens.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I thought Pedan looked the best that he ever has at camp this year...although,if he couldn't crack this roster after 3 years,it was time to move on....Its basically two teams swapping failed prospects,both players needing a change of scenery.

 

[CanaFan]

I get what you're saying, but you're missing the point. We have a hole on our roster for a PPQB and have had one for a while. There are no players on waivers the Canucks could've picked up to fix that. Larsen and Clendening didn't fit. Diaz and Sulzer are too old (and hardly PPQBs - I mean 0.1PPG? Really?).

They effectively have 4-5 options:

1. Not fill the hole.
2. Draft and develop a PPQB (ETA 2+ years), questionable chance of panning out (depending on pick used)
3. Fill the roster slot with a FA acquisition (expensive and likely with high term)
4. Fill the roster slot with a temporary player on waivers (few available options or older, "not very good" player - requiring replacement in a year)
5. Take a flyer on one passed over by depth in another organization.

So you think the Canucks acquired Pouliot because they need a PP QB *today*? That seems a stretch. This coach isn’t even sure he wants Virtanen or Boeser on the PP but they are counting on a near-waiver bin acquisition to be their much-needed PPQB?

I can see maybe down the road they think Pouliot can get there if he turns his career around but painting it as a “right now” fix doesn’t make a lot of sense. Any of Stetcher, Edler, MDZ, and even Holm are closer to “fixes” than a kid that was nearly waived.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I think what's toxic is to take those feelings and use it to instigate or paint psycho-analytical narratives about those who disagree with you.

that's a pretty narrow and selective subset of what i find toxic around here. typical toxic behaviour is more straightforward. the most common example would be to be over the top in criticizing or ridiculing a debatable idea you disagree with in a way that make it unavoidable that you are implying the person who came up with it must be a moron. it's very hard for the person receiving this kind of comment to turn the other cheek and this is where i think a large chunk of sharp exchanges here start.

the other common toxic trope would be condescending and patronizing comments implying the other poster would agree with you if only they knew what the poster knows. add to that passive aggressive statements that seem intended to get under someone's skin rather than make a point, and over the top straw men that seem calculated to make the other person look like an idiot rather than debate the idea.

like i said, i'd rather we were allowed to insult each other directly and air it out. sort of like letting us drop the gloves instead of all the ticky tacky slashing.

 

[Peter10]

I get what you're saying, but you're missing the point. We have a hole on our roster for a PPQB and have had one for a while. There are no players on waivers the Canucks could've picked up to fix that. Larsen and Clendening didn't fit. Diaz and Sulzer are too old (and hardly PPQBs - I mean 0.1PPG? Really?).

They effectively have 4-5 options:

1. Not fill the hole.
2. Draft and develop a PPQB (ETA 2+ years), questionable chance of panning out (depending on pick used)
3. Fill the roster slot with a FA acquisition (expensive and likely with high term)
4. Fill the roster slot with a temporary player on waivers (few available options or older, "not very good" player - requiring replacement in a year)
5. Take a flyer on one passed over by depth in another organization.

I wasnt necessarly talking about a "now" PPQB and did not suggest that they should go for Diaz or Sulzer, those just some examples from the past as to what Pouliot might end up. Their perceived strength was being solid on the PP and not too aweful on the 3rd pairing. What does suggest that Pouliot even will equal what they did and maybe score 0.1PPG? He has 11 PP points in 114 AHL games (couldnt find AHL PP assist stats), his point production in the AHL dropped each year after his first season. And last but not least, was there really any need to acquire a potential PPQB (who as you said has only a slim chance of becoming that)? We have already one with slim chances in Subban.

As many said before, in a vaccum this deal is not really a biggie, most likely neither Pedan nor Pouliout nor that 4th round pick will amount to anything, so yeah why not take a chance. The problem i have with this in the greater sheme is that it is apparently one of Bennings main tactics to acquire failed prospect from other teams in the hope they will turn it around an spending a lot of assets while doing so. Some of these guys might work out like Baertschi but chances are high that most of those guys are indeed what they are, see Linden Vey, Philip Larsen, Emerson Etem and whoever else. Even the ones that make it like Baertschi are still unlikely to ever get close to their projected ceiling when drafted.

