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

[wallstreetamigo]

1 hour ago, Dazzle said:

Hansen was a healthy scratch after the trade too. Just saying.

Which has what to do with what i said?

 

The circumstances of the trade and the type, age, and experience levels of the players involved were completely different. Its not an accurate comparison in any sense.

Edited May 11, 2021 by wallstreetamigo

[oldnews]

58 minutes ago, Attila Umbrus said:

Good points, and honestly he has held his head above water too. Over 20 mins last night, I thought made several nice plays out there, got another apple, has a better shot than I thought. 3 SOG, 1 massive block in on the PK, plus lots of other nice defensive plays sprinkled through the game. Made some gaffes too, but recovered. Still better suited for the bottom 6 I think, but a great add to our team if he can bring this every game consistently. 

 

The fact he can jump up the line up and put in 20 minutes of work and be trusted like that all game...pure gravy.

 

Time will tell obviously, lots to like so far tho.

 

Yeah - Highmore was excellent last night - again.

25% offensive zone starts (only Edler was lower), 15 defenseive zone starts...

Over 20 shutdown minutes playing with Horvat.  2:46 of penalty killing ice time - gave up nothing.

1 assist, +1.

That line got the better of the Scheifele line matchup = no easy task.

 

He's playing some of the, if not the, hardest minutes on the team in these 12 games.

1.9 on ice goals for, 1.9 against = any time you can break even with a player holding their own in those kind of minutes - whether people realize it or not - that is  a real positive - when you 'adjust' for context, you 'expect' those players to have negative goal metrics and 'possession' numbers - what he's doing is a gain that helps your team win/the kind of player you win with. 

Gaudette was 1.3 for, 3.0 against - in much more opportune minutes - some pp ice time....7 pts in 33 games.  You can't utilize Gaudette like that - particularly in circumstances like the present - because there's nowhere to hide him.  I wish Gaudette the best - seemed like a nice young guy - thank him for raising his post-draft game, gaining the team an asset - but I think Highmore is clearly the better fit.  When people say "we have players like Highmore"....imo the better of the guys they are talking about are RH/RW (Mac, Hawryluk, Lockwood) - and second, we have plenty of candidates, better than Gaudette - to retain those two top 6 RW spots (Boeser, Hoglander, Podkolzin, Lind), which, really, is the only realistic option for utilizing a player like Gaudette (and even then, you give up too much on the defensive side of the puck imo).

If Highmore enables the team to move Roussel - imo he's as viable in Roussel's role as AR - then that's also a bonus.  For me - I'd take Highmore over any of Roussel (in the sense he's comparable imo, at better cap value), Boyd, Vesey, Michaelis (these three, for me, are the three that haven't really seized their opportunity - perhaps Vesey the closest to being worth taking another look next preseason...)  Motte up to the 3rd line, Highmore 4LW - I like what both of them bring to shutdown units (or put them on opposing wings) / two players you can win with (who both rose to the NHL showing a fair amount of upside - I don't expect a whole lot of production in the kind of minutes they play, but they have that in their counterpunching toolbox).

 

[oldnews]

10 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I heard it from Sportsnet 650 more specifically Gaudette wasn't happy with the team.

That said let's say the "Gaudette asked to be traded" story are just rumors. It actually helps my point more since this means The Canucks didn't have to trade Gaudette and they could have just been patient with him. It actually makes management look less competent if they traded Gaudette for Highmore if they didn't need to. 

?

First - with all due respect - I don't consider "I heard it on SN650" to be a valid source, at all.

 

And no - if false, it doesn't make your point/or any point.  Your take is poor, and contrived.

 

There's nowhere for Gaudette / no spot for him in the future of this franchise - the walls have been closing in on him for some time (that point has been spelled out repeatedly).  Not an NHL center, quite simply (nowhere near a 'bottom six' game without the puck) -  Hoglander's arrival has arguably been borderline fatal for him here / sealed him not being a realistic candidate at 2RW - and it aint gonna get any better with the group of young RWs right behind Hoglander. "Patience"?  Green showed a lot of that for Gaudette = AG didn't seize his opportunity - maybe he will in Chicago or his next stop, but this was a good hockey trade for this team / the right move imo (one I wouldn't hesitate to make again).

 

[WHL rocks]

11 hours ago, iinatcc said:

I heard it from Sportsnet 650 more specifically Gaudette wasn't happy with the team.

That said let's say the "Gaudette asked to be traded" story are just rumors. It actually helps my point more since this means The Canucks didn't have to trade Gaudette and they could have just been patient with him. It actually makes management look less competent if they traded Gaudette for Highmore if they didn't need to. 

