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

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


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, aGENT said:

I guess 'sounds' can be deceiving.

 

For example. It sounds like you don't believe you have a massive anti management bias in pretty much every post... But that can't possibly be true...

 

:bigblush:

Just because someone looks at the work management has done for 7 years and doesnt like it doesnt mean they are "biased".

 

I give Benning credit when I think he does good things. I criticize him when I think he makes bad decisions. It just happens that, imo, he does far more bad than good. If I was biased I would hate everything he does just for the sake of it.

 

You think the only mistake he has made of any significance is Eriksson. So I could call that you thinking he is a good manager overall based on your perception or I could be a dismissive douche and say you have pro Benning bias. I have never said that though because you have the right to your perspective just like I do. 

 

I am not big on getting into personal insults or telling other people not to post their opinions because I dont happen to agree. This forum is here so fans can talk about their team, its not here to only support pro management narratives and opinions.

 

If people dont like my opinions its cool. They should develop the adult ability of ignoring them or discussing why they disagree rather than marginalizing my opinion down to a bias. 

 

Thinking he is a sub par to terrible manager is based on a lot of things, not some irrational hate towards the guy. No one wishes he could stop $&!#ting the bed more than me.

 

Edited by wallstreetamigo
  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, smithers joe said:

i don't know why gaud was traded. i have a feeling he requested one but looking at the 2 players, canucks didn't feel confident in his defensive play or his play as a center. he wasn't a 2nd line player, at least not yet or good enough defensively to play 4th line. highmore's speed and drive make him more adaptable in the line up. think motte 2. i liked gaud but this might work out better for both teams.  lets give it a try.

Agreed.  There just wasn’t a good fit for Gaud here.  And the new guy, Highmore, has a role as a bottom six checker, who can play up the lineup in a pinch.  Gaud wanted a role here we could fit him in to.  Highmore accepts his role, and it suits him.  It’s a good hockey trade.  

  • Hydration 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Alflives said:

Agreed.  There just wasn’t a good fit for Gaud here.  And the new guy, Highmore, has a role as a bottom six checker, who can play up the lineup in a pinch.  Gaud wanted a role here we could fit him in to.  Highmore accepts his role, and it suits him.  It’s a good hockey trade.  

Highmore is not a top 6 winger though which is how he is being used, probably more to justify the trade than anything. Of course he accepts being in the top 6 after being a healthy scratch in Chi.

 

As a bottom 6 guy I like his game a lot, probably better than anyone not named Motte or MacEwan. In the top 6 though? Cmon. Thats just another sub par, one line scoring team waiting to happen. Its a waste of Bo to have him be both a top 6 scorer and a shutdown guy. With Pearson and Highmore on his wings, that should be a 3rd shutdown line, not a 2nd line tasked with providing offense. And if they want to use it that way its cool but get a better 2nd line that can score consistently.

 

The Canucks are brutal about not knowing how to properly utilize players. Been that way for more than a decade now actually.

 

If there is a spot in the top 6 for Highmore, there theoretically was a top 6 spot for Gaudette, although he was never really tried there to even see if he could perform. He is a far better offensive player. At the very least it might have raised his trade value.

  • Hydration 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1
  • RoughGame 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Agreed.  There just wasn’t a good fit for Gaud here.  And the new guy, Highmore, has a role as a bottom six checker, who can play up the lineup in a pinch.  Gaud wanted a role here we could fit him in to.  Highmore accepts his role, and it suits him.  It’s a good hockey trade.  

Good summary Alf.  But you left out the part where Gaudette isn't responsible for his performance, or for earning a spot / that it's alleged he felt entitled to in the storylines about him requesting a trade (which is a mystery, where else Green 'should have' found a spot for Gaudette) - that part is Green or someone else's "fault" - they didn't utilize him #properly - you're lacking the precooked axe to grind/angle/slant.

