-
Posts
4,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Everything posted by canucklehead44
-
Gaunce is having a solid rookie season and seems to be improving constantly, moving to wing gives him versatility. In terms of NHL comparable, I'd say Brooks Laich. SCOUTING REPORT Assets: Can put up points in a scoring role, but also displays a keen ability to play well defensively. Is plenty versatile, heady and a solid, dependable teammate. Is effective in front of the net, where he uses his good size. Will always display sound leadership qualities and play through pain. Flaws: Doesn't have high-end scoring prowess at the highest level, so he tends to run a little hot and cold in terms of offensive production. Is continously improving his overall quickness, but he doesn't own game-breaking speed. Career Potential: Versatile, quality complementary forward with leadership qualities. Gaunce, at the peak of his career, could be a 2nd line center and score 50 points, but he will likely be more of a versatile bottom 6 guy.
-
Looking back : http://canucksarmy.com/2014/6/18/jake-virtanen-is-good-so-don-t-draft-him Either way I still fully understand the Canucks decision to take Virtanen. If we picked Ehlers or Nylander and the became serviceable, yet undersized 35-40 point 2nd line fringe players and Virtanen became a 50-60 point power forward our fanbase would be up in arms that we passed on a player like that, who is also a BC boy. Yet if Virtanen becomes a chippy 20 point, 3rd line player and Ehlers / Nylander become 60-70 point 1st line players you probably won't hear any complaints (as long as Virtanen plays physical). I agree that Virtanen is probably higher risk pick with a lower ceiling, given all of the factors he was the safer selection. I think Virtanen will be a solid NHL player one day, but we probably did miss drafting a legit first line talent in either Ehlers or Nylander. The Canucks had the most difficult selection of the draft. I don't think the top 5 (other than Ekblad) will be very good relative to other drafts, but there were a lot of gems throughout the first round/early second.
-
I think he is definitely AHL ready, but not NHL ready at this stage. Keep him in Utica as long as possible, give him two games and if he looks good keep him for 9, if he dominates leave him up, otherwise send him back down to London. I am happy with Matthias, he is a good player. Hasn't played great but I can tell he is a solid player who will come around. People are too hard on Sbisa too. He was awful in Colorado, but if you take that one game off the record books he is +4, 2 points, 15 hits, 4 PIM in 8 games.
-
I would rather have Gardiner over Edler, Lack and Reimer are a wash and those players cancel out salary more or less. It wouldn't make sense to move Corrado as we are sorely lacking in defensive depth. Love him or hate him, Kadri is an elite level 2nd line player. Kadri - Bonino - Burrows is a very good 2nd line Moving Higgins on the Vey line over Richardson makes them so much better, other than weakness on faceoffs.
- 18 comments
-
- 1
-
-
- Trade
- Speculation
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
During the lockout he had 27 points - a 47 point pace. 24 of those points came at even strength, placing him 59th in the league ahead of proven first liners like Zetterberg, Carter, Benn, Lecavalier etc. Hansen was a solid player on the rise before Torts. A lot of people on these boards (including me) were expecting 50-60 points. He had one bad season with a horrid coach, too early to write him off.
-
Not only that, but as a low point producing defensive dman he probably will make more in the NHL. A forward who would be a star in the KHL but can barely hold a spot in the NHL will make way more. Outside of the top 100 highest paid players in the league (which would constitute the best players on their team for their position) players in the KHL make less than 1 million per annum. Unless Tryamkin becomes a 30+ point defenseman in the KHL I could see him earning more here.
-
No doubt you can, the one thing he has in common with those players is the fact he is a big, two-way player. If gaunce was a 190lbs offensive winger who wasn't putting up numbers I would be far more worried
-
Andrew Ladd scored 19 goals, 45 points after his draft year (a 30 point drop). He turned out alright. Brandon Dubinsky is another player with ho-hum junior stats who turned into a solid top 6 player. Jordan Staal, Brandon Sutter, even Jarret Stoll (huge drop in final junior season) have all had solid careers as well without lighting junior on fire.