I heard it on SN650 too

 

Friedman was on SN650 said Gaudette wasn't happy here.  He hadn't been happy since last years playoffs. He wanted more  ice time and bigger role.

[aGENT]

14 minutes ago, WHL rocks said:

I heard it on SN650 too

 

Friedman was on SN650 said Gaudette wasn't happy here.  He hadn't been happy since last years playoffs. He wanted more  ice time and bigger role.

And in no way had he earned either.

 

Again, the only 'flaw' with this trade IMO, is that we didn't do it last year when it was evident (to me anyway) he wasn't a long term fit. Though I can certainly understand them waiting to see if he could take another step as well.

[guntrix]

19 hours ago, oldnews said:

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.

 

Come on old, it's almost like you think I joined this forum yesterday.

 

Anyone worth their salt on here knows about your uncanny ability to flatter any player you fancy with out-of-context stats. Don't you remember when you made Erik Gudbranson and Luca Sbisa look like the second coming of Scott Stevens and Paul Coffey with your advanced stat hot takes? Boy did that ever backfire on you. Just a year ago there you were trying to coin the term "moderate positive value" to try to save face on Erik. The only cool story here is that people still naively upvote your hot takes. 

 

I specifically remember a discussion (though I admittedly don't remember who it was exactly, so don't take this one personally) where someone argued that Jake's shot was elite because he had a high shot accuracy %. In reality, for that specific stretch of games that the poster was focusing on, Jake was prone to shooting from the blue line and right at the goalie's crest. Moral of the story: stats are useful when used with context, but watch the games too. 

 

Keeping it on topic and directed at no one in particular: I believe both parties have already stated that the COVID rumors are not true. So unless there's an insider here (which I highly doubt) this trade should be gauged explicitly on both players' performances down the line and not on theoretical circumstances that may or may not have pushed a trade. 

[Dazzle]

2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Which has what to do with what i said?

 

The circumstances of the trade and the type, age, and experience levels of the players involved were completely different. Its not an accurate comparison in any sense.

Actually, the overall point that is lost here in this back and forth was that some trades don't work out, which includes a player like Gaudette and Highmore.

 

Goldobin, regardless of his prospect status at the time of the trade, could've been something of a nice return for Hansen. One could argue that Benning sold high on Hansen.

 

Hansen, despite being a proven NHL talent, was not a good fit for the SJ roster. He ends up declining.

 

So the trade was a lose lose for both teams. The circumstances aren't exact, of course, but the result is what I have been trying to point out. Your complaint about the trade being bad is not warranted. We could also talk about the Motte/Jokinen transaction too. That worked out rather well for us, even though we traded away the better offensive player in that deal. Too bad we didn't end up keeping Jokinen too because he did well during our short stint.

 

I don't think our discussion is going anywhere. Your complaint from how I see it is a bit of a knee jerk. You obviously won't see it that way, so we shall see what happens next season for Gaudette and Highmore. As it stands, Gaudette is not anymore of an impact player than Highmore. Yet Highmore serves a better role for the Canucks than Gaudette. The trade is simply a wash.

[iinatcc]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

?

First - with all due respect - I don't consider "I heard it on SN650" to be a valid source, at all.

 

 

Well someone confimred it came from Elliot Friedman ... so that's a reliable source as it's going to get IMO. 

[wallstreetamigo]

44 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Actually, the overall point that is lost here in this back and forth was that some trades don't work out, which includes a player like Gaudette and Highmore.

 

Goldobin, regardless of his prospect status at the time of the trade, could've been something of a nice return for Hansen. One could argue that Benning sold high on Hansen.

 

Hansen, despite being a proven NHL talent, was not a good fit for the SJ roster. He ends up declining.

 

So the trade was a lose lose for both teams. The circumstances aren't exact, of course, but the result is what I have been trying to point out. Your complaint about the trade being bad is not warranted. We could also talk about the Motte/Jokinen transaction too. That worked out rather well for us, even though we traded away the better offensive player in that deal. Too bad we didn't end up keeping Jokinen too because he did well during our short stint.

 

I don't think our discussion is going anywhere. Your complaint from how I see it is a bit of a knee jerk. You obviously won't see it that way, so we shall see what happens next season for Gaudette and Highmore. As it stands, Gaudette is not anymore of an impact player than Highmore. Yet Highmore serves a better role for the Canucks than Gaudette. The trade is simply a wash.

Giving up on and trading YOUNG offensive players WHO HAVE SHOWN AN ABILITY TO SCORE AT THE NHL LEVEL for energy guys has a far longer track record of buting teams in the ass down the road.

