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

[Gurn]

1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said:

This team does not own "the history"...they own their (short) history here.  

This, so much this.

[Gurn]

41 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

this post reminds me of the pages of praises to Leivo -

without the injuery to end last year, possibly on the Canucks.

[Drakrami]

7 minutes ago, oldnews said:

what a bad take.

First, Leivo was excellent here - deserved the praise.  Scored 37 pts in 85 games here - great pick up and great value.  Where is he now?  Uh, he was a free agent.  Since you evidently like to make small sample assumptions/conclusions, Gaudette had 7 pts in 33 games here this yeare - 0 pts in 10 playoff games - without the 'grinder' aspect - so, what does that make him?

"lol"

lol stop contradicting yourself in the post, or you cant even notice it. How is he great here, deserve praise, some great player who can make use win games and then we turn out to not even resign him for a asking price of 880K. 

[oldnews]

5 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

lol stop contradicting yourself in the post, or you cant even notice it. How is he great here, deserve praise, some great player who can make use win games and then we turn out to not even resign him for a asking price of 880K. 

weak argument - not even an argument actually - er, he signed elsewhere therefore he deserved no praise.

can you spot the logical fallacy?

 

[wallstreetamigo]

7 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

 

 

I'm starting here and haven't read the rest.

 

On the one hand, you talk of a player who "helped Hughes a lot" and, in the next breath, "young players fragile hands".  So it seems you understand and accept this need for veteran presence.  Or don't you?  Just when it relates to a player you've approved?

 

I'm quite sure Benning understands what's coming in the future and will need to be signed.  Because he's done something in the past does not guarantee he'll do it in the future.

 

Lastly....you've been obsessed with this team for over 40 years but that statement, alone, means you (like others) pin a long history to the current team and that's unfair.  This team does not own "the history"...they own their (short) history here.  

 

People have screamed over manaagement for a long time but that doesn't mean they were right.  

 

I don't know that you hold the key to winning the cup and your comment that you want to see the team do the right things (in order to do so) would suggest this.  It's just not that easy to win a cup....especially Canadian teams that seem to be up against the odds more.  

 

It's ok to be dissatisfied but if you throw in comments about decades of being in that state it's more your issue than theirs.  Your impatience is being placed on this team and that's unfair.  

I dont put responsibility for the entire 40 plus years I have been a fan on Benning or the current team. I do put the almost 20% of that time Benning has been in charge on him though.

 

Past performance, especially when it comes to the decision making process itself and the core beliefs shown by management, is a strong predictor of the future. Its not absolutely true that Benning will make the same mistakes, but it is not absolutely impossible to believe he will either. He fundamentally believes, even now, that his previous approach was the right one, even with strong evidence against that. If he didn't, he would not have signed Pearson mid season as an example.

 

With so much cap coming off the books from previous decisions by Benning, its not unreasonable to want a new GM to decide what to do with it rather than the guy who wasted it all in the first place. 

 

Veteran players are important to a team. But with the way the game has evolved its just as important that those veterans can still contribute on the ice too. Impact players are impact players not because of their age but because of their skill and their ability to fit a necessary role on the team. If they are injured all the time or in the press box or eating up extra cap dollars that could be used to improve the team, then the value of their intangibles is significantly lessened. 

 

I understand my opinions are not popular on here. I really dont care tbh. The fact that it triggers people enough to insult my mental health, or my intelligence, or my ability to think critically is more a reflection of those people than it is me or my opinions.

 

 

[AV.]

13 hours ago, Dazzle said:

Do you ever have any fresh takes? Could you recommend any good replacements?

I noticed that you've consistently been making excuses for Green. Or am I mistaken? I don't think he'll survive the GM change, but I'm just guessing.

I mean, Jeff Gorton would be a welcome addition.

 

As for Green, who cares about him?  Let his contract expire, re-sign him, it doesn't matter.  The issues on this team are much bigger than him and this has been the case since the start of the season.

[wallstreetamigo]

2 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

I mean, Jeff Gorton would be a welcome addition.

