[Report] Canucks recall Jonah Gadjovich

[Gollumpus]

15 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

Throw them a 2nd to take LE, Marc Staal went for a 2nd and his cap hit is near identical to LE

For you this answers a question I posed in a previous comment, "How high of a pick would you be content to give up to Seattle so that they did not pick Gadjovich (or Lind or MacEwen - I've expanded the choices so as to cover multiple bases)",

 

For clarity I'm assuming the Canucks will protect: Boesser, Horvat, Miller, Motte, Pearson and Pettersson, leaving two Gadjovich, Lind and MacEwen on the outside looking in. Yes, Lind will very probably be protected, get off my case...   Or, maybe the Canucks will leave someone like Motte and/or Pearson exposed, although there is word that Pearson will be on the list.

 

So the next question(s), are these situations that similar that Seattle should be willing to accept a 2nd for someone else's cap dump? What about Seattle's cap? Just because Detroit accepted Staal for a 2nd doesn't mean that Seattle would accept Eriksson and a 2nd rather than take a promising prospect in an expansion draft. In Seattle's case, I see Gadjovich (et al) as being worth more to them than just a 2nd round pick, based on how Gadjovich (et al) appears to have developed. Bird in the hand thinking.

 

I'd be thinking, were I the Seattle GM, is how to milk this for all I could. At the very least (and I'm assuming that there would be a lot of support here for this idea) Seattle would want 50% salary/cap retention by the Canucks as part of the deal. Is keeping half of Eriksson's paycheque and a 2nd still worth it? What's the next notch up from there?

 

                                                   regards,  G.

[86Viking]

7 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

For you this answers a question I posed in a previous comment, "How high of a pick would you be content to give up to Seattle so that they did not pick Gadjovich (or Lind or MacEwen - I've expanded the choices so as to cover multiple bases)",

 

For clarity I'm assuming the Canucks will protect: Boesser, Horvat, Miller, Motte, Pearson and Pettersson, leaving two Gadjovich, Lind and MacEwen on the outside looking in. Yes, Lind will very probably be protected, get off my case...   Or, maybe the Canucks will leave someone like Motte and/or Pearson exposed, although there is word that Pearson will be on the list.

 

So the next question(s), are these situations that similar that Seattle should be willing to accept a 2nd for someone else's cap dump? What about Seattle's cap? Just because Detroit accepted Staal for a 2nd doesn't mean that Seattle would accept Eriksson and a 2nd rather than take a promising prospect in an expansion draft. In Seattle's case, I see Gadjovich (et al) as being worth more to them than just a 2nd round pick, based on how Gadjovich (et al) appears to have developed. Bird in the hand thinking.

 

I'd be thinking, were I the Seattle GM, is how to milk this for all I could. At the very least (and I'm assuming that there would be a lot of support here for this idea) Seattle would want 50% salary/cap retention by the Canucks as part of the deal. Is keeping half of Eriksson's paycheque and a 2nd still worth it? What's the next notch up from there?

 

                                                   regards,  G.

LE is only for 1 year, unlikely they take any big contracts with term unless they get a real sweetener added. I also would then turn around and expose Pearson and let Seattle take him as a decent top 9 player for them and protect a younger asset like Lind/Gadj.

 

It would be a huge mistake by the GM to protect Pearson who is nearly past his prime to then watch us lose a younger asset like Lind/Gadj/OJ or even Motte as he is our only good youngish and affordable bottom 6 PK specialist we have

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, King Heffy said:

I wanted to package a pick in order for them to take Jake.  Now that that's off the table, I'd expose Pearson regardless of what was said when he was signed.

Solid answer, but there could repercussions to that move which could come back to haunt the team. The draft was a reason I was surprised that the Pearson deal got done early. The team wouldn't have to worry about protecting Pearson.

 

So you'd be protecting Boeser, Gadjovich, Horvat, Lind, MacEwen, Miller and Pettersson? Or is Motte in and someone else is out? For me the only sure bets for forwards to be protected are Boeser, Horvat, Miller and Pettersson. After them, it's protect the three most valuable from among Gadjovich, Lind, MacEwen, Motte and Pearson.

 

                                                    regards,  G.

[EternalCanuckFan]

14 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Solid answer, but there could repercussions to that move which could come back to haunt the team. The draft was a reason I was surprised that the Pearson deal got done early. The team wouldn't have to worry about protecting Pearson.