 

Note the two points you are missing.

 

Hansen was not a young player. Goldobin was not a proven nhl player. The risk with him was far higher based on the prospect status.

 

Vanek was likewise not a young player. Motte took a long time to turn into a good bottom 6 player too. 

 

Neither of those trades are comparable in any reasonable sense.

 

The actual end result of this trade will not be known for awhile. My point is on the surface, for several reasons, it looks like a bad trade.

 

Maybe Highmore, with all the top 6 opportunity he is now getting, will turn out to be a star. Maybe Gaudette, finally getting some top 6 opportunity, will flame out. Who knows?

 

But trading young offensive players for another player you have several of already when your team struggles to score seems like a pretty backwards move.

 

[BCNate]

12 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Giving up on and trading YOUNG offensive players WHO HAVE SHOWN AN ABILITY TO SCORE AT THE NHL LEVEL for energy guys has a far longer track record of buting teams in the ass down the road.

 

Note the two points you are missing.

 

Hansen was not a young player. Goldobin was not a proven nhl player. The risk with him was far higher based on the prospect status.

 

Vanek was likewise not a young player. Motte took a long time to turn into a good bottom 6 player too. 

 

Neither of those trades are comparable in any reasonable sense.

 

The actual end result of this trade will not be known for awhile. My point is on the surface, for several reasons, it looks like a bad trade.

 

Maybe Highmore, with all the top 6 opportunity he is now getting, will turn out to be a star. Maybe Gaudette, finally getting some top 6 opportunity, will flame out. Who knows?

 

But trading young offensive players for another player you have several of already when your team struggles to score seems like a pretty backwards move.

 

I guess it depends on whether you feel that Gaudette's season last year was a sign of things to come, or an outlier.  In a silo, it was a nice season, out side of it though, he is 19 points in 93 games, while going -19.  He atrocious this season for us, and did not deserve to be on our top 6.  He would not have sniffed our top 6 once Podkolzin and Kent Johnson()get here next year.

 

I have no problem with him getting dealt at all, but would have thought that we could have got a better return that Highmore.   If Highmore fits into out bottom 6 next year on a cheap deal, all good.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Giving up on and trading YOUNG offensive players WHO HAVE SHOWN AN ABILITY TO SCORE AT THE NHL LEVEL for energy guys has a far longer track record of buting teams in the ass down the road.

 

Note the two points you are missing.

 

Hansen was not a young player. Goldobin was not a proven nhl player. The risk with him was far higher based on the prospect status.

 

Vanek was likewise not a young player. Motte took a long time to turn into a good bottom 6 player too. 

 

Neither of those trades are comparable in any reasonable sense.

 

The actual end result of this trade will not be known for awhile. My point is on the surface, for several reasons, it looks like a bad trade.

 

Maybe Highmore, with all the top 6 opportunity he is now getting, will turn out to be a star. Maybe Gaudette, finally getting some top 6 opportunity, will flame out. Who knows?

 

But trading young offensive players for another player you have several of already when your team struggles to score seems like a pretty backwards move.

 

You could have EASILY applied this level of logic on Goldobin who looked practically like he was going to be an NHL player, given some patience. We EASILY could have applied this level of logic for the Clendening trade.  Hindsight doesn't look very kind in any of these situations.

 

We EASILY could have applied this level of logic for the Dahlin trade.

 

You are just not getting it. You already have formed an opinion (due to bias) on a situation that is STILL developing. To say "it looks like a bad trade" is hilarious because we've seen how long for all of us to conclusively determine a trade.

 

Here's what we know. Gaudette didn't fit on this team. His alleged offensive abilities did not fit on this team. Even when he was producing (which he wasn't), he did not help the team in other ways. He doesn't PK, and his defensive game is suspect. Sounds A LOT like Goldobin in that regard. Now that he's in Chicago, he has had some points, but he is still being sheltered on Chicago.

 

Some apples and oranges comparisons. My point is that we cannot effectively judge this trade until many years from now. The Goldobin/Hansen trade took a while to figure out. This is the same for Gaudette. The fact that you said it "looks" like a bad trade is laughable. Laughable.

 

Goldobin's numbers:

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/nikolay-goldobin-8477958

 

Gaudette's numbers:

https://www.nhl.com/player/adam-gaudette-8478874   Formatting issues

Edited May 11, 2021 by Dazzle
Formatting issues

[AV.]

Whenever you trade a young, skilled guy for a young, rugged guy, chances are you'll draw the deal at best if you're lucky or, in all likelihood, lose it.

