Strengthening 3C - A Different Approach

[Herberts Vasiljevs]

44 minutes ago, Comeback_Kings said:

I'd like to find a way to get Joel Eriksson Ek out of Minny to be the Canucks 3c

Would be nice - but I'm sure the Wild know very well what they have in Eriksson-Ek as a player. I don't see them moving on from him, especially when you factor in how weak the Wild already are at centre. 

[Gollumpus]

49 minutes ago, Provost said:

We don’t have 7 years to let him learn the position.  There is also no guarantee that at the end of that he will become a defensive guy.  
I would say his skillet is more of being an offensive player, maybe even a low end 2C on a crappier team.

Well, using the Malhotra example, he started to show up as a good 3C type of player 7 years into his career, when he was 25(ish). If Gaudette were to develop/be developed at a similar pace then we are looking at 2 years, maybe 3 tops for him to be an effective 3C. No guarantees, of course, just throwing it out there for consideration. 

 

                                                          regards,  G.

[JeremyCuddles]

13 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

Why not give Gaudette more time to grow into the role. He'd make a pretty good 3C if we give we allow him some time. He's 23, and he plays a 2way game. Is there room for improvement offensively and defensively - sure. But we have a pretty good player here, and as he bulks up and gets experience he'll get even better. No need to give up on him just yet. Defense is higher priority imo.

He doesn't play a two way game in the slightest. Lol. I liked his hustle but defensively the guy is a ghost.

[Gollumpus]

Speaking of Malhotra, I found this interesting essay: https://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/manny-malhotra-became-one-nhls-promising-young-coaches

A conversation like the one Hitchcock had with Malhotra might do Gaudette a world of good. Malhotra has certainly had a positive on Horvat. If the team has been working with Gaudette and he hasn't caught on yet, then that is a different story.

 

The exact city doesn’t matter. Manny Malhotra remembers it as Phoenix. Ken Hitchcock believes it was Dallas. What’s important here, though, is the conversation that took place and its far-reaching impact. Both parties are aligned on that.

It’s the 2008–09 season and the Columbus Blue Jackets are in a hotel on the road. Last night Malhotra and Hitchcock had it out on the bench. The veteran isn’t comfortable with how their exchange went down or how they left things, and so he’s reaching out to his head coach for clarity. “Can we have a quick chat?” Malhotra asks over the phone. Hitchcock agrees.

The Malhotra who walked into his coach’s hotel room was a player searching for something. A first-round pick in the 1998 draft (seventh overall by the Rangers), he was in his 10th year in the league but still hadn’t figured out a defined role for himself in the game. Hitchcock had an idea about what that could look like.

In his third year at the helm of the club, the coach had grown tired of his players’ collective attitude. They were a bunch of nice guys, he says now, who were great friends to each other. If Hitchcock got angry or pushed too hard, they would band together and stand up for one another. “But we needed to have each other’s backs as a teammate,” Hitchcock says. “And sometimes being a great teammate means you’re willing to push the other guy along with yourself. And I needed someone to buy that.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Malhotra was his target. Hitchcock had singled him out the previous night with intent — he saw something in the centreman’s character. Malhotra was the guy who Columbus players respected the most and Hitchcock needed him to become what the coach calls “the first teammate.”

Their conversation was “very intense and very emotional,” Hitchcock remembers, and centred on what the coach needed and expected from his player. Malhotra was told that he could be an alright top-six forward and enjoy a nice career, or he could have a major impact as a go-to third-line checker who took all the important faceoffs, killed all the important penalties and played against opponents’ top players. That route would require him to do all the dirty work on the ice, cover for teammates’ mistakes, fight for space and be okay with all of that. It was, after all, the most unselfish job in hockey.

“And you’ve got to drag people into the fight,” Hitchcock added. “You can’t be everybody’s friend. You’ve got to lead the charge in being a great teammate.”

For Malhotra, the exchange was a turning point in his career. “He laid it out very clearly for me,” the now 40-year-old says. “Put me in different situations where I could take pride in one particular job. Playing for Hitch, I had a very defined role and I understood where I was going to be able to make a real career of playing in the NHL.”

 

 

 

“You want to know how to act and behave as a professional, look at this guy.”

 

 

 

 

That season Malhotra transformed into more of a student of the game. Hitchcock showed him the importance of the “Why” behind every on-ice action and the added layers of knowledge were addictive. “At that point, I had played for a lot of coaches in a lot of different systems,” Malhotra says. “And for the most part, you’re always just told, ‘Do this. This is what we’re doing.’ Whereas for Hitch, he gave you the ‘Why.’ And for me, it was kind of like a lightbulb moment.

