Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

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


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

A team trading a two way vet for a pure offensive prospect is different than a team trading a 24 year old full time nhl player for a 25 year old part time nhl energy player.

 

I thought i explained that pretty well but if you dont see it, then further explaining wont help.

No, this is a recent example that a "risky" trade involving offensive players is a bad trade, according to you.

 

If Goldobin had worked out, I'm sure your argument would have more merit. The problem was that it didn't...

 

So now you're changing the dimensions of your argument to fit your point, which is reflective of your stubbornness. Your position is problematic.

  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iinatcc said:

But isn't that in part why bottom 6 players were signed ? To bring out that work ethic on these young guys? 

Unfortunately, the plan crashed and burned. Players can only be motivated by themselves. 

  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

This is only temporary until Podkolzin arrives and Lind becomes more of a regular.  Boeser, Podkolzin and Lind should be our 3 RW's in the top 9 with MacEwen and Lockwood competing for the 4th RW spot.  Same on the left side.  I can see Gadjovich taking a spot next year and Benning has re-signed Pearson, so with Hoglander and Motte that also takes up the 4 spots along with Highmore competing for a 4th line spot.  

 

At centre unless we make a trade I can definitely see us going with Petey, BO and Miller up the middle with Graovac or a UFA taking the 4th spot.

 

Our lineup will be alot younger next year.  It's time to play the kids and see what they got.

If Travis Green remains as head coach, I'm skeptical that'll happen.  *Only* reason any rookies/sophmores are playing now is because of injuries/covid (Green had no choice but to use whatever healthy body he had) imho.

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

This is only temporary until Podkolzin arrives and Lind becomes more of a regular.  Boeser, Podkolzin and Lind should be our 3 RW's in the top 9 with MacEwen and Lockwood competing for the 4th RW spot.  Same on the left side.  I can see Gadjovich taking a spot next year and Benning has re-signed Pearson, so with Hoglander and Motte that also takes up the 4 spots along with Highmore competing for a 4th line spot.  

 

At centre unless we make a trade I can definitely see us going with Petey, BO and Miller up the middle with Graovac or a UFA taking the 4th spot.

 

Our lineup will be alot younger next year.  It's time to play the kids and see what they got.

Fair enough. But that also relies on a bunch of young players making the jump. That is not a sure thing though. They look good in lower levels but can they step up and translate that to the nhl right off the hop? Will the coaching staff use them in those more important roles? Still hard to say.

 

I think its probably more likely both Sutter and Edler are re-signed and the top 6 is unchanged tbh. Probably at contracts that will not look very good. Next year could very well be status quo from this year with the addition of 1 or 2 young guys until we are eliminated from playoff contention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

No, this is a recent example that a "risky" trade involving offensive players is a bad trade, according to you.

 

If Goldobin had worked out, I'm sure your argument would have more merit. The problem was that it didn't...

 

So now you're changing the dimensions of your argument to fit your point, which is reflective of your stubbornness. Your position is problematic.

Its not changing anything. There is a difference that you are igniring. Goldobin had not proven at the nhl level that he was an offensive player. He was simply a prospect. Gaudette, despite the hate he gets, scored 33 points in 59 games at the nhl level and did prove he could score at that level. Goldobin didnt prove he could do that at the time of the trade. Apples and oranges bud.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Unfortunately, the plan crashed and burned. Players can only be motivated by themselves. 

Almost like its kind of a myth that older veterans need to be signed to show young players how to work hard, be competitive, and win hockey games.

 

What gets missed in that equation, as we have seen a ton of examples of on the Canucks over the years, is that in the vast majority of cases all those veterans actually are is a coach's roadblock to playing young guys and giving them important roles.

 

Good teams typically handle their vet to young player dynamics much differently than the Canucks do. I suspect that is because Benning and Green actually think those vets are foundational players that they cant win without being in prominent roles.

 

7 years called, the foundational guys havent helped the team win much at all.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

you wasted more time going on at length why you can't quote someone, ironically - than it would have taken to quote someone.

predictable - you're talking about strawpeople / imaginary categoricals - from the past...

 

waste of time.

 

Virtanen can actually - has actually played a lot of bottom six minutes - without needing to be sheltered.

The fundamental difference in how much easier it is to find a fit for Virtanen.

37.3% ozone starts this season - less than 50% for his career.

175 takeaways in 317 career games.

1.2 on ice goals against per 60 5on5 for Virtanen (1.2 for)  - in much harder minutes than Gaudette (1.2 for, 3.0 against)....both outcomes relatively consistent with their larger sample.

People can criticize Virtanen - fairly - all they want - but he's more versatile - not a one dimensional top 6 or bust type player - that needs sheltering/vacant without the puck.  If you're looking for irony / double-standards - there are countless people that consider Jake "vacant" - and who had Gaudette pencilled in as a 3C years ago....a plain vacant take that was hopelessly premature.   Jake's path to a top 6 RW spot - like Gaudette's, was closing in - with Boeser, Hoglander (Podkolzin, Lind) in the mix - but unlike Gaudette, Virtanen isn't a liability in harder minutes in the bottom six.