 

What's a "win" here?  Highmore becomes a regular in the bottom-six and Gaudette becomes an AHLer?  Wow...what a great deal... such great potential for us in this...

 

Once more, very funny to see Gaudette's biggest fans - the ones that paraded him as one of Jim's best finds in the draft - all turn on him now that he's gone.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Alain Vigneault said:

Whenever you trade a young, skilled guy for a young, rugged guy, chances are you'll draw the deal at best if you're lucky or, in all likelihood, lose it.

 

What's a "win" here?  Highmore becomes a regular in the bottom-six and Gaudette becomes an AHLer?  Wow...what a great deal... such great potential for us in this...

 

Once more, very funny to see Gaudette's biggest fans - the ones that paraded him as one of Jim's best finds in the draft - all turn on him now that he's gone.

He's a 5th round pick that made it in the NHL.

What did Gillis draft again? Hmm? Or are you going to make excuses (time and time again as you have) for why he had such an abysmal drafting period? That terrible drafting has had implications to today's team.

 

Why the hell for example is Edler still on this team, playing the role he is now, if it wasn't for Gillis' piss poor development periods?

[AV.]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

He's a 5th round pick that made it in the NHL.

What did Gillis draft again? Hmm? Or are you going to make excuses (time and time again as you have) for why he had such an abysmal drafting period? That terrible drafting has had implications to today's team.

 

Why the hell for example is Edler still on this team, playing the role he is now, if it wasn't for Gillis' piss poor development periods?

What's your obsession with Gillis?  How does he even fit this conversation...like at all?

 

Benning hive has well and truly lost it...lmfao.

Makes you wonder....

[AV.]

Like, moral of the story - sell high if you want to move a young player.  I know this, the people of this board (should) know this, yet the crooks running this team don't seem to get it.

 

This team waited until Gaudette's stock was so low to move him.  Bunch of amateurs running the team LOL.

 

 

[wallstreetamigo]

2 hours ago, Dazzle said:

You could have EASILY applied this level of logic on Goldobin who looked practically like he was going to be an NHL player, given some patience. We EASILY could have applied this level of logic for the Clendening trade.  Hindsight doesn't look very kind in any of these situations.

 

We EASILY could have applied this level of logic for the Dahlin trade.

 

You are just not getting it. You already have formed an opinion (due to bias) on a situation that is STILL developing. To say "it looks like a bad trade" is hilarious because we've seen how long for all of us to conclusively determine a trade.

 

Here's what we know. Gaudette didn't fit on this team. His alleged offensive abilities did not fit on this team. Even when he was producing (which he wasn't), he did not help the team in other ways. He doesn't PK, and his defensive game is suspect. Sounds A LOT like Goldobin in that regard. Now that he's in Chicago, he has had some points, but he is still being sheltered on Chicago.

 

Some apples and oranges comparisons. My point is that we cannot effectively judge this trade until many years from now. The Goldobin/Hansen trade took a while to figure out. This is the same for Gaudette. The fact that you said it "looks" like a bad trade is laughable. Laughable.

 

Goldobin's numbers:

 

https://www.nhl.com/player/nikolay-goldobin-8477958

 

Gaudette's numbers:

https://www.nhl.com/player/adam-gaudette-8478874   Formatting issues

Honestly bud, if you cant tell the difference between a pure prospect with mo nhl track record and a guy who actually has shown he can produce at the nhl level I think we can agree to disagree.

 

Not every player in the nhl penalty kills or is stellar defensively. The Canucks didnt need another forward who can pk, they need more that can score.

 

Some trades look bad as soon as you make them. Like this one. Sometimes they look better later, sometimes they don't. Someone saying this is a good trade right now (citing that Gaudette is garbage or whatever their reasoning is) is no different than me saying its a bad trade. I have not seen you call that opinion laughable even once. So as long as we are talking about bias I think you might be calling the kettle black bud. 

[Dazzle]

4 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Honestly bud, if you cant tell the difference between a pure prospect with mo nhl track record and a guy who actually has shown he can produce at the nhl level I think we can agree to disagree.

 

Not every player in the nhl penalty kills or is stellar defensively. The Canucks didnt need another forward who can pk, they need more that can score.

 

Some trades look bad as soon as you make them. Like this one. Sometimes they look better later, sometimes they don't. Someone saying this is a good trade right now (citing that Gaudette is garbage or whatever their reasoning is) is no different than me saying its a bad trade. I have not seen you call that opinion laughable even once. So as long as we are talking about bias I think you might be calling the kettle black bud. 

We can have different opinions about something, but deal with the same facts.