Edited by oldnews
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Highmore is not a top 6 winger though which is how he is being used, probably more to justify the trade than anything. Of course he accepts being in the top 6 after being a healthy scratch in Chi.

 

As a bottom 6 guy I like his game a lot, probably better than anyone not named Motte or MacEwan. In the top 6 though? Cmon. Thats just another sub par, one line scoring team waiting to happen. Its a waste of Bo to have him be both a top 6 scorer and a shutdown guy. With Pearson and Highmore on his wings, that should be a 3rd shutdown line, not a 2nd line tasked with providing offense. And if they want to use it that way its cool but get a better 2nd line that can score consistently.

 

The Canucks are brutal about not knowing how to properly utilize players. Been that way for more than a decade now actually.

 

If there is a spot in the top 6 for Highmore, there theoretically was a top 6 spot for Gaudette, although he was never really tried there to even see if he could perform. He is a far better offensive player. At the very least it might have raised his trade value.

highmore is playing there because no one else is capable yet. he will be a bottom six or 4th line winger. podkolzin will here for next year and they will still need a couple of wingers or a winger and a center. right now it is his speed that puts him ahead of the other bottom 6 forwards. chill lad, it will all work out. enjoy the last 3 games, the draft, the seattle draft and what ever changes the aquillini's make. you may get your wish, but let them figure it out.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

highmore is playing there because no one else is capable yet. he will be a bottom six or 4th line winger. podkolzin will here for next year and they will still need a couple of wingers or a winger and a center. right now it is his speed that puts him ahead of the other bottom 6 forwards. chill lad, it will all work out. enjoy the last 3 games, the draft, the seattle draft and what ever changes the aquillini's make. you may get your wish, but let them figure it out.

My point is that if there wasnt a top 6 spot to try Gaudette or because people arbitrarily feel he "didn't earn it", then why when nothing significant changed in the top 6 before or after the trade, why is there suddenly a spot to give Highmore in the top 6? And did he score 33 points in 59 games to "not earn it" too? He scored 0 and generated one scoring chance before getting a promotion.

 

The hypocrisy of it is what troubles me.

 

The team has been playing Highmore, Vesey, Motte, etc in the top 6. Gaudette, despite his faults and even during a down year, vastly out performed all of them in generating offensive chances. You know, what a top 6 is supposed to do rather than dump and change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, smithers joe said:

highmore is playing there because no one else is capable yet. he will be a bottom six or 4th line winger. podkolzin will here for next year and they will still need a couple of wingers or a winger and a center. right now it is his speed that puts him ahead of the other bottom 6 forwards. chill lad, it will all work out. enjoy the last 3 games, the draft, the seattle draft and what ever changes the aquillini's make. you may get your wish, but let them figure it out.

You might want to hold off on declaring Podkolzin an automatic top 6 guy. He hasnt played an NHL game yet. 

 

I am totally chill btw. I discuss the team and even complain but I am just a fan. If nothing changes it is what it is. I dont trust Benning's process and I dont like how this coaching group has handled certain players. But its cool, it doesnt make me lose sleep bud lol.

 

This place exists to talk about the team. If you had your wish no one would talk about them?

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Highmore is not a top 6 winger though which is how he is being used, probably more to justify the trade than anything. Of course he accepts being in the top 6 after being a healthy scratch in Chi.

 

As a bottom 6 guy I like his game a lot, probably better than anyone not named Motte or MacEwan. In the top 6 though? Cmon. Thats just another sub par, one line scoring team waiting to happen. Its a waste of Bo to have him be both a top 6 scorer and a shutdown guy. With Pearson and Highmore on his wings, that should be a 3rd shutdown line, not a 2nd line tasked with providing offense. And if they want to use it that way its cool but get a better 2nd line that can score consistently.

 

The Canucks are brutal about not knowing how to properly utilize players. Been that way for more than a decade now actually.

