HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

Benoit Pouliot Appreciation

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-30-2010, 03:14 PM
  #26
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
#12 for #16, 77 and 182
Columbus got #26, 37, 62, and 92 for #16 and 77.
Why didn't we just make the one simple trade down from #12 to #26(Leddy would have been here, or else we would have got a better player from my POV), adding 37(You could say Budish, Werek, Shore, Chiasson, etc. THIS IS THE FREEBIE WE ADD IN THIS SITUATION), #62(you can say Hackett here) and #92.
Islanders made both those trades, so don't tell me we couldn't have got that package.
There's a huge difference moving up ten spots versus four even when the four spots are higher in the draft.

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 03:15 PM
  #27
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,908
vCash: 1100
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
I would say that it wasn't just one coach that disliked Pouliot. He had issues with every single coach within this organization. It took a coach who was very familiar with him, in that he works with him every offseason, to even consider bringing Pouliot on. At a certain point, it's no longer just a coincidence that coaches do not care for his attitude or work ethic.

Even Martin who has the utmost trust in the kid demoted him down to the 3rd and 4th lines, even sat him a game because he couldn't be responsible on the ice. Nor was he producing on the Gomez line, going 20+ games without tallying a goal, which is now stretched up to 30+.

When you spend your entire professional career in an organization and build up the reputation Pouliot did here, of coarse he's going to have to earn his way into ice time with capable players. If not, you're heading down a slippery slope while the other players see his lack of commitment and work ethic only to be rewarded for doing not much of anything to get there.

In both Pouliot and Latendresse cases, they were moved to a new situation to start anew without the burdens they carried with their previous organizations. Thus it's much more understandable to give them a shot on the top lines because they do not carry the same baggage with them.

I agree with a lot of your other points, just not this one. Pouliot worked his way out of ever earning a legitimate shot with this organization. And like it or not, that rests squarely on his shoulders.
I agree with you, it's the responsibility of the player, it shouldn't be a management did this or that. Still, there is a balance, both pouliot and latendresse didn't have much confidence in their previous teams. Many hab fans will disagree but this year, even while not scoring, pouliot was very involved, he wanted to do well. He really needs more strenght though, people would criticize him because he'd hit a player and practically bounce off but I saw the willingness. He tried, i think ANYONE will lose motivation and work ethic if they don't want to be somewhere. At work, if your boss is suddenly an *******, I doubt your productivity rate will go up. Still, it's part of being a professional, and it was up to pouliot to do everything in his power to get out of that hole. I just hope he doesn't go in same one in montreal.

LyricalLyricist is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 04:40 PM
  #28
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=saywut;26059724]He wasn't doing it here because he was stuck on the 4th line with Derek Boogaard. When did Pouliot ever get the chance to continuously play in our top-6? I can't remember seeing him there for more than 5 straight periods in the regular season.[QUOTE]

