Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign James Sheppard and Tuomo Ruutu to PTOs

[Bad Goalie]

It seems to me that you're in a bit of a hurry to get "the kids" into the NHL sooner. Perhaps because it interests you as a fan more. Or that "throwing the kids at the NHL as soon as they might be able to tread water" is in line with your conception of a "rebuild".

And while it irritates the crap out of me that they traded Shinkaruk before even taking a real look at him at the NHL level...i also don't know that he was undeniably "overripened" and forcing their hand in needing to be in the NHL at the time of the deal. I don't think Subban or Gaunce have shown that they're undeniably "ready" yet either.

These are all pretty flawed prospects with lots to work on. They're the "projects" that take time to polish up and round into impactful NHLers. I don't know why there's such a rush and so much fear of them "stagnating" or something with an extra year in the AHL (under a supposedly good developmental coach?). This is the "development" part of "draft & develop".

I think particularly true of a guy like Gaunce headed for a 4th, maybe 3rd line role one day. The ability to play in a bigger role, more minutes in the minors is beneficial in honing not only the consistency...but the offensive element of his game, the more consistent physical engagement that might make him more valuable than "spare part" at the NHL level.

At the NHL level, the team is going to ask him to play his 8 minutes, play it safe, don't screw up...maybe try to lay a hit or two. At some point, Gaunce will need to jump up and adjust to the speed of the NHL game...but in the meantime, while he still has the ability to go down and play, there's just not very much room for growing and developing on an NHL 4th line role - compared to a Top-6 AHL role. And there's where Gaunce right now would likely slot in.

"They're the "projects" that take time to polish up and round into impactful NHLers. I don't know why there's such a rush and so much fear of them "stagnating" or something with an extra year in the AHL (under a supposedly good developmental coach?). This is the "development" part of "draft & develop"."

This is the perfect rationale for a management group that believes in it. If Benning and Co. really did believe this and it was truly the path they were taking, then Forsling, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Virtanen, and McCann, would be starting this season in Utica joined by Subban, Demko, and Stecher and to be joined by Boeser and even possibly Juolevi at the end of the season. That would be a nice prospect pool developing the right way in Utica. However, they don't really believe in that method for a second.

Forsling, Shinkaruk, and McCann have already been traded for "more NHL ready" players. Bottom feeders who were a bit older and had NHL experience, but whose ceilings are not far away, if not already met. Or like McCann traded for a guy that wasn't the guy they really needed. They needed a puck moving offensive D-man and instead got another defensive D-man.

Virtanen and McCann were pushed into the the lineup. This is supported by WD who just recently stated that he was forced to play kids who were not ready for the NHL in order to get them ready for this season. That's black and white. They were going to get them into the lineup as quickly as possible.

Gaunce may lose out to one of these not going anywhere/waiver fodder "ready to play in the NHL" players and as a result become waiver ready himself without even getting the chance and both will fail to return anything for the Cancucks.

Don't expect Stecher, Beoser, or Demko to develop in the minors program either. They will follow the push 'em in program that is the actual process being used by Benning and Co. Stecher is already receiving the management hype from Jim and Trevor and hasn't even played a pro game yet. If Demko is anywhere near successful in Utica this season, Miller's contract is up and if Marky plays well, Demko and Markstrom become the goalies next year. Doesn't matter that Demko would benefit from more AHL time.

I look for Juolevi to be in Vancouver next Fall as well. Trevor previously stated they are going to be patient and develop Olli the right way. This year in Jrs. will suffice to meet that goal.

Most have written Boeser into the the lineup for the first game in 2017-18. His minor league development will be at the end of this season in Utica and the amount of play will be determined by how good Utica is and thus how far into the playoffs they go.

It doesn't matter if a guy can tread water or look good or hold his own in limited minutes. Waiver pick ups and UFA cast offs can do that. They have to make a significant impact to be ready at young ages.

"If a young player isn't going to make your team better, he's probably better playing bigger minutes somewhere else." - Ron Hextall

The only young Canuck to meet that criteria has been Ben Hutton.

 

[CanaFan]

"They're the "projects" that take time to polish up and round into impactful NHLers. I don't know why there's such a rush and so much fear of them "stagnating" or something with an extra year in the AHL (under a supposedly good developmental coach?). This is the "development" part of "draft & develop"."