 

If there is a spot in the top 6 for Highmore, there theoretically was a top 6 spot for Gaudette, although he was never really tried there to even see if he could perform. He is a far better offensive player. At the very least it might have raised his trade value.

Why do you keep rehashing the same myths over and over? I.e. Chicago is good with young players and Vancouver apparently bad with theirs.

 

In your other post, you make yourself sound like a reasonable guy because you claim to be a balanced observer. But Vancouver hasn't been bad with young players in quite a while. We have a fairly lengthy list of players who are doing well, namely Hoglander and Hughes. We also have Boeser, Pettersson, and a nice collection of prospects coming up that could make a significant impact.

 

Ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your perspective is an issue.

 

I laugh at the Chicago is good with young players' narrative. With the way you say it, you make it seem like they've never missed their drafts.

 

Strome, originally an AZ pick, is not terrible, but taking from the myths you keep perpetuating, you make it seem like he's playing above his expected draft value.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

Why do you keep rehashing the same myths over and over? I.e. Chicago is good with young players and Vancouver apparently bad with theirs.

 

In your other post, you make yourself sound like a reasonable guy because you claim to be a balanced observer. But Vancouver hasn't been bad with young players in quite a while. We have a fairly lengthy list of players who are doing well, namely Hoglander and Hughes. We also have Boeser, Pettersson, and a nice collection of prospects coming up that could make a significant impact.

 

Ignoring evidence because it doesn't suit your perspective is an issue.

 

I laugh at the Chicago is good with young players' narrative. With the way you say it, you make it seem like they've never missed their drafts.

 

Strome, originally an AZ pick, is not terrible, but taking from the myths you keep perpetuating, you make it seem like he's playing above his expected draft value.

The players who have developed well for the Canucks are all ones who were put in roles that allowed them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

 

Petterssen was not expected to be a defensive shutdown center in order to earn a top 6 opportunity. Hughes was not expected to be a shutdown defender to earn an offensive role. Hoglander being given a chance plays to his strengths. As a bottom 6 with Sutter and guys like Hawryluk I doubt he shows as much of what we have seen. That is the right way to develop players.

 

Now look at guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin, McCann, etc. Those may not be core players but they certainly were developed improperly by the Canucks or they could have been good support players.

 

Drafting and developing are two separate but intertwined things. An organization can draft well but not develop well and vice versa. One doesnt automatically equal the other. 

 

Our prospect pool is not quite as sure thing as people suggest. Most of the better players have already graduated to the NHL. We have some promising guys but the end of this year was a largely missed opportunity to really see where they are at and where they might fit in. 

 

Seeing guys like Vesey, Michaelis, Hawryluk, etc all playing up the lineup instead of seeing what the next wave could do with a real opportunity to play important minutes is a huge development miss. And just playing in a few games on the 4th line with Boyd and Vesey is not anything I consider a good development opportunity. Training the next wave of dump and changers isnt going to fill those key spots next year and beyond.

 

Our young core is pretty good but honestly there are a lot of teams I would trade our core for straight across all else being equal, especially if winning a cup is the objective. Hughes is not a #1 dman. He is offensively but is one of the worst defensive dmen I have seen in awhile. EP is awesome. Horvat could be even better if he wasnt saddled with all the shutdown duty. Boeser rebounded but has struggled previously. Have to hope he keeps going forward. 

 

I am intrigued by Rathbone. Juolevi doesnt seem to be in the plans though. Hoglander is awesome. Love how he plays.

 

But people vastly overestimate the core based on what its still missing. There are big core holes still to fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wallstreetamigo said:

The players who have developed well for the Canucks are all ones who were put in roles that allowed them to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

 

Petterssen was not expected to be a defensive shutdown center in order to earn a top 6 opportunity. Hughes was not expected to be a shutdown defender to earn an offensive role. Hoglander being given a chance plays to his strengths. As a bottom 6 with Sutter and guys like Hawryluk I doubt he shows as much of what we have seen. That is the right way to develop players.