I can't think of a time when Pouls was in the top 6 regularly, but he was a major disappointment his whole career here and got angry when he was demoted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
#12 for #16, 77 and 182
Columbus got #26, 37, 62, and 92 for #16 and 77.
Why didn't we just make the one simple trade down from #12 to #26(Leddy would have been here, or else we would have got a better player from my POV), adding 37(You could say Budish, Werek, Shore, Chiasson, etc. THIS IS THE FREEBIE WE ADD IN THIS SITUATION), #62(you can say Hackett here) and #92.
Islanders made both those trades, so don't tell me we couldn't have got that package.
How soon was the trade made with Columbus? Was it early on in the draft? Also, maybe we thought that a guy who we wanted to take would be there at #12, and then he got taken and so we decided to move back to #16? Maybe the Isles thought that de Haan would be there at #16 and thought it was worth a 3rd and 7th? I think that the trade was worth it, but it's too hard to tell what we could have had since we weren't involved in the negotiations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
He made us better, costing us picks in the draft, while he was certainly not going to make us a playoff contender. And now were paying him 2.33M for this year as well. You don't make this trade, we lose ~6points in the standings(would have made us into the top-5), still have 2.33M more cap space and our 2nd in 2011, which gives us the option of trying to sign an RFA this summer.
We finished as the 9th worst team in the NHL, and even though we weren't playoff "contenders," isn't the goal every year to make the playoffs? I don't think that we should be trying to lose. I like the trade because he wanted Kobasew's speed, grit, experience, and a little scoring touch. He was hurt for a lot of the year. We wouldn't be trying to sign a RFA either way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
We gave up on a 1st round pick in 8 months to help a cap-starved team shed a 3M contract of a player who was their #6 d-man, while allowing them to have our best d-man as a rental(and no, its not debatable, KJ was our best d-man). Why didn't we just deal KJ for a pick/prospect and keep our 1st round pick? How does Barker fit an up-tempo system when he can barely skate? How does spending 3+M on a #5 d-man(Schultz or Barker, your pick) help us improve our forward group? Between this and the Kobasew trade we lost almost 5.5M of cap space, and what did we get out of it? 2 bodies we could have signed equal talents for half the price in UFA?
What realistically could we expect to get back from a Johnsson deal at the deadline? A 2nd round pick and a prospect? Those are two things that may pan out(as I realize is the same with Barker), however, I feel that Barker has already proven 40 points on the Hawks, and he could flourish with us. I'll take Barker over a 2nd and prospect anyday.

I personally think a d-man will be traded this offseason, thus allowing to not have $3.5M on the blueline and maybe a cheaper alternative. We lost about $5.33M of cap space in the deals for this year, but we need to primarily fill out our forward core now as the defensive one is set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Brodziak trade meant nothing to me because it was GMCF saying he wanted a familiar guy instead of Olvecky/Fritsche as a player on this team. Picks outside the top couple rounds are pretty much irrelevant as well, especially with TT running the draft.
Picks are a crapshoot throughout the draft it seems, but I think Brodziak is better than Olvecky/Fritsche, but that's just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
One move made sense, and that was because our coach disliked Benoit Pouliot. The draft trade-down was the right idea, just the lack of return on a huge reach was disappointing.
This was the last of TT's doings, it's nice to see him gone with a full season of scouting being ran by GMCF's crew. The trade down thing was better than nothing if you ask me.