 

As for Green, who cares about him?  Let his contract expire, re-sign him, it doesn't matter.  The issues on this team are much bigger than him and this has been the case since the start of the season.

Pretty much. I would prefer to see a coachibg change but we need a new management team far more imho.

 

Definitely need to get better assistant coaches though.

[joe-max]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont put responsibility for the entire 40 plus years I have been a fan on Benning or the current team. I do put the almost 20% of that time Benning has been in charge on him though.

 

Past performance, especially when it comes to the decision making process itself and the core beliefs shown by management, is a strong predictor of the future. Its not absolutely true that Benning will make the same mistakes, but it is not absolutely impossible to believe he will either. He fundamentally believes, even now, that his previous approach was the right one, even with strong evidence against that. If he didn't, he would not have signed Pearson mid season as an example.

 

With so much cap coming off the books from previous decisions by Benning, its not unreasonable to want a new GM to decide what to do with it rather than the guy who wasted it all in the first place. 

 

Veteran players are important to a team. But with the way the game has evolved its just as important that those veterans can still contribute on the ice too. Impact players are impact players not because of their age but because of their skill and their ability to fit a necessary role on the team. If they are injured all the time or in the press box or eating up extra cap dollars that could be used to improve the team, then the value of their intangibles is significantly lessened. 

 

I understand my opinions are not popular on here. I really dont care tbh. The fact that it triggers people enough to insult my mental health, or my intelligence, or my ability to think critically is more a reflection of those people than it is me or my opinions.

 

I agree with most of what you said here. JB has made some questionable moves, some of which turned out as mistakes, and who knows whether he will be able to assemble the right supporting cast for the team going forward. It may even be that change could be the better option.

 

But...

a) firing management is not automatically in improvement, it can backfire as easily as some of Benning signings and there are many examples of that. A new guy may have other strengths, but also other weaknesses. One gets the impression that some people on this board call for JB's or Green's head just out of frustration and for the sake of change. That's not a promising strategy and hopefully the real decision makers leave emotions out of the decision-making process.

 

b) I disagree that he has no vision, actually he has always been quite candid in voicing his approach.

• I'll try to give the Sedins another shot, so I'll sign an impact player (LE) to give us a great top line and a good goalie (RM).
• Our prospect pool is a black hole, but I don't want all prospects on the same development timeline, so I need some young players a bit further along hteir development a the cost of draft picks (SB, LV).
• I'll get rid of all the useless prospects that will never amount to anything and try to get young roster players out of them (Jensen, Fox, Shinkaruk). Okay, he never said that.
• I'll try to get solid players with leadership skills that can create an environment in which my drafted young talent can thrive (Dorsett, Sutter, Prust, Gudbranson).
• I need defensively responsible bottom six players, because my own prospects intended for this role (Jasek, Lockwood, Lind) are not ready yet.

Obviously not all of these worked out, but I still believe he has always had the long term in mind. The next step, with the new core in place, is to surround these players with skills and talent to push for the playoffs. I believe he can do it. Other may not.

 

c) A full teardown entails so many risks and usually sets the rebuild back a year or two, I'd rather go for the right tweaks. Some front office and coaching positions could be improved, tactical tweaks may be required, I'm not sold on the development of our defensemen, JB may need someone to help him in negotiations to save some dollars or draft picks, things like that. Still I would keep him.

Edited May 7, 2021 by joe-max

[wallstreetamigo]

1 minute ago, joe-max said:

I agree with most of what you said here. JB has made some questionable moves, some of which turned out as mistakes, and who knows whether he will be able to assemble the right supporting cast for the team going forward. It may even be that change could be the better option.

 

But...

a) firing management is not automatically in improvement, it can backfire as easily as some of Benning signings and there are many examples of that. A new guy may have other strengths, but also other weaknesses. One gets the impression that some people on this board call for JB's or Green's head just out of frustration and for the sake of change. That's not a promising strategy and hopefully the real decision makers leave emotions out of the decision-making process.

