[Rumour] Predators interested in Adam Gaudette

[Devron]

7 minutes ago, Drop Em said:

Agree to disagree I guess. The last couple of years they had a goalie that won them a lot of games that they shouldn't have won. And this year without having that, their ineffectiveness has shown even more. Maybe sucks on paper was a bit harsh.....putrid might have been a better choice of words.

I’m still not sold on Marky bailing us on these games against TO and Montreal. I think there’s a bigger picture then just what’s on paper. Maybe he would have gotten us one more win then we’ve shown. There’s one thing to have an elite goalie and another to leave them to absolutely dry. We haven’t been playing as a group. You can Ice the best players in the league and it doesn’t matter unless you’re guys are playing as a group. And we’ve only seen that a couple times this year 

[Drop Em]

2 hours ago, shayster007 said:

Care to show your work on this one instead of making a statement with zero reasoning to back it up? I'm not arguing on ice, our team has been good, it has been in shambles defensively. That goes for the D core and our forwards. But on paper our D core by no means sucks.

 

 

Any any average NHL team

 

Hughes- top 1A defenseman

Schmidt-top pairing D

Edler- top 4

Myers- top 4

Juolevi- bottom pair

Benn- bottom pair/extra

Harmonic- bottom pair

 

We have each positional need filled in the D core. On paper it isn't a top 5 or even top 10 D core in the league by any means, but I'd like to hear your reasoning to why "they suck on paper".

Zero reasoning? Have you seen them play? Last time I checked, the game is played on the ice, and not on paper.

 

Like I said on another reply, maybe the word "suck" was a little harsh.....and putrid would be a better word for them.....and most definitely below average.

 

Hughes - he's YOUNG and he's an unbelievable talent offensively, but a complete fire sale in his own end. Pretty sure you need to play at both ends of the ice to be a defenseman, especially a 1A defenseman.....or at least that should be the case.

Schmidt - top pairing D-man? You need to put down the pipe. He's a middle pair defenseman at best.

Edler - is on a steady decline, and has been for a few years now. He's been a warrior, but the injuries and miles have started to add up. On a good defense, he's a bottom pair guy.

Myers - middle pair guy.

Juolevi, Chatfield - both youngish guys, who have some promise, but on a good team aren't even in the lineup. Juolevi has more upside, but he hasn't been able to stay healthy to realize any of his potential.

Benn - he's solid veteran presence, but just a 7th or 8th guy, and probably wouldn't make the roster on most teams, especially the good ones. Next year he'll be on a PTO trying to win a contract.

Hamonic - good team guy, who's a very solid bottom pairing guy, and could probably be a steadying influence on Hughes.

[khay]

3 hours ago, canucklehead44 said:

When Gaudette actually gets to play he hasn't done too poorly. He has not hit 12 minutes this year but when he has hit the 11 minute mark in the 3 games he has 2 goals and another game where he had 5 shots. You can't expect him to produce offence getting 6 or 7 minutes per night on the 4th line. 

My concern with Gaudette is he spends too much time on the defensive zone and once in there, he can't help much to break it. Increasing his minutes to 20 minutes will not result in us winning more games.

 

To make it as a 3rd line center, he needs to develop other areas of the game. For example, Motte was also an offensive player in college, but now he does everything you can ask of from a 3rd/4th line player, including penalty kill. Will Gaudette be able to kill penalties in the near future? Is he even trying to develop that aspect of his game? There was a path laid out in front of Gaudette to replace Sutter starting next season, as a defensively responsible center with 15-20 goal potential. But given Gaud's development trajectory, I don't think we can afford to lose Sutter. 

 

We have depth up front in the NHL and the farm. If we can use Gaudette to address an area of need, I'd do it.

 

[JM_]

41 minutes ago, oldnews said:

well - it was candida -  but imo it has had very little to do with size, physicality, battle -  those aren't concerns regarding Gaudette (I think he plays 'big' enough for his size) - for me it's about reading the play, getting to the right areas of the ice, having the instincts of a defensive center....24 is still young, but at the same time, players that play 3C or bottom 6 C roles - tend to have a 'foundation' to their game.  I think Gaudette is either an ozone start, secondary scoring type center (which doesn't really fit with this team at this stage or the near future imo) or he's a winger conversion - and as a winger conversion, he has a tough path in Vancouver.  I only trade him if there's a comparable talent and slightly different type of player - at a different position.  He's an easy player to like - and the truth is that for long streches for this franchise he would have been their top prospect / best young player - but he's somewhat surrounded by a wealth of young forward talent.