mnwildgophers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 05:01 PM
  #29
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
There's a huge difference moving up ten spots versus four even when the four spots are higher in the draft.
Except NYI made both trades, so you take out the 3rd party(Columbus) and make it one deal(as I did).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
How soon was the trade made with Columbus? Was it early on in the draft? Also, maybe we thought that a guy who we wanted to take would be there at #12, and then he got taken and so we decided to move back to #16? Maybe the Isles thought that de Haan would be there at #16 and thought it was worth a 3rd and 7th? I think that the trade was worth it, but it's too hard to tell what we could have had since we weren't involved in the negotiations.
It was right at the start. De Haan would have likely been there at 16, but it goes back to what I said in a different thread about Cuma and NJD, perhaps we told them we'd draft De Haan unless they moved up because we knew who they wanted.
Its very poor value(3rd and 7th) for moving down from 12 to 16. GMCF also identified Leddy as TT's guy, so it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, he could have gone by 26, but there would have still been equal/better options at 26 than him. And who could have we been waiting on? Kassian and Kulikov fell right into our laps and instead we moved down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
We finished as the 9th worst team in the NHL, and even though we weren't playoff "contenders," isn't the goal every year to make the playoffs? I don't think that we should be trying to lose. I like the trade because he wanted Kobasew's speed, grit, experience, and a little scoring touch. He was hurt for a lot of the year. We wouldn't be trying to sign a RFA either way.
I have nothing against Chuck Kobasew, and don't feel the trade was terrible value, but it was quite clear we were not going to make the playoffs. So why make the deal? Just tank the year. The Oilers had higher expectations than us, did you see them trying to improve their team? No, they were happy tanking for #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
What realistically could we expect to get back from a Johnsson deal at the deadline? A 2nd round pick and a prospect? Those are two things that may pan out(as I realize is the same with Barker), however, I feel that Barker has already proven 40 points on the Hawks, and he could flourish with us. I'll take Barker over a 2nd and prospect anyday.
I'd rather have nothing than Cam Barker. I know its harsh, but I see another Kurtis Foster, more or less. A Pylon with a shot, who refuses to use his size.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
I personally think a d-man will be traded this offseason, thus allowing to not have $3.5M on the blueline and maybe a cheaper alternative. We lost about $5.33M of cap space in the deals for this year, but we need to primarily fill out our forward core now as the defensive one is set.
Who can we move? GMCF was involved in acquiring Zanon and Barker, while re-signing Zidlicky and Stoner. So that leaves Nick Schultz, well overpaid with 4 years left, or Brent Burns, the guy GMCF has identified that he'd like to build the D around. So how do we move Schultz with his contract?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
This was the last of TT's doings, it's nice to see him gone with a full season of scouting being ran by GMCF's crew. The trade down thing was better than nothing if you ask me.
Oh, if we were going to take Nick Leddy at 12 then yes, the trade down was better than nothing. The key is it was poor value, and at that kind of value I'd rather have seen us draft Kassian(seeing as how we couldn't afford to give Kulikov a spot). And yes, its a good thing TT is gone.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 05:15 PM
  #30
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Except NYI made both trades, so you take out the 3rd party(Columbus) and make it one deal(as I did).
Once again, that's not how things work. The fact that the Islanders traded up from 26 to 16 has no bearing on the 16 to 12 trade other than the fact those picks in the former are no longer available in the latter. It's two separate entities. But (hypothetically) if the Wild were going to do take out the middle man like you suggested, I would want more for moving down 14 spots than what Columbus got. That's not enough to give away your highest asset.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 05:37 PM
  #31
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
Once again, that's not how things work. The fact that the Islanders traded up from 26 to 16 has no bearing on the 16 to 12 trade other than the fact those picks in the former are no longer available in the latter. It's two separate entities. But (hypothetically) if the Wild were going to do take out the middle man like you suggested, I would want more for moving down 14 spots than what Columbus got. That's not enough to give away your highest asset.
So you think trading 12 for 16 and 77 was better than 12 for 26 37 62 92? I guess we disagree. Especially considering the guy we reached for at 16(Leddy), who many had as a 2nd round prospect. I look at 37 as a freebie pick(92 as well, but that aint much of a pick) compared to what we got, and we could have taken the Minnesotan there to please you guys(Budish).

I feel the difference between 12 and 16 was as great as the difference between 16 and 26, considering the depth of the draft(at 12 Kulikov and Kassian were the only guys I'd put above the next 15-20).