 

b) I disagree that he has no vision, actually he has always been quite candid in voicing his approach.

• I'll try to give the Sedins another shot, so I'll sign an impact player (LE) to give us a great top line and a good goalie (RM).
• Our prospect pool is a black hole, but I don't want all prospects on the same development timeline, so I need some young players a bit further along hteir development a the cost of draft picks (SB, LV).
• I'll get rid of all the useless prospects that will never amount to anything and try to get young roster players out of them (Jensen, Fox, Shinkaruk). Okay, he never said that.
• I'll try to get solid players with leadership skills that can create an environment in which my drafted young talent can thrive (Dorsett, Sutter, Prust, Gudbranson).
• I need defensively responsible bottom six players, because my own prospects intended for this role (Jasek, Lockwood, Lind) are not ready yet.

Obviously not all of these worked out, but I still believe he has always had the long term in mind. The next step, with the new core in place, is to surround these players with skills and talent to push for the playoffs. I believe he can do it. Other may not.

 

c) A full teardwon entails so many risks and usually sets the rebuild back a year or two, I'd rather go for the right tweaks. Some front office and coaching positions could be improved, tactical tweaks may be required, I'm not sold on the development of our defensemen, JB may need someone to help him in negotiations to save some dollars or draft picks, things like that. Still I would keep him.

I accept your points.

 

But I struggle seeing how my posts on this subject give the impression of firing him for the sake of it or where I say there is no risk it could end up worse. There is that risk with both keeping him or firing him really.

 

Here is an example. They decide to fire Benning. Woohoo here we go! Then they hire Weisbrod or Mike Milbury to replace him. My thought tgen woukd be, "Why the &^@# did you fire Benning to replace him with that?"

 

Context matters always.

 

Calculated risks are different from possible risks. Thats always been my point. Changing management or keeping them needs to be a calculated risk always, not a reactionary one.

 

I try to give reasoning in my posts. I know many dont accept that and think I just hate Benning. 

[Drakrami]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

weak argument - not even an argument actually - er, he signed elsewhere therefore he deserved no praise.

can you spot the logical fallacy?

 

lol here you are saying that Leivo is some hidden gem and played amazing for us. And then you can't explain and pretend to ignore the fact why we didn't resign him for 880K or the lack of backlash from anyone on this board. You are obviously lost in your own world. I am not going to try to make a pig fly here. What I post are my opinion on Highmore, easily verifiable in 1-2 years, feel free not to comment on my opinion because I am not gonna engage in a discussion with someone so stubborn. 

 

 

[oldnews]

4 minutes ago, Drakrami said:

lol here you are saying that Leivo is some hidden gem and played amazing for us.

 

 

yeah - when a guy scores 37 pts in 85 games for us - for a 792.5k cap hit - that's not great value at all.

 

you're absolutely right - we should have expected more.

 

paraphrase that in any wishy washy way you want.

[Attila Umbrus]

3 hours ago, Drakrami said:

lol.... This post reminds me of the pages of praises to Leivo - where is he now? One good game, with an assist, and Canucks fans can't resist to write endless praises of a player as if we have hit the jackpot. Gaudette's trajectory, we can somewhat predict, we have seen him play and perform for 3 seasons. Highmore, even before being traded here was a 0 offense grinder. Now, how is another Sutter/Beagle with less offense good for the Canucks again? We need more Sutters and Beagles?

 

Bottom 6 of Highmore/Motte/Macewen makes us a contender... Dude, learn more about the NHL. That bottom 6 is more like a team that can't find the right pieces and have to scrap together whatever they have available. Except for Motte, love him. 

You know what the previous Cup winner is hosting as their 4th line? Maroon, Colton and Joseph. Now compare it to what you wrote. Dont even need to mention their 3rd line, because it is way too overkill. 

Sorry to offend you lol.

 

It's my take, deal with it. I don't care what your thoughts are if you come at me like that.

 

Learn more about the NHL lol. Hilarious. I've travelled all over BC and Alberta watching hockey. Go pound sand. Where do you watch your hockey? Online? 