 

Now look at guys like Virtanen, Gaudette, Tryamkin, McCann, etc. Those may not be core players but they certainly were developed improperly by the Canucks or they could have been good support players.

 

Drafting and developing are two separate but intertwined things. An organization can draft well but not develop well and vice versa. One doesnt automatically equal the other. 

 

Our prospect pool is not quite as sure thing as people suggest. Most of the better players have already graduated to the NHL. We have some promising guys but the end of this year was a largely missed opportunity to really see where they are at and where they might fit in. 

 

Seeing guys like Vesey, Michaelis, Hawryluk, etc all playing up the lineup instead of seeing what the next wave could do with a real opportunity to play important minutes is a huge development miss. And just playing in a few games on the 4th line with Boyd and Vesey is not anything I consider a good development opportunity. Training the next wave of dump and changers isnt going to fill those key spots next year and beyond.

 

Our young core is pretty good but honestly there are a lot of teams I would trade our core for straight across all else being equal, especially if winning a cup is the objective. Hughes is not a #1 dman. He is offensively but is one of the worst defensive dmen I have seen in awhile. EP is awesome. Horvat could be even better if he wasnt saddled with all the shutdown duty. Boeser rebounded but has struggled previously. Have to hope he keeps going forward. 

 

I am intrigued by Rathbone. Juolevi doesnt seem to be in the plans though. Hoglander is awesome. Love how he plays.

 

But people vastly overestimate the core based on what its still missing. There are big core holes still to fill.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much of your discussion has swayed away from the "young players" narrative and more about the roster itself. You know very well why young players aren't inserted into the roster willy-nilly. That being said, we DO have a series of promising players about to make the cut. This is not just blind hope, but a real possibility.

 

Pettersson would've been a #1 in a re-draft. Full stop. No one 'expected' him to flourish, except the Canucks. Full stop. Give credit where it's due. I don't like how you have to put in these conditions about him or Boeser. Both players worked on their games, particularly Boeser, who's impressed a lot.

 

That in itself invalidates your point about Canucks mishandling young players.

 

Horvat, despite his lack of flashiness, has continued to impress.

 

Players like Lind, Gadj, Jasek, Woo are all on the cusp of making the NHL. It's just a matter of when, not if, at this point. They've all continued to improve in the AHL, which is very promising. That is all you can expect from young players.

 

Also your point about the prospect pool not being deep is a bit disingenous. We NEVER, i repeat, NEVER had a prospect pool this team after Gillis. So what are you complaining about right now?

 

 

 

  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Much of your discussion has swayed away from the "young players" narrative and more about the roster itself. You know very well why young players aren't inserted into the roster willy-nilly. That being said, we DO have a series of promising players about to make the cut. This is not just blind hope, but a real possibility.

 

Pettersson would've been a #1 in a re-draft. Full stop. No one 'expected' him to flourish, except the Canucks. Full stop. Give credit where it's due. I don't like how you have to put in these conditions about him or Boeser. Both players worked on their games, particularly Boeser, who's impressed a lot.

 

That in itself invalidates your point about Canucks mishandling young players.

 

Horvat, despite his lack of flashiness, has continued to impress.

 

Players like Lind, Gadj, Jasek, Woo are all on the cusp of making the NHL. It's just a matter of when, not if, at this point. They've all continued to improve in the AHL, which is very promising. That is all you can expect from young players.

 

Also your point about the prospect pool not being deep is a bit disingenous. We NEVER, i repeat, NEVER had a prospect pool this team after Gillis. So what are you complaining about right now?

 

 

 

You always seem to misconstrue what I am actually saying.

 

EP was predicted to go 6-9th from most of the pre draft rankings I saw. Him going 5th was a good pick by the Canucks, no doubt about it. Its not like he came out of nowhere as an offensively gifted player. Everyone knew he was. They just didnt anticipate HOW gifted.