I think the focus of the forward group has to shift to succession plans at middle six LW and possibly 3C - Pearson expiring, Rousel is someone I'd look to move and replace with a young forward...  really, with Motte, Virtanen, MacEwen, Bailey, Hawryluk, they have young 'bottom 6' wingers.

I do think he's more likely on the winger path so you're right thats a harder road for him here. I just wouldn't be surprised to see him flourish next year once he gets some more size and energy with a better diet.

 

I can't see Benning trading him for another project player or to make a move to satisfy the peanut gallery. I could see him as part of a larger package deal maybe. We'll see. 

[Drop Em]

9 minutes ago, Devron44 said:

I’m still not sold on Marky bailing us on these games against TO and Montreal. I think there’s a bigger picture then just what’s on paper. Maybe he would have gotten us one more win then we’ve shown. There’s one thing to have an elite goalie and another to leave them to absolutely dry. We haven’t been playing as a group. You can Ice the best players in the league and it doesn’t matter unless you’re guys are playing as a group. And we’ve only seen that a couple times this year 

That's the thing, they've been even worse this year, and haven't had the luxury of the goalies bailing them out. I'm not saying Markstrom would have won them any of those games, because he wouldn't have, as there's only so much he could do. And yes it's a team effort, but aside from the odd man rushes, how many times have we seen the defense get walked around, or haven't tied up a stick when they should have, lost positioning and let a guy get behind them, or went for the puck instead of the body etc etc etc? That kind of stuff is the alarming thing, especially when it's happening repeatedly. Maybe it's a confidence issue, and it could be partially coaching too, but IMO even on paper they don't stack up to most of the teams in the league.

[MeanSeanBean]

1 hour ago, Drop Em said:

Zero reasoning? Have you seen them play? Last time I checked, the game is played on the ice, and not on paper.

 

Like I said on another reply, maybe the word "suck" was a little harsh.....and putrid would be a better word for them.....and most definitely below average.

 

Hughes - he's YOUNG and he's an unbelievable talent offensively, but a complete fire sale in his own end. Pretty sure you need to play at both ends of the ice to be a defenseman, especially a 1A defenseman.....or at least that should be the case.

Schmidt - top pairing D-man? You need to put down the pipe. He's a middle pair defenseman at best.

Edler - is on a steady decline, and has been for a few years now. He's been a warrior, but the injuries and miles have started to add up. On a good defense, he's a bottom pair guy.

Myers - middle pair guy.

Juolevi, Chatfield - both youngish guys, who have some promise, but on a good team aren't even in the lineup. Juolevi has more upside, but he hasn't been able to stay healthy to realize any of his potential.

Benn - he's solid veteran presence, but just a 7th or 8th guy, and probably wouldn't make the roster on most teams, especially the good ones. Next year he'll be on a PTO trying to win a contract.

Hamonic - good team guy, who's a very solid bottom pairing guy, and could probably be a steadying influence on Hughes.

Alright cool. So after reading that I can conclude you don't have a clue. You are the the one that stated an opinion based off on ice play and on paper. Then completely 100% dismissed the entire premise of why I replied to you in the first paragraph. 

 

Good talk.

[Drop Em]

8 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

Alright cool. So after reading that I can conclude you don't have a clue. You are the the one that stated an opinion based off on ice play and on paper. Then completely 100% dismissed the entire premise of why I replied to you in the first paragraph. 

 

Good talk.

If you don't have the mental capacity to understand what I wrote, then that's not on me homie. I listed out the players and what I thought of each. If you want to keep your head in the clouds, and keep thinking the defense isn't anything but bad - then so be it. Enjoy the unicorns, fairies and butterflies. 

[MeanSeanBean]

4 minutes ago, Drop Em said:

If you don't have the mental capacity to understand what I wrote, then that's not on me homie. I listed out the players and what I thought of each. If you want to keep your head in the clouds, and keep thinking the defense isn't anything but bad - then so be it. Enjoy the unicorns, fairies and butterflies. 