That's the simple difference between the two players - ie far easier to find a fit for Virtanen moving forward - and as you point out - people had him slated all over the lineup.  Gaudette does not have that ability - plain and simple.

So you're saying the time it took to write that one sentence was greater than whatever it would've taken me to fish for 2016 posts? Actually, don't answer that. 

 

The problem with these stats rants you write is that they look good on paper but don't always age well. This brings me back to when you spent months defending Gudbranson with similar posts while he was literally tripping over his own skates during games. Fast forward 5 years and he's worth next to nothing. 

 

Sure, I'll give you that Jake is more versatile, but you omitted the fact that he was pretty useless defensively during the first few years with the org. One of his biggest criticisms back then was the fact that he coasted most of the time and that he didn't bother tracking back, so much so that for a certain period of time Jake looked like a top-6 or bust player given how little Jake showed in defensive awareness and work rate, not to mention that he'd rarely use his size to his advantage. Main difference between Virtanen and Gaudette? We gave Jake more time to figure it out.

 

As others have accurately stated before, it's much easier to convert a C to a winger than vice-versa. There was certainly room to convert Gaudette into a winger, especially given how NHL teams nowadays roll with 3 scoring lines. The Canucks' inability to do so - which has been exacerbated by the Blackhawks pretty much immediately identifying and taking advantage of this opportunity - could totally be seen as a shortcoming by the team. Regardless, getting rid of a player who scored 33 points in 59 games in only his second season in the league is a tad premature no matter how you want to spin it.

 

Nonetheless, it's too early to assume a winner in this trade. Plain and simple. 

  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oldnews said:

do you have a source for this "Gaudette asked to be traded" claim/story?

AFAIK he is the only poster that has even suggested this.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, guntrix said:

Sure, I'll give you that Jake is more versatile, but you omitted the fact that he was pretty useless defensively during the first few years with the org. One of his biggest criticisms back then was the fact that he coasted most of the time

I omitted something that's patently false, yes.

What you evidence here is how vacant the narratives in this market tend to be - how loud and repeated nonsense takes roots in the minds of people like yourself - that can't look at or deal with objective outcomes.

 

But I guess that's too far back for you to verify / fact check - would take too much of time you'd rather assign to these wasted time fictions.

 

2017/18

Virtanen's first full season in the NHL.

51 takeaways lead the team = by 20. +19 turnover differential also lead the team.   Remarkable to do that while "coasting".

156 hits lead all forwards.

44.8 % ozone starts

2.7 on ice goals against was better than 10 forwards

Of course, Green didn't shelter him because...he was vacant defensively - "coasting"... nothing to do with Green having coached him in Utica the year before - knew where Virtanen's game was.

Cool story though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rekker said:

Will be interesting to see how this little break effects Jake. If, and it's a big if, he ever wears the Canucks jersey again. Maybe this ordeal will help him grow. I'm willing to give him one more chance. I know, he's been given ample opportunity but if he isn't claimed by Seattle I would give him another shot. Pending his investigation of course. 

I have no idea.

I've always considered him (and McCann, whose also been raised in this thread) to be 'young-minded' people / likely to take longer to 'get it.'  Both of them are/were capable of playing without the puck at the NHL level - but regardless, they're both (personality) types that I'd expect, if ever, to 'late bloom'.

I've played with a number of guys like Virtanen - with great toolboxes, lots of talent, big, fast, skilled guys - and even good 'minds' for sport - but just didn't seem to have that intangible 'killer' instinct or w.h.y. - that firey, engaged, will to win.  Can he grow into it?  I don't know.   However, for me, the most indicative, the most signifying aspect of a young player's game is often their ability to 'get it' on the defensive side of the puck - the more difficult aspects of the game to learn/develop - that require hard work and attention to detail (can't just be 'coasted' upon with high end skill).   What Green has managed to do with Virtanen, in that sense, is for me, what gains him some time.  I think we've seen something similar with McCann - who also has a very good toolbox - but is/has taken quite some time to develop at the NHL level.

As for Virtanen's 'emotional' or social intelligence - his off ice behaviour/personality - I can't speak to that - I hope he's more grown up than he appears in that sense - but I'm not going to get invested one way or the other.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Its not changing anything. There is a difference that you are igniring. Goldobin had not proven at the nhl level that he was an offensive player. He was simply a prospect. Gaudette, despite the hate he gets, scored 33 points in 59 games at the nhl level and did prove he could score at that level. Goldobin didnt prove he could do that at the time of the trade. Apples and oranges bud.

I'm not ignoring anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dazzle said:

I'm not ignoring anything. 

You clearly are. A pure prospect with limited nhl time vs a guy who scored 33 points in 59 games in the nhl.

 

A veteran 2 way player who had shown ability at both ends of the ice vs a 4th line energy guy who was a healthy scrath 9 of his last 12 games in Chicago.

 

A completely different trade and set of circumstances.

 

I think you are only arguing it because no matter what I post there are a handful of you here who feel the need to argue. The two situations are not remotely related.

  • Vintage 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, 73 Percent said:

How many pts does gaudette have today?

I’m guess it’s the same number that Highmore had in his first 10 games as a Canuck. 
 

Edited by combover
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...