[Trade] Canucks trade Adam Gaudette to Blackhawks for Matthew Highmore

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Gaudette played 7 minutes against Nashville and registered his first assist as a Blackhawk. I know people talk about his sheltered minutes playing on a 4th line with lots of offensive zone starts, but he does produce when given the time whereas not many others do. Sure, he's a bit sloppy defensively, but there are lots of high-flying teams like the Blackhawks who will use him to his best. 

 

PPG so far let's see how he goes...

The Hawks have been great at fitting young players in roles that get the most out of them. The Canucks try to change players into something they arent to fit a role they arent suited for. Its been that way forever. And it has worked with some players over the years. But it has spectacularly failed with many others.

[Dazzle]

36 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Expecting a guy taken in the 5th round to become then next Kesler might be more an indication of the unrealistic expectations fans put on players rather than evidence the player is useless and a bust.

 

Gaudette, despite his flaws, is, in fact, an NHL player and was found money for the Canucks. We will see if the Blackhawks can take advantage of Vancouver selling low on him.

Gaudette was found money, but he was converted into something that could turn into a Motte. It's too early to write off Highmore.

[Dazzle]

3 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Hawks have been great at fitting young players in roles that get the most out of them. The Canucks try to change players into something they arent to fit a role they arent suited for. Its been that way forever. And it has worked with some players over the years. But it has spectacularly failed with many others.

If you look at a team like Chicago, you'll inevitably find players that don't work for their team as well. There are years when lots of their draft picks don't pan out. The "success with young players" argument is overstated because of a confirmation bias.

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Dazzle said:

Gaudette was found money, but he was converted into something that could turn into a Motte. It's too early to write off Highmore.

No one should be writing off Highmore at all. That's not the point I was trying to make. Highmore could turn into a Motte or he could turn into nothing. Gaudette could turn into a top 6 winger or into nothing.

 

The difference is Chicago sells high on players like Highmore. They put him in arole that suited his style. Then traded him. The Canucks kind of did the opposite with Gaudette.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

There is somewhere south of a 10% chance a player drafted around 150th will make it to 100 games in the nhl.

 

Kesler was selected in the 1st round. Gaudette in the 5th.

 

The fact he made it to over 100 games, let alone produced decent offense (in a more sheltered role for sure), is pretty much the equivalent of a statistical anomoly.

 

The Kesler comparisons always interested me because as a player he has never really played the same style as Kesler. It was always simply a hope and a prayer that would be who he ended up being.

 

People are desperate to slag Gaudette at every opportunity, seemingly to justify Benning trading him when his value was lowest for a guy who apparently had lost his 4th line energy job on the Hawks.

 

Canucks fans, especially a lot here on CDC, are among the stupidest among nhl fan bases when it comes to objectively evaluating young players and prospects and comparing them to which former Canuck they need to become in order to not be considered garbage. Its either all out unrealistic hype a player could never possibly live up to or out of this world "player x is a bust because he didn't become player y" mentality on here. Often in the same breath.

 

Gaudette was never going to become Kesler. That's not his game at all. Virtanen is not going to become Bertuzzi or Cam Neely. Same reasons. 

 

The Canucks themselves need to stop wanting players to become some former Canuck icon and start developing them based on their own strengths and weaknesses and getting the most out of them. Even if that means in a trade to improve other areas.

im sorry are you suggesting we build a line around gaudettes strengths and weaknesses? how do you do that exactly? trade for marchand and lowry? isn't it easier to just trade gaudette? which we did?   

 

gaudette was basically on pace for his 12 point 56 game 2nd season. BUT he played even worse defense, he better smarten up quick or he's going to be a taxi boy.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

If you look at a team like Chicago, you'll inevitably find players that don't work for their team as well. There are years when lots of their draft picks don't pan out. The "success with young players" argument is overstated because of a confirmation bias.

Every team has hits and misses of course. There are a lot of examples of Chicago trading guys after they have boosted their value though through putting them in the position to have success.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

9 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The Hawks have been great at fitting young players in roles that get the most out of them. The Canucks try to change players into something they arent to fit a role they arent suited for. Its been that way forever. And it has worked with some players over the years. But it has spectacularly failed with many others.

oh, you mean like players like highmore and Bowie? 

[wallstreetamigo]

Just now, Petey_BOI said:

im sorry are you suggesting we build a line around gaudettes strengths and weaknesses? how do you do that exactly? trade for marchand and lowry? isn't it easier to just trade gaudette? which we did?   

 

gaudette was basically on pace for his 12 point 56 game 2nd season. BUT he played even worse defense, he better smarten up quick or he's going to be a taxi boy.

Wasn't suggesting building a line around Gaudette. In fact, thats kind of what the Canucks tried to do in shoehorning him into a 3rd line center role. 

 

Also I am in no way upset they chose to trade him. He wasn't going to fit where they needed him to. Trading him while his value was higher would have been a better move though. With injuries putting him in a bit more of an offensive role might have increased his value.

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

oh, you mean like players like highmore and Bowie? 

They in fact pumped Highmore's value a lot. No way any GMwould have tradedGaudette for him at the start of the year. But according to the hawks fans i know, he had lost his job on the team. So they flipped him for a higher ceiling player.