 

[drax0s]

So you think the Canucks acquired Pouliot because they need a PP QB *today*? That seems a stretch. This coach isn’t even sure he wants Virtanen or Boeser on the PP but they are counting on a near-waiver bin acquisition to be their much-needed PPQB?

I can see maybe down the road they think Pouliot can get there if he turns his career around but painting it as a “right now” fix doesn’t make a lot of sense. Any of Stetcher, Edler, MDZ, and even Holm are closer to “fixes” than a kid that was nearly waived.

No, for sure he won't be slotted in right now but he has the potential to fill that hole if he sorts his game out. I don't even think he'll play a full season here this year - he'll probably be in the press box for a number of games as he tries to sort through whatever issues he has.

TBH, there really doesn't seem to be a "right now" fix, short of trading something we really shouldn't be trading for Barrie or something.

I wasnt necessarly talking about a "now" PPQB and did not suggest that they should go for Diaz or Sulzer, those just some examples from the past as to what Pouliot might end up. Their perceived strength was being solid on the PP and not too aweful on the 3rd pairing. What does suggest that Pouliot even will equal what they did and maybe score 0.1PPG? He has 11 PP points in 114 AHL games (couldnt find AHL PP assist stats), his point production in the AHL dropped each year after his first season. And last but not least, was there really any need to acquire a potential PPQB (who as you said has only a slim chance of becoming that)? We have already one with slim chances in Subban.

Trying to figure out what to respond to here, since your post is all over the place. The Canucks have a hole for a PPQB and want to fill that hole. Are you saying that because Pouliot is more likely to end up in the Diaz/Sulzer camp that we shouldn't have acquired him? That goes both ways - almost every pick made is more likely to end up worse than Diaz / Sulzer - do we trade all picks? No. We need to try to find the action that best improves our odds of solving our problem.

What suggests Pouliot will equal Diaz/Sulzer and score 0.1PPG? He's currently just above 0.2PPG?

Why do we need to get another potential PPQB when we already have one in Subban? Because more cracks at solving the problem makes that problem more likely to be solved. If you have a 25% chance of finding an impact player and add another chance with the same odds, you now have a 43.75% chance of finding a player. More cracks at the can equals more chances of success.

 

[Ryp37]

I thought Pedan looked the best that he ever has at camp this year...although,if he couldn't crack this roster after 3 years,it was time to move on....Its basically two teams swapping failed prospects,both players needing a change of scenery.

Except we threw a 4th in.

With rumours like this it's pretty clear we should be moving prospects in situations like Pedan for picks, not acquiring players like Pedan for picks.

 

[Shareefruck]

that's a pretty narrow and selective subset of what i find toxic around here. typical toxic behaviour is more straightforward. the most common example would be to be over the top in criticizing or ridiculing a debatable idea you disagree with in a way that make it unavoidable that you are implying the person who came up with it must be a moron. it's very hard for the person receiving this kind of comment to turn the other cheek and this is where i think a large chunk of sharp exchanges here start.

the other common toxic trope would be condescending and patronizing comments implying the other poster would agree with you if only they knew what the poster knows. add to that passive aggressive statements that seem intended to get under someone's skin rather than make a point, and over the top straw men that seem calculated to make the other person look like an idiot rather than debate the idea.

like i said, i'd rather we were allowed to insult each other directly and air it out. sort of like letting us drop the gloves instead of all the ticky tacky slashing.

I agree that the second point is unacceptable and toxic, but I try to avoid that as much as possible (it's pretty much what I'm saying)-- Do you think that I do that?