 

We know that Gaudette wasn't a fit here. Whether this was on Green or some other underlying factor, we won't likely know. One thing that Benning seemed to be alluding to about his comments was that Gaudette didn't appear to improve beyond what the Canucks had hoped. Benning didn't even try to say a good thing about him, which leads me to think there were other reasons behind it. But enough about my speculation.

 

Given that you are likely a fan of Gaudette (I'm not a hater of the guy because I hoped he'd be someone of a special player for us), you are saying that the could've played better for us if he was given more minutes. Yet he was given some opportunities to play up the roster especially when Boeser/Hoglander weren't playing that great. Hell they tried Virtanen too.

 

We will have to see down the road if Gaudette is a good or bad trade. It doesn't look like anything at this point because of how small of a sample this is. We will just have to agree to disagree until more evidence is there to suggest this was a bad trade or not.

 

For all we know, Gaudette could end up being a bust for Chicago as well, thus your opinion that this looks like a bad trade is too early to call. That will be all I will comment on this with you.

 

 

 

 

[Dazzle]

22 minutes ago, Alain Vigneault said:

Like, moral of the story - sell high if you want to move a young player.  I know this, the people of this board (should) know this, yet the crooks running this team don't seem to get it.

 

This team waited until Gaudette's stock was so low to move him.  Bunch of amateurs running the team LOL.

 

 

Yeah, or maybe the trade value was crap to begin with. What is this proof that he had high value?

 

Any amateur can trade Motte for a high first round pick. Yes?

[AV.]

9 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Yeah, or maybe the trade value was crap to begin with. What is this proof that he had high value?

 

Any amateur can trade Motte for a high first round pick. Yes?

But I was told Gaudette was a great pick?  I was told that he was the steal of the draft and a testament to Benning's draft skill.  Did Jim's fanboys lie to me about him?  Maybe his trade value was bad because...wait for it...he was also bad?

 

No matter which way you try to spin it, the truth just come out.  You and many others just blindly support everything/everyone Benning touches until they're gone.  Gaudette was a high point for Benning when he was here, and now that he's not here, Benning was suddenly in the right to move him.

 

Must be nice to always change the narrative.

[wallstreetamigo]

10 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

We can have different opinions about something, but deal with the same facts.

 

We know that Gaudette wasn't a fit here. Whether this was on Green or some other underlying factor, we won't likely know. One thing that Benning seemed to be alluding to about his comments was that Gaudette didn't appear to improve beyond what the Canucks had hoped. Benning didn't even try to say a good thing about him, which leads me to think there were other reasons behind it. But enough about my speculation.

 

Given that you are likely a fan of Gaudette (I'm not a hater of the guy because I hoped he'd be someone of a special player for us), you are saying that the could've played better for us if he was given more minutes. Yet he was given some opportunities to play up the roster especially when Boeser/Hoglander weren't playing that great. Hell they tried Virtanen too.

 

We will have to see down the road if Gaudette is a good or bad trade. It doesn't look like anything at this point because of how small of a sample this is. We will just have to agree to disagree until more evidence is there to suggest this was a bad trade or not.

 

For all we know, Gaudette could end up being a bust for Chicago as well, thus your opinion that this looks like a bad trade is too early to call. That will be all I will comment on this with you.

 

 

 

 

A couple of things.

 

I am not really a Gaudette fan boy tbh. I dont think he is the next coming of McDavid but I dont think he is the next coming of Goldobin either. 

 

Like I said, he was used improperly most of his time in Van. He was never cut out to be a 3rd line defensive center and why Benning and Hreen werd stuck on that becoming a thing was mind boggling. It just didnt fit with what his strengths and weaknesses are.

 

If you would rather see defensively safe guys like Highmore, Motte, etc in our top 6, that is fine. The reality is 7 years of it and we are still bottom of the league. I personally prefer a top 6 that can score consistently outside 3 players.

 

Like I have said MANY TIMES, judging a trade in the short term, based on current circumstances, needs of the team, etc is still valid and very different than judging it over the long term, which is also valid.

 

In the short term, our team lost a young offensive player who was not given a true top 6 opportunity for yet another grinder who - inexplicably - is now getting a top 6 time. We already have more than enough of those players on the roster anx none have proven to help scoring playing in the top 6.

 

Respond if you want but we can agree to disagree. The reality is no matter how this or any trade turns out, its impossible for some to ever consider a trade a loss for Benning. I mean, look at all the ones we already have long term results of that were garbage yet are still defended as good. People always find reasons and data to support their pre determined conclusion. I dont know how this trade will look down the road, I just think it looks bad now.