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 05:46 PM
  #32
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
It was right at the start. De Haan would have likely been there at 16, but it goes back to what I said in a different thread about Cuma and NJD, perhaps we told them we'd draft De Haan unless they moved up because we knew who they wanted.
Its very poor value(3rd and 7th) for moving down from 12 to 16. GMCF also identified Leddy as TT's guy, so it doesn't make much sense to me. Sure, he could have gone by 26, but there would have still been equal/better options at 26 than him. And who could have we been waiting on? Kassian and Kulikov fell right into our laps and instead we moved down.
I don't get how it's such a bad value though. What would you consider good/fair value?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
I have nothing against Chuck Kobasew, and don't feel the trade was terrible value, but it was quite clear we were not going to make the playoffs. So why make the deal? Just tank the year. The Oilers had higher expectations than us, did you see them trying to improve their team? No, they were happy tanking for #1.
I doubt they were "happy" tanking for the #1, sure it's a great consolation prize for a horrible season, but I'd take our season over a horrible, horrible season that's just my opinion though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
I'd rather have nothing than Cam Barker. I know its harsh, but I see another Kurtis Foster, more or less. A Pylon with a shot, who refuses to use his size.
Or, more like a Leddy over Barker. That stance is understandable, but I still think that Barker could be very, very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Who can we move? GMCF was involved in acquiring Zanon and Barker, while re-signing Zidlicky and Stoner. So that leaves Nick Schultz, well overpaid with 4 years left, or Brent Burns, the guy GMCF has identified that he'd like to build the D around. So how do we move Schultz with his contract?
I think we could move him for something, not really sure what as I think he can get us something. I want him moved, but others would rather see him on the ice in the last 2 minutes than our other defenseman, I don't feel the same way, I'd like to just trade him for a prospect or pick, but I realize we would most likely have to take some salary back. We'll see what GMCF does this summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
Oh, if we were going to take Nick Leddy at 12 then yes, the trade down was better than nothing. The key is it was poor value, and at that kind of value I'd rather have seen us draft Kassian(seeing as how we couldn't afford to give Kulikov a spot). And yes, its a good thing TT is gone.
We were severely handcuffed by not having a 2nd or 3rd round pick, and it's nice that we have 2 2nds and a 3rd this year. They will be key rounds, but I think that we weren't really dealing from a position of power. GMCF most likely knew that he was going to take Leddy, and thus traded down for a 3rd and a 7th. I still like the move and think it's okay value.

mnwildgophers is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 05:56 PM
  #33
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
So you think trading 12 for 16 and 77 was better than 12 for 26 37 62 92? I guess we disagree. Especially considering the guy we reached for at 16(Leddy), who many had as a 2nd round prospect. I look at 37 as a freebie pick(92 as well, but that aint much of a pick) compared to what we got, and we could have taken the Minnesotan there to please you guys(Budish).

I feel the difference between 12 and 16 was as great as the difference between 16 and 26, considering the depth of the draft(at 12 Kulikov and Kassian were the only guys I'd put above the next 15-20).
Yes and no. Obviously the overall package in the (hypothetical) 12-26 deal is better than the 12-16 deal, but in my opinion the 12-16 deal is a better bang for its buck and the Wild would need to get more out of the Islanders. A low first and mid-high second doesn't exactly the #12 pick in my eyes (even if you don't want to use it), but if there was something around 12 for 26, 31, 37 and 92 I would be singing a different tune.

As it is, a mid-third for moving down four spots and getting the player you want is still not that bad of a deal. Yes it's no Dougie Ballgame (and my guess is most NHL GMs shared your viewpoint about there still being plenty of good players which brought down interest and leverage from the teams in the area), but you take the deal which helps out your team the most or use your pick.

And on another tangent: I don't care about taking Minnesota players unless they help the Wild win a Stanley Cup - that's the only thing that matters about NHL hockey. If you want to watch a team of all Minnesotans, that's what following the Gophers and just watching Minnesotans throughout the NHL is for.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 06:05 PM
  #34
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnwildgophers View Post
I don't get how it's such a bad value though. What would you consider good/fair value?

We were severely handcuffed by not having a 2nd or 3rd round pick, and it's nice that we have 2 2nds and a 3rd this year. They will be key rounds, but I think that we weren't really dealing from a position of power. GMCF most likely knew that he was going to take Leddy, and thus traded down for a 3rd and a 7th. I still like the move and think it's okay value.
2006:
San Jose traded #20 and #54 for #16

2007:
Wild traded #19 and #47 for #16
San Jose traded #13 and #44 for #9
St. Louis traded #24 and #70 for #18

2008:
Buffalo traded #13 and #74 for #12
Washington traded #23 + #54 for #21
Wild traded #24 + 2009 3rd for #23
Ottawa traded #18 + 2009 3rd for #16

Looks to me like alot of those are better value than we got.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 06:14 PM
  #35
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
Yes and no. Obviously the overall package in the (hypothetical) 12-26 deal is better than the 12-16 deal, but in my opinion the 12-16 deal is a better bang for its buck and the Wild would need to get more out of the Islanders. A low first and mid-high second doesn't exactly the #12 pick in my eyes (even if you don't want to use it), but if there was something around 12 for 26, 31, 37 and 92 I would be singing a different tune.