This is the perfect rationale for a management group that believes in it. If Benning and Co. really did believe this and it was truly the path they were taking, then Forsling, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Virtanen, and McCann, would be starting this season in Utica joined by Subban, Demko, and Stecher and to be joined by Boeser and even possibly Juolevi at the end of the season. That would be a nice prospect pool developing the right way in Utica. However, they don't really believe in that method for a second.

Forsling, Shinkaruk, and McCann have already been traded for "more NHL ready" players. Bottom feeders who were a bit older and had NHL experience, but whose ceilings are not far away, if not already met. Or like McCann traded for a guy that wasn't the guy they really needed. They needed a puck moving offensive D-man and instead got another defensive D-man.

Virtanen and McCann were pushed into the the lineup. This is supported by WD who just recently stated that he was forced to play kids who were not ready for the NHL in order to get them ready for this season. That's black and white. They were going to get them into the lineup as quickly as possible.

Gaunce may lose out to one of these not going anywhere/waiver fodder "ready to play in the NHL" players and as a result become waiver ready himself without even getting the chance and both will fail to return anything for the Cancucks.

Don't expect Stecher, Beoser, or Demko to develop in the minors program either. They will follow the push 'em in program that is the actual process being used by Benning and Co. Stecher is already receiving the management hype from Jim and Trevor and hasn't even played a pro game yet. If Demko is anywhere near successful in Utica this season, Miller's contract is up and if Marky plays well, Demko and Markstrom become the goalies next year. Doesn't matter that Demko would benefit from more AHL time.

I look for Juolevi to be in Vancouver next Fall as well. Trevor previously stated they are going to be patient and develop Olli the right way. This year in Jrs. will suffice to meet that goal.

Most have written Boeser into the the lineup for the first game in 2017-18. His minor league development will be at the end of this season in Utica and the amount of play will be determined by how good Utica is and thus how far into the playoffs they go.

It doesn't matter if a guy can tread water or look good or hold his own in limited minutes. Waiver pick ups and UFA cast offs can do that. They have to make a significant impact to be ready at young ages.

"If a young player isn't going to make your team better, he's probably better playing bigger minutes somewhere else." - Ron Hextall

The only young Canuck to meet that criteria has been Ben Hutton.

Bolded doesn't do much for the organization though. That line of thinking has already played out in Shinkaruk and to a lesser degree McCann ("where will he play now that we have Granlund??"). I don't see how either move is a positive for the NHL club. For the players? 100% they are better off. But that's not really the goal.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Sure though that's not really the scenario BT and I are considering. He is saying Gaunce would need to be *better* than a current roster player to get the spot. I'm arguing that being "as good" is sufficient. Generally players get better with NHL experience. If a 22 y/o with 20 NHL games under his belt is playing as well as a 200 game vet then I see more upside in the rookie, based on the assumption they'd be even better with the same 200 games of experience.

It's a philosophical difference.

Your philosophical differences would both be correct, but it depends upon the team management's own philosophy.

If they believed in cooking their prospects in the AHL until they are NHL ready , BT would be correct.

If it was accepted that they are not really very good, then developing your youth pretty much en masse by dropping vets with equal or close skills for the youth and pair them with a veteran support system, you would be correct.

Unfortunately, this management group can't make up their mind from one month to the next as to exactly what their plan going forward is and then adhere to it.

 

[Bad Goalie]

Bolded doesn't do much for the organization though. That line of thinking has already played out in Shinkaruk and to a lesser degree McCann ("where will he play now that we have Granlund??"). I don't see how either move is a positive for the NHL club. For the players? 100% they are better off. But that's not really the goal.

No! No! No! They would never have traded anyone, they would be cooking in Utica. Granlund would never have been acquired unless in waivers, but when the kids are cooked the NHL fill-ins in house would be traded or waived. See my next post #203.

 

[CanaFan]

Your philosophical differences would both be correct, but it depends upon the team management's own philosophy.

If they believed in cooking their prospects in the AHL until they are NHL ready , BT would be correct.

If it was accepted that they are not really very good, then developing your youth pretty much en masse by dropping vets with equal or close skills for the youth and pair them with a veteran support system, you would be correct.