“It was fun for me because it gave me the freedom to think the game a little bit more,” he adds. “I really enjoyed that side of it. And then, even just communicating with my teammates and talking to them about the game, talking to them on the bench, talking between periods. I really started to enjoy that aspect of the game. So, that’s when I started to have that seed in my mind that I think I would enjoy coaching.”

Hitchcock, whose 849 wins are third on the NHL’s all-time coaching list, says Malhotra embraced the changes and was a different player literally the day after their talk. And it didn’t take long for teammates to follow. The Blue Jackets set a then franchise-high of 92 points and made the post-season for the first time in team history. Hitchcock says the accountability on the roster completely changed and it started with Malhotra.

“He helped a fledging organization really grow,” says Hitchcock. “He was the ultimate glue guy. He was the guy where if you want to know how to work, look at this guy. You want to know how to play the right way, look at this guy. You want to know how to act and behave as a professional, look at this guy. We had someone that we could point to. And it was Manny.”

For the rest of his 16-year playing career, Malhotra would be that guy, the one who led by the strength of his example and earned respect not through stats and star power but rather his approach to the game. When his playing days came to an end, a transition to coaching would’ve been a no-brainer for anyone who’d shared a dressing room with him. And since taking an assistant’s role with the Vancouver Canucks, he’s been a key behind-the-scenes asset for the club and its promising young core. Several people within the industry peg him as a rising star in the coaching ranks who’s got all the qualities of an excellent NHL bench boss. And should that happen one day, it would be more than just a sound hockey decision‚ it would also be a trailblazing moment.

 

(too much more to include here)

Edited September 12, 2020 by Gollumpus

[The Colt 45s]

13 hours ago, DarthMelvin said:

Could work...but I think Petey wants to score. He would want to play with players who would most likely pass to him, rather than he be passing. I would add one winger who can dangle the blue. 

 

 

To see Petey passing when he should have shot was a little frustrating.  Great teammate but too cute at times.

[The Colt 45s]

2 hours ago, Pickly said:

Jannik Hanson was a versatile puck hound who could play up and down the line up. More importantly, he was a winger. Not vying for the oh so important 3rd line center role. Poor comparison. 

Off the practices I watched in person, Jannick and Burrows were the last two off the ice.  They worked their butt off to have good careers.  Excellent work ethic.

[IBatch]

We simply don’t have enough quality in our top six to do this.  Miller already has added value because he takes a lot of face offs for us.   With Sutter here another season it gives AG the opportunity to ease into the role - and he actually had some above 50% games during the playoffs so he’s getting better at it.    Also his production was fine for a third line guy, second season as already on par with JVs best season yet (and he had a lot of them during a tenish game stint in the top six when BB was demoted for a spell, which probably also helped AG ha ha).   
 

Maybe later we should be looking into free agency to plug this hole...yes it would be awesome if we had three scoring lines and enough wingers to pull it off ... and maybe we will if Podz and two other guys work out - one could be Motte IMO, the other could be Linda/Hogs.    Unfortunately we won’t have more then one or two seasons before that becomes too expensive.   Vegas and TB get away with this because no state tax gives them a 8-12 million$ advantage over all other teams but Dallas (who also can afford it) and Florida. 

[IBatch]

5 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Well, using the Malhotra example, he started to show up as a good 3C type of player 7 years into his career, when he was 25(ish). If Gaudette were to develop/be developed at a similar pace then we are looking at 2 years, maybe 3 tops for him to be an effective 3C. No guarantees, of course, just throwing it out there for consideration. 

 

                                                          regards,  G.

Thanks G.  Enjoyed the article you posted below too.  It also reminded me of an article on Hitchcock when he was in Columbus and really validates it.   Said he had to change his coaching style given newer players weren’t reacting to the style he used so effectively before - particularly in Dallas - which was a taskmaster disciplinarian tactical approach.   Said he had to become a bit of a psychologist/counsel and adapt to push his guys to the next level.   Looks like he really got through to Manny - great read thx for posting. 

[CallAfterLife]

18 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

Why not give Gaudette more time to grow into the role. He'd make a pretty good 3C if we give we allow him some time. He's 23, and he plays a 2way game. Is there room for improvement offensively and defensively - sure. But we have a pretty good player here, and as he bulks up and gets experience he'll get even better. No need to give up on him just yet. Defense is higher priority imo.

Gaudette reminds me of another Hobey Baker winner, Jimmy Vesey. Both players are top line talents at the NCAA level but not at the NHL level. 

 

I think Gaudette has room to grow but if a tough decision needs to be made on a young RFA I would rather it were him instead of Stecher or Virtanen. 

