Adam Gaudette | #96 | C

[HomeBrew]

8 minutes ago, Alflives said:

I wonder which between Gaudette and Lockwood will become the more impactful NHL player?  

6 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

I think Gaudette has the better chance just based on his overall game.

 

But man watching Lockwood when he's on is fun. That guy can make things happen all over the ice.

 

If we can get two NHLers out of these guys that will be a huge win.

I would agree with Gaudette having the better chance. At this point it seems like Gaudette also has the size to step into the pros more easily. Gaudette kind of reminds me of Kesler when he was just beginning and will need to put in the same effort as him to be successful at the next level. With Lockwood, I think it is more about whether his skills can translate while he tries to add the strength that he will need to make the same things happen in the pros. His speed and drive so far is definitely enticing to watch.

Edited January 24, 2017 by HomeBrew

[DeNiro]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

JB seems to really be able to find guys in the later rounds.  Maybe we get a Goudreau kind of player?

Definitely similarities in their games for sure. He plays with a ton of energy and is very gritty for a smaller guy. That alone will set him apart from a guy like Schroeder.

 

Gaudreau had 3 years of development in college though on a much better team. We'll see where Lockwood is at in a couple years. Michigan is a great program.

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Wow, plug is a little harsh, don't you think?

 

I would say it's more a case of his ceiling being a big question mark right now.

None of this would have happened if that idiot Benning had drafted the ELITE winger like he was supposed to instead of that busted twig of a plug.  18 years old and their futures are set.

[DeNiro]

5 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

None of this would have happened if that idiot Benning had drafted the ELITE winger like he was supposed to instead of that busted twig of a plug.  18 years old and their futures are set.

Tkachuk was the sure fire pick and he's proving it. Juolevi represents more of a gamble, which I hope pays off.

 

But again this is Adam Gaudette talk.

[JamesB]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Wow, plug is a little harsh, don't you think?

 

I would say it's more a case of his ceiling being a big question mark right now.

 

1 hour ago, DeltaSwede said:

 

It's not a big question mark. 

 

1 hour ago, DeNiro said:

Of course it is, most D-men's ceilings are.

 

At this point he could end up anywhere from an elite number 1 to just a solid 3-4 guy. So much has to go right in a defenseman's development for them to become a true number 1.

 

1 hour ago, HomeBrew said:

If you say "he could end up anywhere from an elite number 1 to just a solid 3-4 guy" that means you are conflating the two ideas. If you think he could end up as an elite number 1, then that is his ceiling. Whether he reaches that ceiling is another point. If you don't think his ceiling is a number 1, then make that point, but don't conflate the two different ideas. 

 

Anyways, how about this Gaudette kid? What's his ceiling at these days?

I am trying to resist but I can't so here is my take on the "ceiling" terminology.

 

First, it is not useful to the define a "ceiling" as the best a player could possibly be. Consider Alex Burrows. There are lots of guys in Junior who are like Alex was -- not big, not fast, not strong, apparently not that skilled, and they don't score a lot. And, like Alex, they don't get drafted. But Alex ended up playing for several years as a very successful NHL first liner. That is a possible outcome -- rare but possible -- for players of that type. Does it make sense to say that all these guys who are not even good enough to be drafted have a "ceiling" as NHL first liners? 

 

I don't think it does.

 

Usually when evaluating young players people talk about a likely range. There is no guarantee a player will end up in that range, but the odds are  high. Usually the ceiling is the top of that range and the floor is the bottom of the that range. The "projection" is usually the middle of the range. Some guys have a wide range, some guys have a narrow range.

 

When Horvat was drafted a lot of people had his range as solid NHL 2C to solid NHL 3C -- a pretty narrow range, with a "projection" as a 2C/3C guy. Now it looks like he might exceed the apparent ceiling as it looks like he has a good shot as becoming a solid NHL 1C, although very good 2C is still more likely.

 

With Virtanen the situation is reversed. When drafted a lot of people had his range from NHL 1RW power forward to 3RW energy guy with decent secondary scoring. His projection was probably 2RW power forward. Right now it is far from clear he will even reach the floor of that range and the "ceiling" seems very unlikely.

 

I summarized scouting reports on Juolevi in a thread previously. I think the range in the reports generally goes from borderline #4/5 NHL D up to solid #2 D. Not many people have #1 D as his ceiling athough obviously it is not impossible. And there is no guarantee he even makes the NHL. He probably "projects" as a solid two-way second pairing NHL defenceman. 