 

None of the prospects you list have made the nhl on a full time basis yet. So it is still possible for sure. Its possible they dont too. That happens to a lot of guys who dont translate AHL success to NHL success. They all have some holes in their game but hopefully they do stick and contribute.

 

I never complained about our prospect pool or said it was garbage. I just said its not top of the NHL or even as deep as many here think. Most of the top guys are already in the NHL. The next wave is not a bunch of sure things. Our center depth, as an example, is terrible. Its a huge hole in the prospect pool. Quality RHD is pretty sketchy too. But then I am not overly impressed with Chatfield tbh.

 

Edit: How exactly is saying "EP is awesome" putting any conditions on his success?

 

As for Hughes, dont care what anyone thinks, he is not a #1 dman. And has a ton of work to do if he wants to become one.

 

Boeser has worked hard and really improved at bith ends. I take nothing away from him. But he has struggled previously, its just kind of a fact.

Edited by wallstreetamigo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see anyone in our prospect pool that I would classify as a sure thing at this point. That doesnt mean they wont be. I just think many people overestimate them, mostly to further a pro Benning narrative. Our prospect pool looks pretty much like any middle of the pack prospect pool now that most of the top players are in the NHL. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

I dont see anyone in our prospect pool that I would classify as a sure thing at this point. That doesnt mean they wont be. I just think many people overestimate them, mostly to further a pro Benning narrative. Our prospect pool looks pretty much like any middle of the pack prospect pool now that most of the top players are in the NHL. 

So which teams have the best prospects that have yet to make the NHL, as well as those who are shining examples? The very evaluation tool you are using to judge the Canucks is seemingly used to downgrade the reality of the Canucks situation, in opposition of the so-called "pro Benning" side. Once you start using that kind of language, you are politicizing the situation, which means you have an angle to push. That is quite the opposite of being an unbiased observer.

 

I wasn't misconstruing anything you said. I directly counteracted your points. Just because you have to elaborate more on your position due to vagueness doesn't mean you were miscontrued.

 

In short, your argument was that the young players are unproven, therefore the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool.

 

It's a very general assessment that could literally be applied to any one team at one point. It doesn't make any comparisons to other teams, so the middle of the pack assessment is just something you pulled out of a hat.

 

One more thing. There is always a condition you put on them whenever you praise a player.

 

Example: "Boeser has struggled in the past"

 

Many young players have struggled in the past. It's where their current game is trending that matters. Boeser is clearly a more complete player than before.

 

I also think it's hilarious that you've already assessed Hughes as being not a #1 defenceman. His ceiling was supposed to be that, but there wasn't an expectation that he would be either. His size was a concern.

 

Honestly, using your methodology of classifying a player, I can see where you are picking and choosing how you are doing it. What you're doing is not unbiased discussion. You have essentially made up your mind on the situation, but it's not up to us to change it.

 

 

 

Edited by Dazzle
  • Hydration 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, smithers joe said:

highmore is playing there because no one else is capable yet. he will be a bottom six or 4th line winger. podkolzin will here for next year and they will still need a couple of wingers or a winger and a center. right now it is his speed that puts him ahead of the other bottom 6 forwards. chill lad, it will all work out. enjoy the last 3 games, the draft, the seattle draft and what ever changes the aquillini's make. you may get your wish, but let them figure it out.

yeah - Highmore is playing on Horvat's wing - when Horvat is in matchup.  Not 'top line' minutes - that's a misrepresentation from people that don't understand what they're talking about.

He's playing some of the hardest minutes of any of the Canucks forwards presently - lowest among forwards in ozone starts, matchup while all 4 of team's principal hard minutes forwards are out of the lineup...Highmore's getting no powerplay ice time, is killing penalties....Last game was his lightest load - still below 50% ozone starts (44% in a game the team dominated possession) - had a 66.7% corsi - he and his linemates took 20 shot attempts, gave up 10... an outstanding game for him, 2 goals, +1 and again, that's while winging it on a line tasked with matching up against McMHD.