-
I agree, newgm makes a great point as well. Most players don't really stick around a 30 point zone their entire career. I am very doubtful Gaunce becomes a 1st line player, but he could be a Chris Higgins type who can bounce up to the 2nd line from time to time. I was making more of a point to Gaunce's well rounded game and commitment. He has the size, skill, and ethic. I predict he will end up with a Kyle Brodziak sort of career. Good for 30 points, might hit the 20 goal / 40 point mark a couple times. Gaunce is the same size as Brodziak and plays a similar game, almost identical scouting reports: Assets: Is a sound defensive player with some offensive production. Can play either center or wing and gives an honest effort every shift. Sets a very good example in terms of work ethic. Flaws: Is a little lacking in the skating department, which limits his ability to play a scoring role at the highest level. Doesn't always use his size effectively enough, too. Career Potential: Versatile complementary forward. If Brodziak is his likely potential, I would put Greg Nemisz at the low end, Ryan O'Reilly at the ceiling.
-
Gaunce is a physical specimen with a good shot, solid playmaking skills, a high level of hockey IQ at both ends of the ice, along with other intangibles (faceoffs etc). Apparently he dominated the combine when it came to testing (ranked 1st in 12 different tests). "He’s one of those classic Canadian born, OHL trained two-way centres. Brendan’s well-rounded skillset projects him anywhere between 6th and 12th on draft day". Still can't believe we got him 26th. His OHL stats weren't mind boggling, but Ryan O'Reilly was pretty much scouted the same as Gaunce but without the size http://www.matchsticksandgasoline.com/2009/6/18/913777/scouting-the-09-draft-ryan-oreilly. O'Reilly never even hit 20 goals or 70 points in junior yet scored 28 in the NHL as a 23 year old. To say Gaunce is going to be a fourth liner is very pre-mature, he could still end up a first line player. I think it is likely he fits more of a third line role but at that token I think he is at the very least a slam dunk bottom 6 guy.
-
I think a big part is the plateau of his point totals. A point per game for a big centre in his draft year is pretty good, but typically you would expect a 10-20 point increase in production year over year. While his goal totals had a nice bump, his ppg was identical the year after the draft. This season they were a bit higher at 72 points in 65 games but his goal totals dropped to 31. A first round pick, in his second second after the draft, should put up around 90 points. This is why Gaunce went from a projected 2nd line player to a projected 3rd line player. Horvat on the other hand had slightly lower point totals (61pts in 67gp) but his second season he had 74pts in 54gp which is a nice sign of progression. Take a look at Henrik Samuelsson numbers. He is the player we would have likely selected if Gaunce didn't drop in the rankings. Perfect example of how a player should progress offensively over their junior career.
-
I would say top end potential would be Owen Nolan, lower end potential would be Raffi Torres. I don't think he is nearly as tough as Nolan, but he seems willing to drop the gloves: Virtanen was 16 here, his opponent 19 going on 20 and a guy who had 18 fighting majors. Looks able to hold his own.
-
Agreed. I think he has potential to be a "physical 15" but he won't get the opportunity to do so unless he really stands out in a certain area. He is big but not huge, he is a good hitter but doesn't hit everything that moves, he will drop the gloves but isn't a good fighter, he has decent hands but not enough for a top 6 role, he can skate but he is not fast, not bad defensively but isn't a PK kind of guy etc. A guy like Tanner Glass for example. Decent 4th liner, does everything alright but doesn't stand out in any area. The thing that keeps him in the NHL - good pound for pound fighter. Wins about half his fights and is always willing to drop them. I think a guy like Archibald is a better hockey player overall, just needs the opportunity.
-
While the AHL might be ideal, he is probably making at least $300K in the KHL, tax free vs $60k in the AHL.
-
I think the Booth/Virtanen comparisons are good. They have identical builds and play a power game with a tonne of speed. Booth was our best hitter up front last season and he did score 31 goals in Florida. I think the biggest thing lacking is playmaking ability in both players. 2008-2009 David Booth - 31 goals, 29 assists, 2nd on his team in points. 2nd amongst forwards in hits. I think this is what I would expect for Virtanen to put up in his prime. I don't see him as an 80 point player.
-
This year I don't see Gaunce or Horvat making the team, but for the 2015-2016 season we have both Richardson and Matthias becoming UFAs, so there will be spots. I prefer seeing guys do a full year in the AHL with a couple of call-up stints. I would hate to see Bo get rushed into the NHL and have his confidence shot.