 

So you'd be protecting Boeser, Gadjovich, Horvat, Lind, MacEwen, Miller and Pettersson? Or is Motte in and someone else is out? For me the only sure bets for forwards to be protected are Boeser, Horvat, Miller and Pettersson. After them, it's protect the three most valuable from among Gadjovich, Lind, MacEwen, Motte and Pearson.

 

                                                    regards,  G.

I think Gadjovich's and Lind's play at the NHL level down the stretch will clarify a lot.  At this point, IMHO, IF Gadjovich can produce at the NHL level and play responsibly at both ends of the rink, then I would have to think his ceiling should be expected to be higher than Motte's.  I like Motte a lot as a bottom 6 guy and he would be a pain for the Canucks to play against, but the Canucks need more guys like Gadjovich to make the NHL.

 

Although I would currently be disappointed if the Canucks lost a prospect like Gadjovich in expansion, the fact of the matter is that notwithstanding his production this year and his improvement last year, I'm still reading that skating is a concern for him.  It's obviously not hampering him at the AHL level (at least not much as it probably did in his rookie and sophomore seasons), but the NHL will be a big test.  It's a good chance for the Canucks to evaluate what they have in Gadjovich and to make an informed decision instead of either trying to hide Gadjovic hin the AHL/hoping that the Kraken are unwilling to take a flyer on a prospect like Gadjovich/using up a protection spot for him.

[Gollumpus]

4 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

LE is only for 1 year, unlikely they take any big contracts with term unless they get a real sweetener added. I also would then turn around and expose Pearson and let Seattle take him as a decent top 9 player for them and protect a younger asset like Lind/Gadj.

The Staal contract was also for only one year. The point I was getting at is they have to watch their cap this year, just like any other year, so without a sweetner of say some cap/salary retention as at least part of the deal then I don't see Seattle biting. 

 

So who is on your protected list? I assume Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Pettersson with Gadjovich, Lind and MacEwen? I'd have been okay with this prior to the team re-signing Pearson, and even if it left Motte off the list (he would be picked for sure were this case). 

 

4 minutes ago, Canuckster86 said:

It would be a huge mistake by the GM to protect Pearson who is nearly past his prime to then watch us lose a younger asset like Lind/Gadj/OJ or even Motte as he is our only good youngish and affordable bottom 6 PK specialist we have

As noted above, I'll always have Boeser, Horvat, Miller, Pettersson on my list, but picking the last three from Gadjovich, Lind, MacEwen, Motte and Pearson is kinda' tough, for various reasons. Without knowing the reasons, I'm surprised that the Canucks re-signed Pearson prior to the draft, but now that they have done so, it does make it easier in some ways as they can leave him dangling as bait. It's just a bad taste kind of thing.

 

                                                        regards,  G.

[King Heffy]

36 minutes ago, Gollumpus said:

Solid answer, but there could repercussions to that move which could come back to haunt the team. The draft was a reason I was surprised that the Pearson deal got done early. The team wouldn't have to worry about protecting Pearson.

 

So you'd be protecting Boeser, Gadjovich, Horvat, Lind, MacEwen, Miller and Pettersson? Or is Motte in and someone else is out? For me the only sure bets for forwards to be protected are Boeser, Horvat, Miller and Pettersson. After them, it's protect the three most valuable from among Gadjovich, Lind, MacEwen, Motte and Pearson.

 

                                                    regards,  G.

I'd sub Motte in for MacEwen.

[Gollumpus]

11 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

I think Gadjovich's and Lind's play at the NHL level down the stretch will clarify a lot.  At this point, IMHO, IF Gadjovich can produce at the NHL level and play responsibly at both ends of the rink, then I would have to think his ceiling should be expected to be higher than Motte's.  I like Motte a lot as a bottom 6 guy and he would be a pain for the Canucks to play against, but the Canucks need more guys like Gadjovich to make the NHL.

 

Although I would currently be disappointed if the Canucks lost a prospect like Gadjovich in expansion, the fact of the matter is that notwithstanding his production this year and his improvement last year, I'm still reading that skating is a concern for him.  It's obviously not hampering him at the AHL level (at least not much as it probably did in his rookie and sophomore seasons), but the NHL will be a big test.  It's a good chance for the Canucks to evaluate what they have in Gadjovich and to make an informed decision instead of either trying to hide Gadjovic hin the AHL/hoping that the Kraken are unwilling to take a flyer on a prospect like Gadjovich/using up a protection spot for him.