Unfortunately, this management group can't make up their mind from one month to the next as to exactly what their plan going forward is and then adhere to it.

Well I believe my philosophy applies in any context however you are right that this management flip flops more than a fish on a line. The lack of a clear strategy is as frustrating as the poor execution.

 

[CanaFan]

No! No! No! They would never have traded anyone, they would be cooking in Utica. Granlund would never have been acquired unless in waivers, but when the kids are cooked the NHL fill-ins in house would be traded or waived. See my next post #203.

I agree Shinakruk should have continued cooking last year but his stint with Calgary showed he is closer than Vancouver considered him to be. And considering we have him all of 1 game to see how he looked at the next level, it's not even surprising.

Again I am talking about a young player being roughly on par with a veteran then giving the edge to the rookie. It's simple projection. If a player with no NHL experience is on par with a player with significant experience, then invest the games in the player with the upside to get even better, not the player who is more likely to be at his ceiling already. Players don't arrive at the NHL as good as they'll ever be. They continue to grow and develop for several seasons after. Asking a rookie to be *cleary better* than the vet they are competing against is akin to the old "experience required but how can I get experience without being hired" conundrum. The younger player likely will be significantly better ... if you give them a chance to get that experience. And while the AHL certainly is a great place to develop, there is a point where the marginal learnings reach zero and the player needs to move up a level to progress again. Maybe Gaunce isn't at this point yet but I think he's getting close. He's either got to get over the hump at the NHL level or we need to move him for even a marginal asset before waivers and expansion cause us to lose him for nothing.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Sure though that's not really the scenario BT and I are considering. He is saying Gaunce would need to be *better* than a current roster player to get the spot. I'm arguing that being "as good" is sufficient. Generally players get better with NHL experience. If a 22 y/o with 20 NHL games under his belt is playing as well as a 200 game vet then I see more upside in the rookie, based on the assumption they'd be even better with the same 200 games of experience.

It's a philosophical difference.

My whole problem with that player is I think symptomatic of the entire way our drafting and player development has gone. I look over at our neighbour to the east, and think: "How many years did Gaudreau and Monahan need to 'cook in the minors'?" It's like we've completely forgotten about the fact that sometimes players are actually good enough to go directly from developmental leagues to the NHL. Here we are, splitting semantic hairs about the circumstances in which Gaunce might see NHL ice. It's hard not to be disappointed in our development program.

 

[CanaFan]

My whole problem with that player is I think symptomatic of the entire way our drafting and player development has gone. I look over at our neighbour to the east, and think: "How many years did Gaudreau and Monahan need to 'cook in the minors'?" It's like we've completely forgotten about the fact that sometimes players are actually good enough to go directly from developmental leagues to the NHL. Here we are, splitting semantic hairs about the circumstances in which Gaunce might see NHL ice. It's hard not to be disappointed in our development program.

Oh I totally agree our development system has sucked and continues to suck to this day. Shinkaruk and how he was handled is an absolute travesty. And it's funny that I find myself even advocating for Gaunce as he's not even a prospect I'm particularly high on though I do think we've set the bar low enough on what constitutes a bottom 6 NHLer that I think he's an upgrade on the garbage we have today.

I just find it funny that we are so "serious" about our bottom 6, that we are talking about Gaunce breaking in over Granlund or Dorsett like it is the 2008 Red Wings and our aspirations are so high that we have no room for anything less than an elite bottom 6 roster. Like people have bought into this notion of rookies having to be better than the expensive, underperforming vet that is already in place. For some reason the burden of exceeding expectations is on the ROOKIE while the benefit of the doubt goes to the vet who should actually be miles better. It's ass backwards. If Gaunce comes in and plays as well as Dorsett it's Dorsett who should goddamn be sent packing for being outplayed by a kid with none of his experience. Vets should have the same feeling of "needing to step up" as the kids, not feel that just being as good as a rookie is good enough.

But no, it's the status quo and the overpaid, underperforming Benning acquisitions that get all the calls in this organization.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Oh I totally agree our development system has sucked and continues to suck to this day. Shinkaruk and how he was handled is an absolute travesty. And it's funny that I find myself even advocating for Gaunce as he's not even a prospect I'm particularly high on though I do think we've set the bar low enough on what constitutes a bottom 6 NHLer that I think he's an upgrade on the garbage we have today.