 

Coming back to Gaudette (finally), Canucks Army currently has his PGPS (prospect graduation probability system) probability at 100%. That tells you something about Gaudette but it also tells you that the PGPS system is a bit misleading as there is no way his chance of making the NHL is 100%. (What I think it means literally is that all guys with his trajectory so far actually made the NHL, but there cannot be many such players.)

 

When he was drafted his ceiling was regarded as marginal bottom 6 NHL forward and his floor was never even playing as a pro.   Right now his range is probably more like 2nd liner in the NHL to AHL first liner, with a projected or expected value as a bottom 6 forward in the NHL.

 

Definitely a good news story for the Canucks and a great pick-up for a 5th round pick.

 

 

Edited January 25, 2017 by JamesB

[Derp...]

2 per draft is the mark you need to meet. So far we should have 6 NHL players from the drafts, to be normal, more is performing well.

 

2013 (2 NHLers)

Bo Horvat

Shinky --> Granlund

 

Cassels/Subban?

 

2014 (3 NHLers)

Virtanen

McCann --> Gudbranson

Tryamkin

Forsling

 

Demko?

 

2015 (1 NHLer)

Boeser

Gaudette

2nd --> Baertschi

 

Brisebois

Zhukenov

Neill

Olson

Jasek

 

2016 (0 NHLers)

Juolevi

Lockwood

 

McKenzie

Abols

 

Candella

Stukel

 

We should get about 11 guys from the last 4 drafts which is great.

 

 

 

 

[Noble 6]

This guy sounds like he could be a great 3C if he keeps improving. He seems to have some nice puck skills and vision, but nothing really elite. If he could turn into even a 4C for us, that would be great:

 

_______ - Horvat - Boeser

Baertschi - ______ - _______

Granlund - Sutter - Virtanen

_______ - Gaudette - Lockwood

[Canucks Curse]

2 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Tkachuk was the sure fire pick and he's proving it. Juolevi represents more of a gamble, which I hope pays off.

 

But again this is Adam Gaudette talk.

I've found over the years the Canucks seem to stear clear of the "sure fire" good pick and go little off the board

[Gaudette Celly]

3 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Tkachuk was the sure fire pick and he's proving it. Juolevi represents more of a gamble, which I hope pays off.

 

But again this is Adam Gaudette talk.

Then what about the Pool Party and Dubois?  Tkachuk was no consensus "sure fire" by any means.  This is myopic hindsight, and after but half a season and thus terribly short-sighted.

[DeNiro]

42 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Then what about the Pool Party and Dubois?  Tkachuk was no consensus "sure fire" by any means.  This is myopic hindsight, and after but half a season and thus terribly short-sighted.

Never wanted Dubois. I always thought he was the biggest gamble after flying up the rankings late.

 

Pulljujarvi has 5 points in 6 games in the AHL. At least he's showing he can produce at that level. Jake not producing at the AHL should be raising red flags for everyone. Not likely a player goes on the be a successful NHL player if they can't even produce in the AHL over the course of a season.

 

Tkachuk was definitely a sure fire pick, go back and listen to the scouts. He should have been ranked the number 1 North American player but everyone seemed to get enamored with Dubois size and 2-way play.

Edited January 25, 2017 by DeNiro

[-Vintage Canuck-]

 

[Bandwagon38]

Just as likely MT flames out the same way as Bennett next year and is on the cusp of being scratched or sent down.  Remember the playoffs against us?  Bennett was being called the next Iginla!  

It is just as short sighted to crown a 19-20 year old a sure fire NHLer as it is a bust.  

Edited January 25, 2017 by Bandwagon38

[elvis15]

19 hours ago, NameFaker said:

Massive improvements.

 

But, as the article points out, the probability of his success (his pGPS) varies week to week. 

 

These numbers are a snapshot and shouldn't be taken as gospel.

 

Elvis got fat and died on his toilet.

Nah, I'm still here @Derp..., and I'm not fat.

 

But he's hit a bit of a statistical sweet spot for sure. Give him credit for that due to his play, but the article is right that it'll vary if his production changes even a little.

Edited January 25, 2017 by elvis15

[HomeBrew]

6 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

 

I am trying to resist but I can't so here is my take on the "ceiling" terminology.

 

First, it is not useful to the define a "ceiling" as the best a player could possibly be. Consider Alex Burrows. There are lots of guys in Junior who are like Alex was -- not big, not fast, not strong, apparently not that skilled, and they don't score a lot. And, like Alex, they don't get drafted. But Alex ended up playing for several years as a very successful NHL first liner. That is a possible outcome -- rare but possible -- for players of that type. Does it make sense to say that all these guys who are not even good enough to be drafted have a "ceiling" as NHL first liners? 