Here's hoping that these young'uns play well in the remaining games. I'll probably even give up time watching the Giants to see how these kids do.

 

In Gadjovich's case, re: skating, I'm wondering what the Canucks have done to help improve that aspect of his game. Maybe he has been working at it and his ability has plateaued? If so then this reduces his value. Horvat also had skating concerns when he was drafted, and in a fairly short time (1- 2 seasons?) he had made great strides........

 

                                           regards,  G.

[Gollumpus]

5 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'd sub Motte in for MacEwen.

Yeah, I could see me doing that, and then I'd swap them back again, and again and so on.

 

It's a bit of a tough call for me, choosing to protect Motte, who is pretty good right now at what he does (being a bottom six PitA LW, and maybe he will get a lot better), and MacEwen, who is bigger, is listed as a C/RW, and potentially will be about as good as Motte, but could become a lot better than Motte.

 

                                                               regards,  G.

[BarnBurner]

11 hours ago, Bell said:

Has his skating improved enough to play at the NHL level?  

It definitely has since last year in the AHL. He'll get an idea where he's at in the NHL, then improve in the offseason. Get Bo to hook him up with his skating instructor. 

[Gollumpus]

 

 

 I don't see that he's become a speed demon, but he certainly seems to be able to get to the front of the net and do something once he's there.

 

                                               regards,  G.

[xereau]

It'll be great to see what he's got. These guys like Gadj and Lind have both been very loyal to the team so far, and they are finally seeing the long game play out for them. It's more a sign to those further down the chain in the system that it does indeed payoff to put your nose to the grindstone and work for it. Looking forward to seeing if he goes to the front of the net.. a big guy like that's gonna draw a penalty or two a game vs Nurse alone.

[EternalCanuckFan]

13 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Here's hoping that these young'uns play well in the remaining games. I'll probably even give up time watching the Giants to see how these kids do.

 

In Gadjovich's case, re: skating, I'm wondering what the Canucks have done to help improve that aspect of his game. Maybe he has been working at it and his ability has plateaued? If so then this reduces his value. Horvat also had skating concerns when he was drafted, and in a fairly short time (1- 2 seasons?) he had made great strides........

 

                                           regards,  G.

I think I read in a CanucksArmy report that Gadjovich has definitely sought additional coaching and training for his skating

 

I can't remember whether it was Cory Severtson or Chris Faber who was writing about the Comets but it was definitely a report from CanucksArmy that mentioned that there are still concerns about Gadjovich's skating as far as transitioning to NHL play, notwithstanding the progress in his play at the AHL level.  Personally I suspect a lot of the improvement we're seeing from Gadjovich is a mixture of improved skating and, perhaps more so, the growth in his understanding of how he can employ his skill set better at the pro level.  Gadjovich was pretty open in interviews that the jump from the OHL to the AHL was very hard largely due to the fact that the massive strength advantage he had in junior was significantly reduced once he hit the pros.

 

Personally, I think Gadjovich's improvement is a testament to a guy who is committed to the game and who is not only physically gifted with strength but who is also actively thinking about and working on how to improve.  I'm not necessarily expecting a sudden outburst of production from Gadjovich which is fine, since I think this experience will probably help him figure out what he needs to work on to be able to make it work at the NHL level.  What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Gadjovich's skating deficiencies cause sufficient concern that he isn't really given another shot (e.g. being too focused on scoring and then getting caught badly up ice or blowing an assignment).  Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think this is unlikely to happen.  If Gadjovich can at least keep up with the play (i.e. go in hard on the forecheck, get some hits, stay in position defensively, etc.) and not let his skating be a negative factor defensively, then I think that's enough (for now).

 

Looking forward to seeing Gadjovich get some game action (along with Lind and maybe even Rathbone).  Hope we can all just enjoy watching the prospects get their shot as the season winds down.

[Gawdzukes]

15 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Yeah, I could see me doing that, and then I'd swap them back again, and again and so on.

 

It's a bit of a tough call for me, choosing to protect Motte, who is pretty good right now at what he does (being a bottom six PitA LW, and maybe he will get a lot better), and MacEwen, who is bigger, is listed as a C/RW, and potentially will be about as good as Motte, but could become a lot better than Motte.