The first point I don't try to avoid, but I disagree is out of bounds. It is fair game to express that you think an idea is idiotic or moronic or baffling based on reasons, and then those reasons can be contended and the other person can think that your ideas is idiotic as well. That is not a petty, personal, antagonistic confrontation, by itself, and we need to have thicker skin than that, IMO. Whether or not something is debateable comes down to whether or not you think the counter-argument can be valid, which isn't always an objectively agreeable thing. Whether or not your ridiculing is hyperbolic can be pretty subjective and disagreeable as well. Sometimes extreme opinions can be true. You have to allow for people to act accordingly, based on what they actually think. It isn't fair to anyone to jump the gun that "because you ruthlessly/insensitively/excessively (according to the other person) find these ideas idiotic, then by extension, you're passive aggressively implying that everyone who subscribes to them must be an idiot as well." You have to allow for unfiltered honesty (that may naturally step on the toes of those who disagree) until it becomes personal, built around intentionally pissing the other person off, or transforms into something unrelated to the original point, IMO. I don't think that simply finding a set of reasoning really stupid qualifies.

If it's the latter that you take exception to, that's not an example of me being guilty of what I take exception to-- we simply disagree on what is actually unacceptable or toxic. If it's the former, you're going to need to be more specific.

 

[Peter10]

Trying to figure out what to respond to here, since your post is all over the place. The Canucks have a hole for a PPQB and want to fill that hole. Are you saying that because Pouliot is more likely to end up in the Diaz/Sulzer camp that we shouldn't have acquired him?

Yes

What suggests Pouliot will equal Diaz/Sulzer and score 0.1PPG? He's currently just above 0.2PPG?
.

Sorry thought you meant PPP/G. Nevertheless, Pouliot currently has 4 PPP in his 67 career games with close to 2mins/g on the PP. That is similar to what Edler, Andy Greene, Kevin Bieksa, Mark Barberio are doing. If that is a potential PPQB then he wont improve our PP a lot.

Why do we need to get another potential PPQB when we already have one in Subban? Because more cracks at solving the problem makes that problem more likely to be solved. If you have a 25% chance of finding an impact player and add another chance with the same odds, you now have a 43.75% chance of finding a player. More cracks at the can equals more chances of success.

This is why you should keep draft picks and fill the voids with stop gap players and not wasting them on a very slim chance that Pouliot becomes more than a #6 defenseman.

 

[krutovsdonut]

Except we threw a 4th in.

With rumours like this it's pretty clear we should be moving prospects in situations like Pedan for picks, not acquiring players like Pedan for picks.

we waived the guy around the league the day before the trade. nobody claimed him.

what better proof do you need to accept that he had no trade value?

 

[I in the Eye]

Except we threw a 4th in.

With rumours like this it's pretty clear we should be moving prospects in situations like Pedan for picks, not acquiring players like Pedan for picks.

Also, it's not a case where Pedan was completely seen as a throw in from Vancouver's perspective... There was at least one Vancouver scout who allegedly saw Pedan's upside as greater than Gudbranson and Tryamkin. This is a notable, perceived upside. Also, apparently, Pittsburgh wanted Pedan (Pedan wasn't seen as just a throw in - and passing waivers, he wouldn't need to be up on the team roster). Surely, even if adding to Pedan, the add in could have been negotiated to be less than a 4th, if nothing added in all together possible (Pouliot's value could be argued to be nearing 0 as well, similar to Pedan). Arguments could be made why the 4th was too much. Heck, we're outlining many of the arguments here... and, in the end, Pittsburgh just didn't want to lose Pouliot for nothing.

My theory is that Benning very much wanted Pouliot, so just agreed to a 4th being added in. We know what Benning felt when Crawford thought the return on Kesler was too low (and wanted a 3rd added in)... Benning thought that could lose the entire deal. Without a Crawford-type saying, "why are we paying more?", they just agree they can afford the price and pay it.

Those arguing that "who cares, it's just a 4th"... To me, this is similar to arguing, "who cares if your kids don't eat all of their dinner, you can afford the waste, and it's just some vegetables". That's not the point. The point is, there are kids starving in Ethiopia, and vegetables are good for them. Will one single carrot do them good, in the grand scheme of things? No, probably won't make a heck of a difference, either way. But it's the process, and the habit, of doing the good things, that is good for them.

 

[drax0s]

This is why you should keep draft picks and fill the voids with stop gap players and not wasting them on a very slim chance that Pouliot becomes more than a #6 defenseman.

...and this is where odds and talent evaluation comes in. What are the odds a 4th round pick sticks in the NHL for over 3 seasons and maintains 0.3PPG? What are the odds of Pouliot doing the same?