 

I don't think it does.

 

Usually when evaluating young players people talk about a likely range. There is no guarantee a player will end up in that range, but the odds are  high. Usually the ceiling is the top of that range and the floor is the bottom of the that range. The "projection" is usually the middle of the range. Some guys have a wide range, some guys have a narrow range.

 

When Horvat was drafted a lot of people had his range as solid NHL 2C to solid NHL 3C -- a pretty narrow range, with a "projection" as a 2C/3C guy. Now it looks like he might exceed the apparent ceiling as it looks like he has a good shot as becoming a solid NHL 1C, although very good 2C is still more likely.

 

With Virtanen the situation is reversed. When drafted a lot of people had his range from NHL 1RW power forward to 3RW energy guy with decent secondary scoring. His projection was probably 2RW power forward. Right now it is far from clear he will even reach the floor of that range and the "ceiling" seems very unlikely.

 

I summarized scouting reports on Juolevi in a thread previously. I think the range in the reports generally goes from borderline #4/5 NHL D up to solid #2 D. Not many people have #1 D as his ceiling athough obviously it is not impossible. And there is no guarantee he even makes the NHL. He probably "projects" as a solid two-way second pairing NHL defenceman. 

 

Coming back to Gaudette (finally), Canucks Army currently has his PGPS (prospect graduation probability system) probability at 100%. That tells you something about Gaudette but it also tells you that the PGPS system is a bit misleading as there is no way his chance of making the NHL is 100%. (What I think it means literally is that all guys with his trajectory so far actually made the NHL, but there cannot be many such players.)

 

When he was drafted his ceiling was regarded as marginal bottom 6 NHL forward and his floor was never even playing as a pro.   Right now his range is probably more like 2nd liner in the NHL to AHL first liner, with a projected or expected value as a bottom 6 forward in the NHL.

 

Definitely a good news story for the Canucks and a great pick-up for a 5th round pick.

 

 

I think generally I agree with this... Excuse if I missed it because I am tired, but where do you actually define what the "ceiling" is? You seemed to misrepresent the idea of ceiling being used in your first point based on my previous comment as I was using it just as you proceeded to later in your post (which I agree with). If you use Burrows as an example, we never thought he could be a first line player when he was playing in the ECHL, so I seem to not understand the point your trying to make. In the case of Burrows, and guys like him, their projections, floors and ceilings are always changing - as in, his project was different when he was in ECHL, to when he was in the AHL, to when he made the NHL. Just like how Horvat has changed his projection and ceiling with his continued evolving game. Just like how Gaudette's projected range has gone up since his draft and may go down or up upon going pro. 

 

My question would be to clarify how you actually define what a players "ceiling" is within a projection (ceiling/floor range)? 

[hearditall]

Gaudette looked like a keeper to me at camp this year...

[NameFaker]

1 hour ago, HomeBrew said:

I think generally I agree with this... Excuse if I missed it because I am tired, but where do you actually define what the "ceiling" is? You seemed to misrepresent the idea of ceiling being used in your first point based on my previous comment as I was using it just as you proceeded to later in your post (which I agree with). If you use Burrows as an example, we never thought he could be a first line player when he was playing in the ECHL, so I seem to not understand the point your trying to make. In the case of Burrows, and guys like him, their projections, floors and ceilings are always changing - as in, his project was different when he was in ECHL, to when he was in the AHL, to when he made the NHL. Just like how Horvat has changed his projection and ceiling with his continued evolving game. Just like how Gaudette's projected range has gone up since his draft and may go down or up upon going pro. 

 

My question would be to clarify how you actually define what a players "ceiling" is within a projection (ceiling/floor range)? 

Dude, nice post. 

 

There seems to be an almost static perception of players based on their draft day "projection". 

 

I think in one way, that's fair. How they're measured should reflect their draft standing. But...

 

It's also crucial to any franchise's success that they better evaluate talent than other teams. And that means relative future values in comparison to current value.

 

It's for this reason that I place trust in Benning. His character-based approach, in combination with the needed focus of whichever time our team finds itself in, is what will lead to numerous successful picks, and, in a long-term game, these players recouping higher value than the pick is, simply put, winning.

 

A caveat: the team still has to have all the right parts, like a balanced line-up and a tactical coach. I think we're on our way, though.

 

Gaudette is an example of this.

 

tl;dr - I broke things off with girl and hockey is salvation

[kenhodgejr]

5 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Never wanted Dubois. I always thought he was the biggest gamble after flying up the rankings late.