I just find it funny that we are so "serious" about our bottom 6, that we are talking about Gaunce breaking in over Granlund or Dorsett like it is the 2008 Red Wings and our aspirations are so high that we have no room for anything less than an elite bottom 6 roster. Like people have bought into this notion of rookies having to be better than the expensive, underperforming vet that is already in place. For some reason the burden of exceeding expectations is on the ROOKIE while the benefit of the doubt goes to the vet who should actually be miles better. It's ass backwards. If Gaunce comes in and plays as well as Dorsett it's Dorsett who should goddamn be sent packing for being outplayed by a kid with none of his experience. Vets should have the same feeling of "needing to step up" as the kids, not feel that just being as good as a rookie is good enough.

But no, it's the status quo and the overpaid, underperforming Benning acquisitions that get all the calls in this organization.

In that case, the vet usually gets the benefit of the doubt because the vet's got a proven track record. The rookie may or may not continue to be adequate, so the preference is usually for the vet.

Of course, we get the Benning version. He decided Shinkaruk's scoring won't translate to the NHL because...reasons. So he's traded for a slightly older player who's not waiver exempt...and hold on.

I just looked it up, and we resigned Granlund to a 2 year deal in April. Did I not notice that?

*edit* Yes, apparently I did.

 

[CanaFan]

In that case, the vet usually gets the benefit of the doubt because the vet's got a proven track record. The rookie may or may not continue to be adequate, so the preference is usually for the vet.

Of course, we get the Benning version. He decided Shinkaruk's scoring won't translate to the NHL because...reasons. So he's traded for a slightly older player who's not waiver exempt...and hold on.

I just looked it up, and we resigned Granlund to a 2 year deal in April. Did I not notice that?

*edit* Yes, apparently I did.

Sure, when you're talking about the Sedins or Chris Tanev then track record means something. When it's guys like Dorsett, Prust, Granlund, etc the onus should be on these guys to be setting the bar for rookies, not the other way around. If a kid can come in and give you what Dorsett does at 1/4 the salary then the burden should be on Dorsett to justify why he's worth keeping around for the same performance at 4x the hit.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Sure, when you're talking about the Sedins or Chris Tanev then track record means something. When it's guys like Dorsett, Prust, Granlund, etc the onus should be on these guys to be setting the bar for rookies, not the other way around. If a kid can come in and give you what Dorsett does at 1/4 the salary then the burden should be on Dorsett to justify why he's worth keeping around for the same performance at 4x the hit.

Yeah, but you don't know if the rookie can keep it up or not. Maybe he falters twenty games in. You don't know if he can handle the game and the pressures of being in the NHL. The vet can handle the NHL grind.

This is how NHL coaches and GMs must approach it, because their jobs are on the line if they pick the kids and the kids crack under the pressure. It's just a risk/reward equation. Not many take the risk because they look like idiots if the risk doesn't pan out. And then they usually look like unemployed idiots.

 

[CanaFan]

Yeah, but you don't know if the rookie can keep it up or not. Maybe he falters twenty games in. You don't know if he can handle the game and the pressures of being in the NHL. The vet can handle the NHL grind.

This is how NHL coaches and GMs must approach it, because their jobs are on the line if they pick the kids and the kids crack under the pressure. It's just a risk/reward equation. Not many take the risk because they look like idiots if the risk doesn't pan out. And then they usually look like unemployed idiots.

Well we don't, that is true. Plenty of other teams seem to find roles for younger players a lot easier than we do. Perhaps they see the risk/reward differently.

 

[biturbo19]

In that case, the vet usually gets the benefit of the doubt because the vet's got a proven track record. The rookie may or may not continue to be adequate, so the preference is usually for the vet.

Of course, we get the Benning version. He decided Shinkaruk's scoring won't translate to the NHL because...reasons. So he's traded for a slightly older player who's not waiver exempt...and hold on.

I just looked it up, and we resigned Granlund to a 2 year deal in April. Did I not notice that?

*edit* Yes, apparently I did.

Yeah. Exactly.