[Bissurnette]

5 hours ago, CallAfterLife said:

Gaudette reminds me of another Hobey Baker winner, Jimmy Vesey. Both players are top line talents at the NCAA level but not at the NHL level. 

 

I think Gaudette has room to grow but if a tough decision needs to be made on a young RFA I would rather it were him instead of Stecher or Virtanen. 

I'm in the keep Gaudette over Virtanen for sure. I saw a guy who's all hussle and effort as opposed to what Virtanen was doing.

11 hours ago, N7Nucks said:

He doesn't play a two way game in the slightest. Lol. I liked his hustle but defensively the guy is a ghost.

Like I said both his offensive and defensive game could improve but I think you'll see that improvement when he bulks up. The appetite and hustle is there to be a good 2way player, he just needs to figure it out and he's a smart player so I'm not willing to give up on him.

14 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

 

Giving Gaudette more time might indeed be a good idea. Malhotra took around 7 to 8 years before he broke the 50% mark on face offs for the season, and other stats (FWIW) suggest that he was growing as a player. Perhaps that may be a timeline that the team could live with for the development of Gaudette?

 

                                                                      regards,  G.

Exactly, G.

21 hours ago, MrCanuck94 said:

Gaudette does not currently play a good 2 way game, he's quite weak defensively and is not great at faceoffs.

 

I get that we could see if he improves but we want to compete for the playoffs starting next season. I don't really see him being able to increase his defensive ability to the place where we need it and we don't have much time to wait for him to get there.

Like I said above, the appetite and hustle is there, and I believe you'll see significant improvement in his game as he bulks up.

 

21 hours ago, Provost said:

We can give Gaudette more time, but he is by no means a 2 way player.  He is an extremely poor defensive player right now, maybe he can get better but that isn’t at all a hallmark of his game.

You use him if you want to build a team with three scoring lines, not if if you want defensive presence on the 3rd line.

As above, I think we are currently better off getting someone who is a real 2 way player that can pot in a few points but also play on the Pk and take the defensive responsibilities off Horvat.

People say Horvat is not great defensively either. See comments above regarding how I feel about Gaudette.

[oldnews]

I wouldn't say it's a 'bad' idea to move Horvat down to 3C - but I don't see this as 'strengthening' the team, at all.

 

I think it misses the point of the way the team is presently built.

 

Sutter and Beagle enable Horvat's line to lean towards a secondary scoring line.  Look what happened in the playoffs when the team had to 1) move Miller to wing and 2) move Sutter to wing.  Horvat's scoring dried up.  Gaudette was in over his head.  The team wasn't as able to tilt the ice in EP's favour.

Gaudette is/was not ready to play center in the NHL playoffs.  How soon that changes isn't known - but I would lean towards Gaudette playing wing, at least in the interim - where he has viable NHL upside, even in the short term.

The brightest spot in that M.A.S.H. formation of the playoffs  - was what EP proved he's capable of at this point (quite early in his development) - without the puck - he was driven, effective, blocked shots, hounded pucks, played physically - has his (strength) limits but has the mettle.  But that's an aside.

The point of acquiring Miller - to maximize EP's conditions and prevent him from having to grind it out down low, through 82 regular season games, etc.  Miller gives the team excellent options/flexibility/depth when he's healthy.  His injury in the playoffs was borderline fatal to the team's chances imo.  Continuing to pair him with EP - and getting that line high ozone starts, combined with Miller's high end ability to win faceoffs - makes that line lethal.  EP won a SEL playoff MVP on the wing, there's no rush to get him back to center.

 

The bottom lines imo - 1) the team isn't quite ready to abandon the current makeup, and 2) the solution is not in thinning out the center group.  There is a lot of value/flexibility in having 6 (or more) natural centers in the lineup.  So - for me, I'd be keeping both Beagle and Sutter around - preventing Horvat from playing excessive hard minutes, and insuring that in the absence of a Beagle and/or Sutter, the team doesn't lose it's balance.  Without that balance things get more difficult for the top 6 - the team is less able to defend and keep scoring against in check, and the pressure on the top 6 to produce only increases, in more difficult conditions.

 

So the solution:

 

Is to make changes/create cap space - by moving wingers imo, not a center.  Personally my principal offseason target would be another hard minutes center.   These guys get injured - they play hard minutes, block shots, etc - add even more depth there, and the ability to maintain faceoff dominance in spite of injuries.  This not only keeps the team stronger down the middle, and further enables the top 6 - but it also plays to organizational strength/depth -where they continue to produce young talent on the wings.  