One is greater than the other.

 

[Peter10]

we waived the guy around the league the day before the trade. nobody claimed him.

what better proof do you need to accept that he had no trade value?

I would say the value for the Pens was that he actually had cleared waivers which means they can keep him in the AHL for the time being and use him later as potential call up in case of injuries. Pedans value went up (not a lot though) because he cleared waivers.

 

[VanillaCoke]

I would say the value for the Pens was that he actually had cleared waivers which means they can keep him in the AHL for the time being and use him later as potential call up in case of injuries. Pedans value went up (not a lot though) because he cleared waivers.

Exactly like Calvin Pickard today

 

[Peter10]

...and this is where odds and talent evaluation comes in. What are the odds a 4th round pick sticks in the NHL for over 3 seasons and maintains 0.3PPG? What are the odds of Pouliot doing the same?

One is greater than the other.

There is only a very slim chance Pouliot becomes anything more than a replacement level player. I would say chances are higher (still low) that you turn that 4th into more than a replacement level player.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I agree that the second point is unacceptable and toxic, but I try to avoid that as much as possible-- Do you think that I do that?

The first point I don't try to avoid, but I disagree is out of bounds. It is fair game to express that you think an idea is idiotic or moronic based on reasons, and then those reasons can be contended and the other person can think that your ideas is idiotic as well. That is not a petty, personal, antagonistic confrontation, by itself, and we need to have thicker skin than that, IMO. Whether or not something is debateable comes down to whether or not you think the counter-argument can be valid, which isn't always an objectively agreeable thing. Whether or not your ridiculing is hyperbolic can be pretty subjective and disagreeable as well. Sometimes extreme opinions can be true. You have to allow for people to act accordingly, based on what they actually think. It isn't fair to anyone to jump the gun that "because you ruthlessly/insensitively/excessively (according to the other person) find these ideas idiotic, then by extension, you're passive aggressively implying that everyone who subscribes to them must be an idiot as well." You have to allow for unfiltered honesty (that may step on some toes) until it becomes personal or transforms into something unrelated to the original point, IMO.

If it's the latter that you take exception to, that's not an example of me being guilty of what I take exception to-- we simply disagree on what is actually unacceptable or toxic.

look, don't get me wrong. i am fine with exchanging insults straight up. it would simplify things greatly here if i could clearly communicate to another poster my thoughts in an exchange even if it hurt their feelings. i am sure others feel the same way about me.

and nobody said that being a passive aggressive jerk or hyperbolically insulting people's ideas as a way of indirectly insulting the other poster is "out of bounds" here. it is clearly within the rules. i just don't like it and find it kind of moronic. if you like it then perhaps this place is better suited to your personality than mine.

do you see what i did there in that paragraph? that's what i don't like about this place. no genuine insult intended by the way.

anyway, carry on if you must. it's a free forum.

 

[krutovsdonut]

I would say the value for the Pens was that he actually had cleared waivers which means they can keep him in the AHL for the time being and use him later as potential call up in case of injuries. Pedans value went up (not a lot though) because he cleared waivers.

i'd agree. he was worth slightly more safely assigned to the ahl.

 

[Shareefruck]

look, don't get me wrong. i am fine with exchanging insults straight up. it would simplify things greatly here if i could clearly communicate to another poster my thoughts in an exchange even if it hurt their feelings. i am sure others feel the same way about me.

and nobody said that being a passive aggressive jerk or hyperbolically insulting people's ideas as a way of indirectly insulting the other poster is "out of bounds" here. it is clearly within the rules. i just don't like it and find it kind of moronic. if you like it then perhaps this place is better suited to your personality than mine.

do you see what i did there in that paragraph? that's what i don't like about this place. no genuine insult intended by the way.

anyway, carry on if you must. it's a free forum.

But when have I said anything like this? Especially that last line.

 

[rune74]

But when have I said anything like this? Especially that last line.

I don't think he meant you. Also I sent you a message.

 

[drax0s]

There is only a very slim chance Pouliot becomes anything more than a replacement level player. I would say chances are higher (still low) that you turn that 4th into more than a replacement level player.

Based on stats? History? Gut feeling?