That's where the young player has to "earn it", or in some cases, at some point...you really do just have to quietly "make room". But i don't think Gaunce is at that point just yet. We'll have a better look in camp though.


The other wrench in the works with this though, is that the guys Gaunce is competing with for a spot are guys like Granlund/Etem (23/24 respectively, compared to Gaunce 22). These are also still "young" players establishing themselves - they're essentially in the situation Gaunce will be next year. They're also still players with some of the potential "upside" and growth potential being attributed to Gaunce here. And who have really "outgrown" the AHL...both in what they've achieved down there, and in the simple mechanics of their waiver status.

I just don't see the rush to force Gaunce into that logjam just yet, when he still has potential to grow down in Utica, and the waivers ability to do so. Unless he shows himself in camp to be clearly superior to his older competition, and locked in for more than just some minimum 4th line filler minutes.

 

[skyo]

Yeah. Exactly.

That's where the young player has to "earn it", or in some cases, at some point...you really do just have to quietly "make room". But i don't think Gaunce is at that point just yet. We'll have a better look in camp though.


The other wrench in the works with this though, is that the guys Gaunce is competing with for a spot are guys like Granlund/Etem (23/24 respectively, compared to Gaunce 22). These are also still "young" players establishing themselves - they're essentially in the situation Gaunce will be next year. They're also still players with some of the potential "upside" and growth potential being attributed to Gaunce here. And who have really "outgrown" the AHL...both in what they've achieved down there, and in the simple mechanics of their waiver status.

I just don't see the rush to force Gaunce into that logjam just yet, when he still has potential to grow down in Utica, and the waivers ability to do so. Unless he shows himself in camp to be clearly superior to his older competition, and locked in for more than just some minimum 4th line filler minutes.

Training camp and one preseason game in and Gauncy is proving himself to be a NHLer sooner rather than later.

Gaunce in the middle solves one riddle

The Canucks have floppable wingers and Markus Granlund may be better served on the wing than as a fourth-line centre. The Sharks are toying with Tomas Hertl as their third-line centre for better physical matchups and the Canucks may be thinking the same. Gaunce was converted to left wing in the minors to ramp up his skating and edge and he nearly made the club last fall. Now, he’s bigger and better. On Tuesday, he was purposely played with James Sheppard and Jayson Megna to see if he could handle the load. He did.

“If you get that, then it frees us up to do other things up the lineup,†said Desjardins.

http://theprovince.com/sports/hocke...an-jose?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Get manny to work with Gaunce on faceoffs to be our #4C, now you can put Granlund in a better position to succeed on a top 9 RW spot to concentrate on setting up goals with his good passes and his ability to hover around the net to knock in goals.

 

[F A N]

Get manny to work with Gaunce on faceoffs to be our #4C, now you can put Granlund in a better position to succeed on a top 9 RW spot to concentrate on setting up goals with his good passes and his ability to hover around the net to knock in goals.

I think Gaunce will be fine on faceoffs. He was good back in juniors and that skill usually translates. Granlund, from all accounts, really isn't comfortable playing wing. I'm not sure if Granlund can play wing.

 

[PM]

I'm really glad we traded our top LW prospect for a 4th line centre who we now may try to transition to LW

 

[skyo]

I think Gaunce will be fine on faceoffs. He was good back in juniors and that skill usually translates. Granlund, from all accounts, really isn't comfortable playing wing. I'm not sure if Granlund can play wing.

Yeah its a blessing Gaunce can play there, it allows Granlund to move up as luckily centers can move to the wing with relative ease, as seen all the time in the international tournaments for team canada and the rest of the depth teams.

Center is the hardest position to play up front, so moving to wing could help the scoring type player Granlund is suited for.

He's obviously never going to be a elite checker, so might as well put him in a better position to succeed as a winger & can be a backup center when injuries hit.

 

[Pip]

I think Gaunce will be fine on faceoffs. He was good back in juniors and that skill usually translates. Granlund, from all accounts, really isn't comfortable playing wing. I'm not sure if Granlund can play wing.

I'm not sure that faceoffs usually translate, at least right away. I was under the impression that the majority of rookies and young players tend not to be great at faceoffs and it's something you usually pick up with experience.