I asked you why on paper the team sucked like you stated. You proceeded by ignoring that entirely, and even stating yourself the game is on the ice not on paper. Our conversation had nothing to do with on the ice. I said myself that they have been bad. You were completely unable to have an adult conversation and then turned to name calling when pressured. Try harder bud. I tried to have a conversation with you and in 2 replys I didn't read more then the first sentence before I knew there was nothing of quality to be said, and stopped reading. Your posting has more flaws then our D core.

 

[Drop Em]

3 minutes ago, shayster007 said:

I asked you why on paper the team sucked like you stated. You proceeded by ignoring that entirely, and even stating yourself the game is on the ice not on paper. Our conversation had nothing to do with on the ice. I said myself that they have been bad. You were completely unable to have an adult conversation and then turned to name calling when pressured. Try harder bud. I tried to have a conversation with you and in 2 replys I didn't read more then the first sentence before I knew there was nothing of quality to be said, and stopped reading. Your posting has more flaws then our D core.

 

What? I listed out all the D-men and my thoughts about each on "paper", as a counter point to yours. For example - you had Schmidt on your list as a top pairing guy, and I completely disagree with that, and that was WRITTEN in my reply. If I was talking about their performance ON THE ICE so far this year, then they'd pretty much all be fringe NHL'ers.

As for calling you names, I didn't call you a single name, so I have no idea about what in the hell you're talking about there - but it seems like your comprehension skills are as flawed as the Canucks D is.....bud.

[Marv-the-wet-bandit]

4 hours ago, Quinn12 said:

If we trade the Hobey Baker award winning Adam the hockey ‘Gaud’ ette.... when he is one of the few showing flashes of greatness.... kids still young why would we give up on him?! For what reason, to make the playoffs? Growing pains are thing and learn to deal with it fans. 
 

Send him and Jake to Boston, yeah ok. Do we want Neely 2.0 situation? Come on JB don’t you dare move either!

Neely played his first season in Boston as a 21 year old, JV is 24. This isn’t Neely 2.0. Can Virtanen still find another gear? Absolutely. Will that gear be anywhere close to Neely? Beyond unlikely. Do we just give Gaudette and Virtanen up for scraps, no, but if we are getting a decent prospect/pick back for each then I am all for it though I’d really like to see Gaudette given more opportunity oppose to see him go. 

[MeanSeanBean]

20 minutes ago, Drop Em said:

What? I listed out all the D-men and my thoughts about each on "paper", as a counter point to yours. For example - you had Schmidt on your list as a top pairing guy, and I completely disagree with that, and that was WRITTEN in my reply. If I was talking about their performance ON THE ICE so far this year, then they'd pretty much all be fringe NHL'ers.

As for calling you names, I didn't call you a single name, so I have no idea about what in the hell you're talking about there - but it seems like your comprehension skills are as flawed as the Canucks D is.....bud.

Questioning one ''mental capacity" to start a post doesn't count with you, eh? Alright let's ignore that and go with what you just gave me and start with Schmidt.

 

Nate averaged about 22 minutes a night and over 30 points a year, playing on one of the top teams in the NHL, over the last 3 seasons. This isn't a bottom or middle team in desperation for players, it's a quality team with players competing for ice time. Those are the cold hard facts.

 

Based off a 19-20 NHL defenseman stats, that would land him in the top 50 for average ice time, and top 40 for points. Let's dumb it down and say with 31 teams in the NHL, that means there would be 62 top pairing D. Obviously it's more complicated then that, but it's a stong starting point. He is well within the range to be considered on paper a top pairing D by statistical standards.

 

So far, your argument against him being a top pairing D man was "put down the pipe, he's middle at best". Care to back it up with any actually stats so we can have a hockey debate or have you shown your hand already?

[Oregon.Duck]

On 2/10/2021 at 9:27 AM, Nicklas Bo Hunter said:

Vancouver should try to get Eeli Tolvanen From NSH... he has not worked out there. 

Or that Filip Forsberg fella. He hasn’t worked out a ton in my opinion. 
 

AG for FF

heck sweeten it

 

AG + JV for FF

 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Oregon.Duck

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, Oregon.Duck said:

Or that Filip Forsberg fella. He hasn’t worked out a ton in my opinion. 
 