 

                                                               regards,  G.

Motte is 10 times of the player MacEwen is. No brainer there.

[Gollumpus]

3 hours ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

I think I read in a CanucksArmy report that Gadjovich has definitely sought additional coaching and training for his skating

 

I can't remember whether it was Cory Severtson or Chris Faber who was writing about the Comets but it was definitely a report from CanucksArmy that mentioned that there are still concerns about Gadjovich's skating as far as transitioning to NHL play, notwithstanding the progress in his play at the AHL level.  Personally I suspect a lot of the improvement we're seeing from Gadjovich is a mixture of improved skating and, perhaps more so, the growth in his understanding of how he can employ his skill set better at the pro level.  Gadjovich was pretty open in interviews that the jump from the OHL to the AHL was very hard largely due to the fact that the massive strength advantage he had in junior was significantly reduced once he hit the pros.

 

Personally, I think Gadjovich's improvement is a testament to a guy who is committed to the game and who is not only physically gifted with strength but who is also actively thinking about and working on how to improve.  I'm not necessarily expecting a sudden outburst of production from Gadjovich which is fine, since I think this experience will probably help him figure out what he needs to work on to be able to make it work at the NHL level.  What I'm hoping doesn't happen is that Gadjovich's skating deficiencies cause sufficient concern that he isn't really given another shot (e.g. being too focused on scoring and then getting caught badly up ice or blowing an assignment).  Maybe I'm too optimistic but I think this is unlikely to happen.  If Gadjovich can at least keep up with the play (i.e. go in hard on the forecheck, get some hits, stay in position defensively, etc.) and not let his skating be a negative factor defensively, then I think that's enough (for now).

 

Looking forward to seeing Gadjovich get some game action (along with Lind and maybe even Rathbone).  Hope we can all just enjoy watching the prospects get their shot as the season winds down.

Yup. I suspect that will never be mistaken for McDavid when it comes to skating (or perhaps even point production), but if Gadjovich can get around the ice, keep up with the play, and not take (too many) penalties because his guy is getting past him, then I'll be content.

 

                                                                regards,  G.

[Gollumpus]

1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

Motte is 10 times of the player MacEwen is. No brainer there.

Okay, that's an opinion, and I'm not completely against it as the situation sits. 

 

How much ceiling does anyone feel Motte has vs MacEwen? Will Motte get better in 2 - 3 years from now, or will he still be the player he is now (which is a pretty good bottom-6 checking guy)? I don't see a Jannik Hansen type of trajectory as far as Motte becoming a 30+ point 3rd line player. I can see MacEwen developing into that type of player (both offense and defense). Either way, the Canucks have a couple of good players.

 

                                                                      regards,  G.

[Putgolzin]

17 hours ago, Gollumpus said:

Yeah, I could see me doing that, and then I'd swap them back again, and again and so on.

 

It's a bit of a tough call for me, choosing to protect Motte, who is pretty good right now at what he does (being a bottom six PitA LW, and maybe he will get a lot better), and MacEwen, who is bigger, is listed as a C/RW, and potentially will be about as good as Motte, but could become a lot better than Motte.

 

                                                               regards,  G.

I'd leave both of them and Pearson unprotected.

I love all three of Macewen, Motte and Pearson - I just don't expect those are the type of players Seattle is really looking for. And if they are, I think we can find other similar players in our system or in UFA/trade.

I would make sure both Lind and Gadjovich are on the protected list.

That might change by end of season though if neither Lind nor Gadjovich show they are shining bright enough to be focused on (like when we snuck Markstrom through waivers).

[Gollumpus]

2 hours ago, nzan said:

I'd leave both of them and Pearson unprotected.

I love all three of Macewen, Motte and Pearson - I just don't expect those are the type of players Seattle is really looking for. And if they are, I think we can find other similar players in our system or in UFA/trade.

I would make sure both Lind and Gadjovich are on the protected list.

That might change by end of season though if neither Lind nor Gadjovich show they are shining bright enough to be focused on (like when we snuck Markstrom through waivers).

Who would be your #7 forward to add to the list? (assuming: Boeser, Gadjovich, Horvat, Lind, Miller and Pettersson on the list)

 

                                 regards,  G.