NameFaker

Definitely possible, but I kinda doubt that the NHL now is best for his development. That said, what do I know? I'm posting on CDC, after all.

Agreed. Even though it wasn't his best night, he still looked good. I don't think he's ready for the NHL quite yet. Stecher might be, though.

Watch them keep Gaunce, send down Granlund, and lose the latter to waiver claims.

Really? Why? I haven't seen any of him aside from highlight packages (which he admittedly does look good (mostly really smart) in) but I'm not sure he's quite ready to make the jump this year or next. My my thinking behind this is mainly related to size. Kid seems smart and driven - all the better, but he faces tremendous obstacles. Ideally, from where I see it, anyway, he spends a couple years in Utica honing the defensive aspects while maintaining offensive development. So, he'd break in at 24 or so as an offensive specialist with reliable play against grinders and two-way forwards. I don't think he could handle the speed, creativity, and raw skill of top NHL players, and I don't think he'll be ready to anytime soon. As a caveat to all this, I'll add that I'm totally unsure, and am taking a contrary position partially to stimulate discussion, haha.

Which is great because Gauce excels in his study of the game. His character is exceptional, and that's what'll carry him. In 20 years, he'll be a successful minor league coach. Mark my words.

Yeah, lol.

Homer.

Juice 2.0

That's a good point Crabby. It's honestly just too much work to put together an honest analysis. I don't have the time, and if I did, I'd be writing for CanucksArmy or something, trying to score a job somewhere. For us measly fans, though, it's just fun to speculate. I guess the generalities are what make these discussions compelling, too. Without antithesis, it'd be kinda dull around here. Like a palaeontology convention about the reliability of Carbon-14 dating processes. Personally, I'm way more down with Gudbranson than that 33rd and the fourth for a fifth is more or less a "meh" sorta exchange. The real lynchpin is McCann. If we don't snag Dubois, I think we're screwed, because I just don't believe we have that bonafide #1 guy at center. Maybe we could trade for it later on, but we'd likely have to overpay, again. Regardless, draft day should be interesting. My only regret is being overseas so I can't watch it flatscreen and all, chips in one fist, brew in the other, butt sewn to the couch.

So, this isn't to discount what you've said, because I agree with what you've said. But I think the math we're using is slightly confusing when talking about probabilities and percentages. The first question we should be asking, when we trade any picks, be they second or fifth rounders, is whether the player Benning would have selected there would have been better than the player we acquired. We shouldn't be talking about historical averages of "that pick" except as a general model. It's not necessarily what Benning would have done. In general, I think Benning picks well, and those picks have larger than historically average weight. Of course, the problem is that we'll never know who Benning really would have picked. It'd be cool for the fans to get a retroactive draft board from the Canucks or whichever specific team, but then that provides too much info for the competitors. The second question we should be asking is whether the player we acquired is going to be able to help us more than the drafted player at X spot. This becomes a nuanced conversation about team dynamics, timing, and character. This is where we could envision a set of say, five players Benning might've picked, and compare their trajectories to the player acquired via trade. This, of course, is an exercise only executable with hindsight, and a significant amount at that. It's also one where a tremendous amount of data needs to be considered for us to have anywhere close to a realistic model. Again, even then, the exercise remains speculative. The set would have to have, on average, a higher value than the player acquired within the team model. I can envision further complications to this as well, but I'm not gonna bring them up right now. Rabbit hole type thinking. What I mean to establish by framing the discussion this way is that we should be talking about specifics, not generalities. The latter is lazy thinking, and doesn't really benefit our understanding of hockey. To see our GM's plan and vision, we have to think like him, and all evidence suggests he is extremely specific and detail-oriented. If we're going to criticize him, we should at least be doing it on his level. Anyway, I think you're on the right track, and I support this kind of thinking on CDC. Keep at it, yo.

I think I'd rather see him with Sutter and Rodin, but that's only based on some speculation. I think Sutter will follow Sven well off the wing, creating space for Rodin to jump into the high slot. Could be a real dangerous playmaker on that line. Either way, he's bound to improve his totals since we're going to be a better team overall, especially if we stay relatively healthy. That long chunk of time when he was pretty useless at the beginning of the season shouldn't repeat itself, which bodes well for the kid. I'm mostly rooting for him because he's my age, reminds me of myself, and has some incredible talent.