AG for FF

heck sweeten it

 

AG + JV for FF

 

 

 

The predators counter with...

[Oregon.Duck]

19 minutes ago, coryberg said:

The predators counter with...

Omg 

[Patel Bure]

Gaudette + Virtanen + 2nd for Cousins and Sissons

[coryberg]

21 minutes ago, DarkIndianRises said:

Gaudette + Virtanen + 2nd for Cousins and Sissons

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Oregon.Duck said:

Or that Filip Forsberg fella. He hasn’t worked out a ton in my opinion. 
 

AG for FF

heck sweeten it

 

AG + JV for FF

 

 

 

hes a 6 million cap hit and expires next season - and Nashville would want a principal.

[FlyLow_]

20 hours ago, N4ZZY said:

I'd take Fabbro. LOL 

 

So would I but I can't see them letting him go.

[Drop Em]

6 hours ago, shayster007 said:

Questioning one ''mental capacity" to start a post doesn't count with you, eh? Alright let's ignore that and go with what you just gave me and start with Schmidt.

 

Nate averaged about 22 minutes a night and over 30 points a year, playing on one of the top teams in the NHL, over the last 3 seasons. This isn't a bottom or middle team in desperation for players, it's a quality team with players competing for ice time. Those are the cold hard facts.

 

Based off a 19-20 NHL defenseman stats, that would land him in the top 50 for average ice time, and top 40 for points. Let's dumb it down and say with 31 teams in the NHL, that means there would be 62 top pairing D. Obviously it's more complicated then that, but it's a stong starting point. He is well within the range to be considered on paper a top pairing D by statistical standards.

 

So far, your argument against him being a top pairing D man was "put down the pipe, he's middle at best". Care to back it up with any actually stats so we can have a hockey debate or have you shown your hand already?

No, to me questioning ones mental capacity does not count the same as calling someone names. And even if it did, you did the EXACT same thing when you started your reply with your "you can conclude that I don't have a clue" comment. Pretty hypocritical of you eh. So pot meet kettle.......

 

You can use Schmidt's ice time and point totals as a strong starting point all you want, to suit your narrative and that's fine, although almost everyone knows that there's more that goes into it than just that. But if you're just basing it off of just that, then how is Quinn Hughes a 1A defenseman? By 1A you're saying the cream of the crop. So to make it simple for you - "on paper" even IF every team had a 1A guy on their roster (which they all most certainly DON'T), then although Hughes was a point producer, he wasn't even in the top 75 in TOI for defensemen last year. So how can Hughes be a 1A like you say, when he's getting second pairing minutes? So you asked for a stat, so there's one for you.

 

If you can have a hockey debate, by having some self awareness and not being a hypocrite, then I'm more than willing to do that. But I'm not going to get into a bunch more long diatribes as to why the Canucks D is bad (on paper and on the ice), when it's CLEAR to everyone that they're not good enough no matter where you're talking about them playing.

[MeanSeanBean]

1 minute ago, Drop Em said:

No, to me questioning ones mental capacity does not count the same as calling someone names. And even if it did, you did the EXACT same thing when you started your reply with your "you can conclude that I don't have a clue" comment. Pretty hypocritical of you eh. So pot meet kettle.......

 

You can use Schmidt's ice time and point totals as a strong starting point all you want, to suit your narrative and that's fine, although almost everyone knows that there's more that goes into it than just that. But if you're just basing it off of just that, then how is Quinn Hughes a 1A defenseman? By 1A you're saying the cream of the crop. So to make it simple for you - "on paper" even IF every team had a 1A guy on their roster (which they all most certainly DON'T), then although Hughes was a point producer, he wasn't even in the top 75 in TOI for defensemen last year. So how can Hughes be a 1A like you say, when he's getting second pairing minutes? So you asked for a stat, so there's one for you.

 

If you can have a hockey debate, by having some self awareness and not being a hypocrite, then I'm more than willing to do that. But I'm not going to get into a bunch more long diatribes as to why the Canucks D is bad (on paper and on the ice), when it's CLEAR to everyone that they're not good enough no matter where you're talking about them playing.

We are talking about the team on paper. My argument was that underling stats show Schmidt is a top pairing D. You still haven't said anything to back your statement of him being a middle pair. Not a single thing.