-
A previous poster asked what his KHL salary is. KHL salaries aren't posted, but I found a list of the top 90. The bottom of the list was 1.3 million and he wasn't on it. He could get paid $925,000, plus a $92,000 signing bonus plus a performance bonus for ice time (up to $212,000 if he is top 4 in ice time) and blocked shots (not sure what the amount is). While they play tax free there is a huge difference in the quality of life between an NHLer and a player in the KHL. They stay in crappy hotel rooms, buy their own soap etc. NHL players are treated like royalty. This isn't the case of a marginal second line player only worth paying 1 million in the NHL while he can make 3 million in the KHL. From the looks of the way contracts are the KHL dishes out money for points, whereas the NHL pays higher for defensive players. I don't think this is a case we will have a hard time retaining Tryamkin down the road unless he becomes a 40+ point player. As a 10-20 point, 4/5th defenseman I think we would make more in the nhl.
-
Tryamkin makes less than 1.3 million. Shirokov makes 2.3 and still came over. Highest paid dman in the KHL makes 3.1 million - Evgeny Medvedev. And he puts up a decent number of points. Even if we had to go 1 year at 1.5 million for Tryamkin it would be worth it to see what he can do. We aren't going to have to break the bank.
-
Even though he is a 3rd round pick I think Tryamkin is the player I would be most interested in seeing at the prospects camp. From the sounds of scouting reports and a few quick clips he seems to have a fairly high level of speed and athleticism. I love the fact he attended the draft and is attending camp, I think it shows commitment to make the NHL. At worst he is probably a 7/8 guy who plays for a year, but at best he could be one of the draft steals.
-
BUF initiate compliance buy out on Ehrhoff
canucklehead44 replied to Mackcanuck's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
I agree with those moves, especially if Buffalo eats cap on Myers. That is a sick D group. Even without Myers, brining in Ehrhoff to partner with Edler opens up the possibility of Bieksa and Hamhuis matching up again, moving Tanev with Sbisa. -
BUF initiate compliance buy out on Ehrhoff
canucklehead44 replied to Mackcanuck's topic in Trades, Rumours, Signings
BRING BACK EHRHOFF!!!!!! In hindsight he was one of our MVPs over the two years he was here. While it is merely a correlation, the team was very different over the two seasons Ehrhoff was here. Our power play was incredible and 5 on 5 he was excellent at carrying the puck up the ice. +36 his first season, in addition to his excellent power play and underrated PK abilities. One other big piece is his D partner - Alex Edler. Edler was fantastic with Ehrhoff and Salo, but he is terrible with Bieksa and hasn't really worked with Tanev either. We still need a puck moving dman, and Ehrhoff could be that guy for us...again. -
YES! He was who I suggested we draft in the 3rd round back in March: http://forum.canucks.com/topic/357938-draft-2014-first-round-pick/page-12 A big guy who can skate, plus he is already holding his own in the KHL at 19 which is not an easy league, especially for young players. Strong WJC performance as well. If he continues to progress we could have a special player on our hands.
-
Shinkaruk + 6th is hard to swallow, especially if the roster player is Tanev. As much as Bieksa is a big part of this team I think Bieksa + 6th for Reinhart makes much more sense. Bieksa is on a Florida friendly contract (cap hit is higher than his salary) and he would be a huge part in mentoring their young players. In fact he would probably be named captain. The Canucks are retooling and as much as I would want to keep Bieksa he is 33 and is free of a NTC on his contract. This deal wouldn't really hurt us long term and would give Benning his first major move. While Reinhart > Shinkaruk it is hard to ignore that they averaged around the same number of goals in the dub. I don't think there is a huge drop from 1st to 6th, so giving up two valuable young players + a roster player is too big of a hit.
-
While Burrows has been a great part of our organization, I think a healthy Booth brings much more to the table in terms of offense and physicality. He really turned around his game late in the season and I was looking forward to see what he could do under a new coach. His first year with us he played only 56 games but was 5th in ESG. There was no way he would perform under Torts, and in a contract year he may have bounced back or at least brought us a 5th round pick at the deadline.
-
It is hard to pass up on a guy like Ritchie. He is not just big and tough - his skill is very underrated and he lead his team in goals and points by a fairly wide margin. Can't even say that about Nash or Horton. If Nylander and Ehlers end up being 2nd/3rd line tweeners they will have trouble sticking around. Ritchie on the other hand has the ceiling of a 1st liner but at worst he would be like a Mike Rupp type player (which sucks, but at least I think his chances of being an NHLer are very high).