 

Pulljujarvi has 5 points in 6 games in the AHL. At least he's showing he can produce at that level. Jake not producing at the AHL should be raising red flags for everyone. Not likely a player goes on the be a successful NHL player if they can't even produce in the AHL over the course of a season.

 

Tkachuk was definitely a sure fire pick, go back and listen to the scouts. He should have been ranked the number 1 North American player but everyone seemed to get enamored with Dubois size and 2-way play.

Jakes development suffered majorly as a result of not leaving him in junior another season. Then letting him start in Utica this season and slowly earn his way to the NHL like everyone else. Now their trying to teach him fundamentals on a farm team after rewarding him with a season in the NHL right after being drafted. He can't be rushed. He probably needs 2-3 seasons as a leader and captain playing big roles and taking the team deep into the playoffs. Thats how you build character, experience, professionalism, and maturity. Teams like Chicago never rush their prospects. Banning made the mistake managing Jake

[kenhodgejr]

8 hours ago, Horvat is a Boss said:

This guy sounds like he could be a great 3C if he keeps improving. He seems to have some nice puck skills and vision, but nothing really elite. If he could turn into even a 4C for us, that would be great:

 

_______ - Horvat - Boeser

Baertschi - ______ - _______

Granlund - Sutter - Virtanen

_______ - Gaudette - Lockwood

This looks good but I think Lockwood will be a 2nd line RW.... The kid is oozing with skill 

[RetroCanuck]

From what I heard, I think Jake outgrew Junior and thats why he was brought to the big league. Im sure if Vancouver could they would have had him in the AHL a lot of last year.

[Phat Fingers]

16 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

 

I am trying to resist but I can't so here is my take on the "ceiling" terminology.

 

First, it is not useful to the define a "ceiling" as the best a player could possibly be. Consider Alex Burrows. There are lots of guys in Junior who are like Alex was -- not big, not fast, not strong, apparently not that skilled, and they don't score a lot. And, like Alex, they don't get drafted. But Alex ended up playing for several years as a very successful NHL first liner. That is a possible outcome -- rare but possible -- for players of that type. Does it make sense to say that all these guys who are not even good enough to be drafted have a "ceiling" as NHL first liners? 

 

I don't think it does.

 

Usually when evaluating young players people talk about a likely range. There is no guarantee a player will end up in that range, but the odds are  high. Usually the ceiling is the top of that range and the floor is the bottom of the that range. The "projection" is usually the middle of the range. Some guys have a wide range, some guys have a narrow range.

 

When Horvat was drafted a lot of people had his range as solid NHL 2C to solid NHL 3C -- a pretty narrow range, with a "projection" as a 2C/3C guy. Now it looks like he might exceed the apparent ceiling as it looks like he has a good shot as becoming a solid NHL 1C, although very good 2C is still more likely.

 

With Virtanen the situation is reversed. When drafted a lot of people had his range from NHL 1RW power forward to 3RW energy guy with decent secondary scoring. His projection was probably 2RW power forward. Right now it is far from clear he will even reach the floor of that range and the "ceiling" seems very unlikely.

 

I summarized scouting reports on Juolevi in a thread previously. I think the range in the reports generally goes from borderline #4/5 NHL D up to solid #2 D. Not many people have #1 D as his ceiling athough obviously it is not impossible. And there is no guarantee he even makes the NHL. He probably "projects" as a solid two-way second pairing NHL defenceman. 

 

Coming back to Gaudette (finally), Canucks Army currently has his PGPS (prospect graduation probability system) probability at 100%. That tells you something about Gaudette but it also tells you that the PGPS system is a bit misleading as there is no way his chance of making the NHL is 100%. (What I think it means literally is that all guys with his trajectory so far actually made the NHL, but there cannot be many such players.)

 

When he was drafted his ceiling was regarded as marginal bottom 6 NHL forward and his floor was never even playing as a pro.   Right now his range is probably more like 2nd liner in the NHL to AHL first liner, with a projected or expected value as a bottom 6 forward in the NHL.

 

Definitely a good news story for the Canucks and a great pick-up for a 5th round pick.

 

 

James B,

 

 

Just wondering what scouting reports had Juolevi at a 4/5 defender. Everything I read prior to the draft was at minimum he was projected to be a solid top 4 defender, likely end up as a top 2 player in a similar mode as Plaveski in SJ. Outside chance at becoming a legit #1 one guy.  Of course these are projections, but wanted to see if I had missed a scouting assessment.  

 

Adam Gaudette looks to be a great pick, JB has a talent of finding guys in later rounds.  This might be his strongest asset for the team, so far as he gets solid players in the top two rounds more than not. 

 

 

EW