 

Laughable.

[DownUndaCanuck]

Gaudette played 18 minutes the other night against Carolina but was unfortunately a -2 yet again, he really does have defensive weaknesses and as much as I loved him, you can't have anyone that bad defensively on your team going forward. Highmore isn't a great player, really a fringe NHLer but at least he's safe defensively and often on the right side of the puck, and does have a very good stick. I'd much rather that right now than a 20-30 point scoring forward who may contribute 30 goals to the team in some way, but is going to cost us those 30 goals plus another 10-14 against. 

 

That being said, guys like Highmore and Hawryluk probably don't start on most playoff teams right now, they're AHLers on those teams but are getting lucky with us. Motte on the other hand is a fantastic 4th liner, arguably one of the best in the league, especially when he's on his game.

[wallstreetamigo]

6 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

Gaudette played 18 minutes the other night against Carolina but was unfortunately a -2 yet again, he really does have defensive weaknesses and as much as I loved him, you can't have anyone that bad defensively on your team going forward. Highmore isn't a great player, really a fringe NHLer but at least he's safe defensively and often on the right side of the puck, and does have a very good stick. I'd much rather that right now than a 20-30 point scoring forward who may contribute 30 goals to the team in some way, but is going to cost us those 30 goals plus another 10-14 against. 

 

That being said, guys like Highmore and Hawryluk probably don't start on most playoff teams right now, they're AHLers on those teams but are getting lucky with us. Motte on the other hand is a fantastic 4th liner, arguably one of the best in the league, especially when he's on his game.

Context matters.

 

Gaudette has had one game in Chi where he was a minus player. Highmore has had two in Van. He was -2 against Toronto one game. Does that mean he is garbage defensively?

 

Plus minus is easily the worst stat in hockey. Using it from a one game sample size to extrapolate the defensive awareness or value of a player is an incredibly unrealistic reach.

 

Gaudette is not great defensively. But he is not as bad as people suggest either. He has played reasonably well defensively in his Chicago games other than a bit shaky in the first one. Carolina beat Chicago 6-3 in that game I believe. Hard to point ro one guy to pin the loss on. Especially since the Hawks are not a great team and Carolina are.

[oldnews]

22 minutes ago, DownUndaCanuck said:

 

That being said, guys like Highmore and Hawryluk probably don't start on most playoff teams right now, they're AHLers on those teams but are getting lucky with us. Motte on the other hand is a fantastic 4th liner, arguably one of the best in the league, especially when he's on his game.

Highmore started for the playoff Blackhawks - had 3 goals and 4 pts in 9 games (compared to Gaudette's 0 in 10....)

But what do playoffs matter?

 

Also scored 24 goals as a rookie for the Hawks AHL franchise - earning himself a shot in the NHL.  Something that CDC darlings like Shinkaruk can't say / never accomplished and certainly not while being a solid two way player in the process.  In 8 seasons the Utica Comets have had 2 players accomplish that - and if Reid Boucher had anywhere near Highmore's game without the puck, he'd have cut it in the NHL.

 

And now here Highmore is - playing extremely tilted defensive minutes on a Covid/M.A.S.H. team (team low 25.4% ozone starts - playing on shutdown units with no NHL centers (both Sutter and Beagle out of the lineup) - and people are whining about tiny sample production, ironically.  Btw - Burrows was Highmore's age when he broke into the NHL - in other words, writing off these type of players at this point - is premature - some of them still develop into solid bottom six NHL players that you win with, some of them even climb to middle six two way players you win with. 

 

I'm looking forward to what he can do next year - when this team (hopefully) is healthy and we can see what a player like him looks like playing in a deeper, more experienced 'bottom six' / won't be writing him off based on some pissy attachment to a traded player that didn't really do particularly much to help this team win, especially when it mattered.  Does that mean Gaudette will never amount to anything?  No - of course it doesn't - but the same truth applies to Highmore - this imo was a good, fair hockey trade.