 

Maybe they didn't see Bowey as being part of their defense and saw limited opportunity for him, which certainly seems plausible given his usage there. That happens too. 

[wallstreetamigo]

People are already setting Highmore up to be the next scapegoat if he doesn't immediately become Motte. Let's see what he actually is before we try so hard to defend this trade. Maybe he will be awesome. Maybe he will be crap. Who knows at this point.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Wasn't suggesting building a line around Gaudette. In fact, thats kind of what the Canucks tried to do in shoehorning him into a 3rd line center role. 

 

Also I am in no way upset they chose to trade him. He wasn't going to fit where they needed him to. Trading him while his value was higher would have been a better move though. With injuries putting him in a bit more of an offensive role might have increased his value.

so who else should we trade after they have a career year?

 

do we trade boeser? demko?

 

just trade all the players that have career years, and keep the ones that have bad years.

 

because bad players only get better and good players only get worse  right?

[Bad_BOI_pete]

all you media connoisseurs should play the stock market, TO THE MOON!!!!

 

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, Petey_BOI said:

so who else should we trade after they have a career year?

 

do we trade boeser? demko?

 

just trade all the players that have career years, and keep the ones that have bad years.

 

because bad players only get better and good players only get worse  right?

Sorry but this is some next level mental pretzeling.

 

Boeser is a core player. And there was a lot of talk Benning was, in fact, trying to trade low on him. Benning signed a starter after letting Markstrom walk. So did he really have 100% faith in Demko? 

 

A smart GM would have already had a pretty good idea after last year that Gaudette was not fitting where they needed him to fit. 

[wallstreetamigo]

8 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

all you media connoisseurs should play the stock market, TO THE MOON!!!!

 

Some people do very well in the stock market.

 

But you do know that stock market success actually comes down to objective analysis, realistic forecasting, understanding risk vs return, timing, and long term planning right.

 

The fact you think the stock market is all luck and best case scenario planning explains clearly why you love Benning.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

2 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Some people do very well in the stock market.

 

But you do know that stock market success actually comes down to objective analysis, realistic forecasting, understanding risk vs return, timing, and long term planning right.

 

The fact you think the stock market is all luck and best case scenario planning explains clearly why you love Benning.

hahhah, you fell into my trap. UNO REVERSE

 

what i was implying was that with stocks you usually go in for the long haul. but after 6 months of terrible returns and a warning that the ceo (gaudette) is putting his company in jeopardy by making poor decisions, you may consider trading in that stock.

[MeanSeanBean]

41 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Gaudette was found money, but he was converted into something that could turn into a Motte. It's too early to write off Highmore.

This is the only reason I'm holding off on judging the trade. Motte was someone Benning wanted badly, and went and got him. He liked his speed, tenacity, and played the game right. That is turning out to be a huge pro scout move for Bennings team and is paying off handsomely. I'm hoping Highmore is similar, since Benning has been keen on him for years.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

what we thought gaudette was

.

 

what he really was.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

7 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

hahhah, you fell into my trap. UNO REVERSE

 

what i was implying was that with stocks you usually go in for the long haul. but after 6 months of terrible returns and a warning that the ceo (gaudette) is putting his company in jeopardy by making poor decisions, you may consider trading in that stock.

Gaudette is really not much different this year than he was last year though. Its not like his play suddenly fell of a cliff. Same weaknesses, same ill fitted role expectations. The team itself as a whole was garbage for most of the season.

 

For your example to make sense, you would have to think the player has no upside left at all longer term. I have held onto a lot of stocks that had big issues in the short term that caused others to panic and sell low. In many cases I actually bought more when the panic sellers drove the price down only to have it rebound longer term and made even more money.

 

Of course, sometimes a stock is just long term too risky or fundamentally unsound to expect a rebound or future value appreciation. Those are the ones you take the loss and move on from. 

 

I don't feel that describes Gaudette at this point. Clearly Benning and his supporters do. Someone will be right and we will see but not right away.

[Bad_BOI_pete]

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Gaudette is really not much different this year than he was last year though. Its not like his play suddenly fell of a cliff. Same weaknesses, same ill fitted role expectations. The team itself as a whole was garbage for most of the season.

 

For your example to make sense, you would have to think the player has no upside left at all longer term. I have held onto a lot of stocks that had big issues in the short term that caused others to panic and sell low. In many cases I actually bought more when the panic sellers drove the price down only to have it rebound longer term and made even more money.

 

Of course, sometimes a stock is just long term too risky or fundamentally unsound to expect a rebound or future value appreciation. Those are the ones you take the loss and move on from. 

 

I don't feel that describes Gaudette at this point. Clearly Benning and his supporters do. Someone will be right and we will see but not right away.

my metaphor is not perfect i agree.

 

im thinking there is about  25 players that were pretty close to gaudette, who didnt shed a tear when he was traded.

[wallstreetamigo]

14 minutes ago, Petey_BOI said:

what we thought gaudette was

.

 

what he really was.

 

This actually highlights your issue.

 

No one realistically should have expected Gaudette to be the first one. And no one should see him now as the second one.