It's hilarious to listen to the narratives in here...er Highmore is getting so much opportunity  Totally oblivious.  Gaudette didn't get enough! - he was 'misused' etc (and yet was sheltered, had the ice tilted for him as much as possible, had powerplay opportunities...

Laughable.  Seriously - not even a matter of opinion - it's a simple fact of deployment that any hockey person should understand. 

 

Edited by oldnews
  • Hydration 2
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

So which teams have the best prospects that have yet to make the NHL, as well as those who are shining examples? The very evaluation tool you are using to judge the Canucks is seemingly used to downgrade the reality of the Canucks situation, in opposition of the so-called "pro Benning" side. Once you start using that kind of language, you are politicizing the situation, which means you have an angle to push. That is quite the opposite of being an unbiased observer.

 

I wasn't misconstruing anything you said. I directly counteracted your points. Just because you have to elaborate more on your position due to vagueness doesn't mean you were miscontrued.

 

In short, your argument was that the young players are unproven, therefore the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool.

 

It's a very general assessment that could literally be applied to any one team at one point. It doesn't make any comparisons to other teams, so the middle of the pack assessment is just something you pulled out of a hat.

 

One more thing. There is always a condition you put on them whenever you praise a player.

 

Example: "Boeser has struggled in the past"

 

Many young players have struggled in the past. It's where their current game is trending that matters. Boeser is clearly a more complete player than before.

 

I also think it's hilarious that you've already assessed Hughes as being not a #1 defenceman. His ceiling was supposed to be that, but there wasn't an expectation that he would be either. His size was a concern.

 

Honestly, using your methodology of classifying a player, I can see where you are picking and choosing how you are doing it. What you're doing is not unbiased discussion. You have essentially made up your mind on the situation, but it's not up to us to change it.

 

 

 

Saying our prospect pool has very few if any "can't miss" players left and suggesting it is middle of the pack in the NHL is not an anti Benning thing. It seems to also be the consensus among most experts who say the exact same points.

 

Overestimating our prospects is commonplace. But really no one in our prospect pool is without problems in their game. None have shown they will be impact players in the NHL yet.

 

Not sure why - other than its me who said it - that this seems to be controversial to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, wallstreetamigo said:

Saying our prospect pool has very few if any "can't miss" players left and suggesting it is middle of the pack in the NHL is not an anti Benning thing. It seems to also be the consensus among most experts who say the exact same points.

 

Overestimating our prospects is commonplace. But really no one in our prospect pool is without problems in their game. None have shown they will be impact players in the NHL yet.

 

Not sure why - other than its me who said it - that this seems to be controversial to you.

Because your form of evaluation doesn't actually gauge the quality of the Canucks, as well as any other team's prospects.

 

Saying that the Canucks prospect pool lacks sure fire players can be applied to any one team, not just Canucks. You are also using this same methodology to gauge that the Canucks have a middle of the pack prospect pool. How? 

 

I'm also very curious as to which teams you are making comparisons to. You said middle of the pack. That means you've assessed the prospect pool. I am seeking information for how you did it.

Edited by Dazzle
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, wallstreetamigo said:

My point is that if there wasnt a top 6 spot to try Gaudette or because people arbitrarily feel he "didn't earn it", then why when nothing significant changed in the top 6 before or after the trade, why is there suddenly a spot to give Highmore in the top 6? And did he score 33 points in 59 games to "not earn it" too? He scored 0 and generated one scoring chance before getting a promotion.

 

The hypocrisy of it is what troubles me.

 

The team has been playing Highmore, Vesey, Motte, etc in the top 6. Gaudette, despite his faults and even during a down year, vastly out performed all of them in generating offensive chances. You know, what a top 6 is supposed to do rather than dump and change.

Highmore can actually play defense.

Link to post
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...