As it is, a mid-third for moving down four spots and getting the player you want is still not that bad of a deal. Yes it's no Dougie Ballgame (and my guess is most NHL GMs shared your viewpoint about there still being plenty of good players which brought down interest and leverage from the teams in the area), but you take the deal which helps out your team the most or use your pick.
To me, its more who we picked at #16. I do not know of anyone who had him top-20, many had him out of the top-30-40. Thats why I'd rather have seen us move down to #26 if Leddy was "the guy".

And yes, teams did not want to move up. The Islanders didn't even want to move up, they just figured they might as well give up a 3rd to ensure they got their guy, and GMCF was happy with anything he could get to stay in the top-20.

If the Islanders had the only offer on the table for #12 when we were up there, I'm taking Zach Kassian. And who knows, maybe Buffalo would have tossed us a sweetener and put us back on the clock at 13, and we trade with the Islanders then. Hell, Columbus wanted our #16 to take John Moore so we could have traded down again. If not, we come out of it with Kassian and no Hackett. Haula, we could have probably taken instead of Hamburg anyways, so that pick doesn't worry me. It seems like a TT motto though, he wants a specific guy and tells the GM to get him(Gillies, Cuma, and Leddy), and not willing to risk losing them has been our problem.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 06:15 PM
  #36
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,725
vCash: 500
Wow. That just shows how badly Dougie Ballgame is at valuing picks.

But in all seriousness, since New York was left with 16, 31, 62 and 77 for their picks in the first three rounds, the only error Fletcher made was not haggling down to 62. The Isles aren't giving up 31 and past history supports that for moving up four picks.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 06:19 PM
  #37
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
To me, its more who we picked at #16. I do not know of anyone who had him top-20, many had him out of the top-30-40. Thats why I'd rather have seen us move down to #26 if Leddy was "the guy".

And yes, teams did not want to move up. The Islanders didn't even want to move up, they just figured they might as well give up a 3rd to ensure they got their guy, and GMCF was happy with anything he could get to stay in the top-20.

If the Islanders had the only offer on the table for #12 when we were up there, I'm taking Zach Kassian. And who knows, maybe Buffalo would have tossed us a sweetener and put us back on the clock at 13, and we trade with the Islanders then. Hell, Columbus wanted our #16 to take John Moore so we could have traded down again. If not, we come out of it with Kassian and no Hackett. Haula, we could have probably taken instead of Hamburg anyways, so that pick doesn't worry me. It seems like a TT motto though, he wants a specific guy and tells the GM to get him(Gillies, Cuma, and Leddy), and not willing to risk losing them has been our problem.
That's fine but your argument has more to do with the player than the whole asset management (hell look at the stretch taking deHaan at 12 was for the Isles - every draft expert had him in the mid-20s) and a lot of hypothetical talk which may or may not have happened at the draft.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-30-2010, 06:29 PM
  #38
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GopherState View Post
That's fine but your argument has more to do with the player than the whole asset management (hell look at the stretch taking deHaan at 12 was for the Isles - every draft expert had him in the mid-20s) and a lot of hypothetical talk which may or may not have happened at the draft.
I stand here today 11 months removed with the same feeling I had then -> I would have taken Kassian at #12 and called it a day. The rest is completely hypothetical, I do agree. No Hackett, no problem for me, he wasn't worth the drop-off from Kassian to Leddy.
And yes, if I was an Islander fan I would be upset with their decision to move up for De Haan.

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.