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2021 by oldnews

[wallstreetamigo]

Its interesting that apparently people should not give up on a 25 year old player as they can still develop and become something great but at the same time they should write off a 24 year old player as irredeemable.

 

The reality is both players can still develop. Or turn out to not develop further.

 

On its face, trading players with offensive potential and proven ability to score at the NHL level for hustling grinder types rarely turns out well.

 

I personally hope Gaudette lights it up in Chi and Highmore lights it up in Van. Long term one type is harder to replace though. The ultimate win or loss result of this trade wont be clear for awhile yet.

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

 Its interesting that apparently people should not give up on a 25 year old player as they can still develop and become something great but at the same time they should write off a 24 year old player as irredeemable.

derp

 

terrible reading comprehension and/or weak strawman

regardless = the usual waste of time.

 

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

Does that mean Gaudette will never amount to anything?  No - of course it doesn't - but the same truth applies to Highmore - this imo was a good, fair hockey trade.

 

[wallstreetamigo]

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

derp

 

terrible reading comprehension and/or weak strawman

regardless = the usual waste of time.

 

 

That was directed at the masses in this thread not you specifically. In truth, I find your insulting, dismissive, arrogant nature to not be worth reading or responding to for the most part.

 

The prevailing opinion by many seems to be trading Gaudette was a great move because he is garbage because Benning said so.

 

The trade may turn out great or terrible. We wont know that for awhile. But on its face its very risky and not a good deal.

 

 

 

 

[iinatcc]

18 hours ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Okay, gotta bring it up since it hasn't yet...Highmore got an apple last night and honestly looked great all game. Best game so far from him. I honestly think we have a really good player here. I have been watching him close since trading for him, and I still stand by what I said earlier. The guy is almost always on the right side of the puck. 10 games in, even plus/minus, and 1 assist. With room to get better.

 

I get Gaudette has more points. But we had tried him higher up in the line up with no luck, he just didn't gel well this our top 6. We needed to shore up our bottom 6 and he showed no interest in doing so. 

 

I'd rather have Highmore on the line up. The guy skates like the wind, is chippy, hits hard, wins puck battles, and is always crashing and banging and agitating. LOVE IT.

 

Highmore, Motte, and big Mac great bottom 6 forward that you can build a winning team with.

 

And lets be honest. If we lose Sutter, Rousell, Beagle all next year. We need guys for our bottom 6!!

Ok this thread has officially jumped the shark 

[Attila Umbrus]

4 hours ago, iinatcc said:

Ok this thread has officially jumped the shark 

....I don’t even know what that means lol

 

Listen I get that no one is a fan of losing Gaudette for this guy. But I honestly do like his overall game better than Gauds. 
 

Too many times I’ve watched gauds just float around out of position. Then score a goal here and there and Celly! Hard. That’s about it. Him and Jake both frustrate me to no end. Good shot and can score goals here and there, but there is the rest of the game to play away from the net, and they both concern me with their lack of awareness in that department.
 

This is my opinion of course but it’s just my overall feeling when watching and evaluating players. I get that people disagree, I’m ok with that. But don’t call me bonkers just because I think the way I do. I see what I see and am willing to discuss it, others will see what they see and I’m willing to listen and learn if possible if the point is solid. I don’t want to say “I’ve been watching hockey for 30 years” as that’s not much of an argument. But what I do know is I’ve watched a ton of junior, ECHL, AHL, and nhl games all live and in person. I love hockey, I travel for work and am on the road. I catch games live where I can...I guess not since COVID tho lol. Anyways this is where I form my opinions from. Not just out of thin air.

 

Honestly I think we should have had both Jake and gauds brought up thru the AHL. We fast tracked both of them and I do think we hurt their growth. 
 

I hope gauds gets a chance to gel and become a better player in Chicago. But he ain’t ours anymore so I’m focusing on Highmore to see what he brings to the table. I guess I’m an ‘intangibles’ guy, and there is a lot to like in that department with Highmore. 

Edited May 8, 2021 by Attila Umbrus