Not sure why this is linking me to Gstank's post, but I meant to add to the conversation that I've never actually seen one of Jake's slappers. His wrist shot is heavy, though. With some accuracy and a better sense of timing, he'll be a reliable force for the Nucks.

Yeah, but we don't have the information available to the coaching staff. I think that we've all forgotten why Willie was hired in the first place. He's good with people. He got a masters in social work. Dude is completely suited to coaching the best out of players, but he knows their limits. He understands when they've stretched too far, and pushes them to excel within their limits. It's exactly like Vancouver, too, everyone coaching themselves to be the best they can be. But none of us are really athletes. Runners, maybe.

C'mon man, that's totally misrepresenting reality. The coach played Hutton on the top pairing at parts of the year. Tryamkin was getting top-4 once time soon after he arrived. That shows definite preference of rookies in those situations, which were often enough to be considered taxing heavily their abilities. It showed them what it takes, and what they need. Start thinking.

Yeah, and as much as they're over-stated, I understand the Chara comparisons. If Tramline continues an upward trajectory and gains more athleticism with a refined understanding of strategy, he could be a force in both ends. It really depends on how smart the dude is - I haven't really seen enough evidence either way to suggest he is or isn't, but I'm holding out hope. Reasonably, though, I think we can expect a tough, physical crease clearer with the ability to chip in 20 points a season for the next few years. He might elevate his game above that, but there's too many contingencies in place to say.

Elton John prefers 'em long and strong...

Does he eat Kraft Dinner? I mean, if you have time between your busy work schedule and smiling grotesquely through the Internet... Please let me know ASAP

Does that ever happen? It seems like a dumb bet if anyone's ever made it. Sure, it might pay off like one in a hundred times, but this is reasonable asset management. I'm completely cool with this method, and I don't think the implication is that Benning doesn't value Rodin. That's never seemed to be the case when he's spoken of him...

I think the one year deal functions two ways. It gives the team flexibility in terms of cap, and it enables them to see what Rodin's capable of. If he can't hack it at this point, he's unlikely to ever make it, so this is a great way to frame his (potential) breakout year.

You go straight to hell, gurn. Desi, while a contrarian sonofagun, is a vital part of this forum. What he does is make people think, so screw you for blandly attacking his commenting with your own facile remarks. Also, if you're gonna joke about depression, at least make it worth dying for.

Yeah, I rarely edit my posts, so most of them are spontaneous stream-of-consciousness responses, which sometimes make them get sorta ramble-y ((meta ) not really). Why wouldn't we want him in the ECHL? I've read commenters on CDC suggesting that it's almost a lower talent level than the CHL. To be honest, I have no clue what it's like, so I wonder if it might be a viable alternative. That way, he could see spot duty in Utica throughout the year yet still develop in a men's league. Maybe?

Why do you figure he's not ready for the AHL? Because of his inability to crack the men's lineup? I see logic there, but I also wonder if he'd be better off in the CHL. He's dominating kids in Europe, so there's a good chance he wouldn't be overly challenged at the CHL level, too. That said, it could be hugely beneficial for learning the rink size, NA systems and style, as well as the culture and language among his age group. I guess my bias towards the AHL is built off CanucksArmy articles where former writers argued for putting a player in a position where they have to succeed to stick. The idea there being that X's skill increases as they are challenged more. Ah, but again, I'm caught flat footed, because I can't speak to Jasek's true talent level - never watched him. That raises a question for the board - has anybody watched the kid, and if so, is he ready for the AHL?

Third line scoring role. Fourth line does the heavy lifting. Gaunce, Cassels, Grenier? I can see those guys putting up a good defensive fight if backed up by Trymakin or Pedan (or both!).

GMJB loves character. Gaunce has that. Which leads me to... I think he'll put up points. He's got the strength and willpower to do dirty work, and the intelligence to read plays. Even if he's a fourth liner, he'll put up ~15 points a season. That's my bet, anyway. As a third liner, he could probably rise to 25-30 points a season.

I think he's drunk.