Roussel, Pearson, Ferland, obviously Eriksson, (and possibly even not re-signing Toffoli if these don't prove viable) - would imo make more sense than prematurely thinning out the group of veteran centers.  Keep Virtanen - I agree with lighting a fire under him as JB did, but I'd be moving veterans if at all possible.  If the proposal is to move a C like Sutter - then it becomes an absolute need, imo, to go out and get a suitable replacement - ie Brad Richardson (the type of player I might look to add regardless) - if the intent is to win in the short run, however, I'd be looking in the opposite direction - to add to this group, so they're not in a position like they were in the playoffs.  With a Richardson type added (and a few of the veteran wingers I've mentioned moved, the team adds the ability to run with bottom six lines with multiple natural centers = that much more difficult to play against.  Richardson - another C who can win 54% of his faceoffs - good shutdown forward, deceptive upside - would be an upgrade on Roussel imo, and would cost less cap space.

 

 

EP Miller Boeser

Pearson/Ferland Horvat Toffoli/Gaudette

Richardson Sutter Leivo/Virtanen

Motte Beagle MacEwen

 

move as many of Roussel/Pearson/Ferland/LE as possible.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 12, 2020 by oldnews

[MrCanuck94]

9 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

People say Horvat is not great defensively either. See comments above regarding how I feel about Gaudette.

It's also relative to skillset. The player needs to have the tools to reach that potential.

 

Not sure if anyone still calls Horvat weak defensively, however, he was a two way beast in junior and always had the tools to be a two way force in the NHL and is slowly getting there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken about Gaudette, he's hasn't had a defensive pedigree has he? Was he relied on for heavy d zone minutes and on the PK during college?

[kanucks25]

Don't need to reinvent the wheel here. The problem is we don't have a solid 3rd line center that can be counted on to put up 30-35 points, be solid defensively, and play most of the games.

 

Sutter can't be counted on to stay healthy and I'm not sure if Green is willing to throw Gaudette in that role full-time so he can learn on the job because Green wants to win now. It might be time to move on from both and bring in someone you can rely on to play that role and play it well.

 

I'm a fan of Gaudette's but I don't see him as a winger and I don't know if the team is in the position right now to go through the growing pains with him as a two-way center.

[Patel Bure]

I’m wondering if something like Virtanen + Gaudette to Nashville for Colton Sissons + ??? would be mutually beneficial for both teams?

[Bissurnette]

13 hours ago, MrCanuck94 said:

It's also relative to skillset. The player needs to have the tools to reach that potential.

 

Not sure if anyone still calls Horvat weak defensively, however, he was a two way beast in junior and always had the tools to be a two way force in the NHL and is slowly getting there.

 

Unless I'm mistaken about Gaudette, he's hasn't had a defensive pedigree has he? Was he relied on for heavy d zone minutes and on the PK during college?

I know he was brought up, drafted and developed as a 2way center in NCAA. I think his defensive game started to dip a little during his last year of college. I'll be honest I didn't follow his college career closely but everything I've heard about him during his NCAA career was pointing to a 2way center with 2nd line upside. He's moved away from the 2way game in recent years but I still see the appetite there, he just needs to work on it more and the coaching staff might need to dedicate some time with him to work on that side of the game. If Virtanen gets traded maybe they'll have more time to work with Gaudette.

[MrCanuck94]

4 hours ago, Vanuckles said:

I know he was brought up, drafted and developed as a 2way center in NCAA. I think his defensive game started to dip a little during his last year of college. I'll be honest I didn't follow his college career closely but everything I've heard about him during his NCAA career was pointing to a 2way center with 2nd line upside. He's moved away from the 2way game in recent years but I still see the appetite there, he just needs to work on it more and the coaching staff might need to dedicate some time with him to work on that side of the game. If Virtanen gets traded maybe they'll have more time to work with Gaudette.

That's fair. Personally I don't see it and I don't think he's getting less time to work with staff because of another player.

 

If he's still a Canuck I hope he proves me wrong.

[86Viking]

If we can move Sutter I would look at Eakins or Haula and see what they want for term and $. 

 

If Toffoli isn't resigned and Jake is gone or still a bottom 6 player for us would Green try Gaudette in the top 6 at RW?

[Gurn]

18 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

If we can move Sutter I would look at Eakins or Haula and see what they want for term and $. 

 

If Toffoli isn't resigned and Jake is gone or still a bottom 6 player for us would Green try Gaudette in the top 6 at RW?

Eakins is about 53 and is now coaching, that is if you meant Dallas Eakins.

Cody on the other hand is 29.

[86Viking]

15 minutes ago, gurn said:

Eakins is about 53 and is now coaching, that is if you meant Dallas Eakins.

Cody on the other hand is 29.

thanks grammar police

[Gurn]

19 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

thanks grammar police

What?