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

[denkiteki]

How do you rebuild a team?

With young players that you've invested a 1st round pick and 4 years developing? A player who has things to learn because he's young and green but has the potential to be an excellent player once he learns those things.

Or a 28 year old PTO who is what he is, namely a fringe NHL player who knows how to get by in the NHL but isn't going to be any better in Game 82 than he is in Game 1.

Who cares if Shepperd is "better" in Game 1. Are we winning a cup with him? Does it make any difference to how how this team performs this year whether we have Shepperd eating bottom minutes or Gaunce? What will we get, 78 points instead of 77? What's the value of Gaunce getting some of the experience and learning that Shepperd already has? I don't think it's zero.


TL;DR Young players get better with time and are worth investing in even if they aren't as good in Game 1.

Drafted by a different management group so despite being a 1st round pick, probably isn't value'd as a 1st to the management group. Jensen/HS were also both 1st round pick from MG era and both already traded away. Honestly the only picks from MG's era that look "safe" are Horvat and Hutton because both are already contributing to the NHL team. If Hutton didn't make the team last season, who knows if he would've gotten dealt before the year was over.

Also this season is a unique situation... if you're somewhat high on a player but want to hide him, it might actually be a good idea to keep him in the minors because he's less likely to be taken in the expansion draft while he develops. If Gaunce has a great season, he'll need to be protected (which means someone else being exposed, tho right now there really isn't too many players that should be protected after Horvat/Sedins/LE/SB/Hansen).

Basically no reason to give Gaunce any special treatment and given the roster situation, it probably makes more sense for him to start the year in Utica and serve as injury replacement (he'll likely be our best forward who doesn't need to clear waivers... depending on rather or not JV makes the team).

 

[CanaFan]

Drafted by a different management group so despite being a 1st round pick, probably isn't value'd as a 1st to the management group. Jensen/HS were also both 1st round pick from MG era and both already traded away. Honestly the only picks from MG's era that look "safe" are Horvat and Hutton because both are already contributing to the NHL team. If Hutton didn't make the team last season, who knows if he would've gotten dealt before the year was over.

Also this season is a unique situation... if you're somewhat high on a player but want to hide him, it might actually be a good idea to keep him in the minors because he's less likely to be taken in the expansion draft while he develops. If Gaunce has a great season, he'll need to be protected (which means someone else being exposed, tho right now there really isn't too many players that should be protected after Horvat/Sedins/LE/SB/Hansen).

Basically no reason to give Gaunce any special treatment and given the roster situation, it probably makes more sense for him to start the year in Utica and serve as injury replacement (he'll likely be our best forward who doesn't need to clear waivers... depending on rather or not JV makes the team).

Eh, I don't think "hiding" a player for a full season just to lower his odds of going in the exp draft makes sense. It damages your team and development system and for what, a slightly better chance of keeping your prospect? Far better to develop him as you see best then trading him in season for an asset.

As for starting season in Utica, that may be what happens but I don't know if it's best for Gaunce. If he plays well and gets sent down again, well at certain points players can start to get frustrated with the seeming lack of opportunity and start to lose their focus. Gaunce may be getting close to that and if he has a good camp then should be rewarded and not stowed away.

 

[biturbo19]

Eh, I don't think "hiding" a player for a full season just to lower his odds of going in the exp draft makes sense. It damages your team and development system and for what, a slightly better chance of keeping your prospect? Far better to develop him as you see best then trading him in season for an asset.

As for starting season in Utica, that may be what happens but I don't know if it's best for Gaunce. If he plays well and gets sent down again, well at certain points players can start to get frustrated with the seeming lack of opportunity and start to lose their focus. Gaunce may be getting close to that and if he has a good camp then should be rewarded and not stowed away.

Gaunce is a bottom-6 prospect at this point. Who really didn't contribute much in the NHL games he's played. He's still got plenty of growing and development to do as a player. Being capable of treading water for some 4th line minutes in the NHL, and being capable of being a significant contributor are not really the same. Gaunce has looked closer to the former than the latter. Though with another summer, we'll see what happens when he comes into camp.

If he gets "frustrated" and "gives up" or "loses focus" because he's sent down (while still waiver exempt) to continue growing in a larger role with more offensive opportunity in the AHL and as the realistic "1st callup option" all but guaranteed to see significant NHL action as injuries inevitably pilep up...i think that says something rather unpleasant about him tbh. Though i don't get the impression Gaunce is that type of prospect at all, and wouldn't really fret over the idea so much.



Unless we do end up dealing Hansen for picks/expansion exempt prospects though, and/or someone like Granlund/Etem/Rodin play well enough to make themselves a more enticing option...Gaunce is probably the top candidate for us to lose in the expansion draft whether he plays the entire year in Utica or Vancouver. So i wouldn't get too dearly attached, personally.

 

[CanaFan]

Gaunce is a bottom-6 prospect at this point. Who really didn't contribute much in the NHL games he's played. He's still got plenty of growing and development to do as a player. Being capable of treading water for some 4th line minutes in the NHL, and being capable of being a significant contributor are not really the same. Gaunce has looked closer to the former than the latter. Though with another summer, we'll see what happens when he comes into camp.

If he gets "frustrated" and "gives up" or "loses focus" because he's sent down (while still waiver exempt) to continue growing in a larger role with more offensive opportunity in the AHL and as the realistic "1st callup option" all but guaranteed to see significant NHL action as injuries inevitably pilep up...i think that says something rather unpleasant about him tbh. Though i don't get the impression Gaunce is that type of prospect at all, and wouldn't really fret over the idea so much.



Unless we do end up dealing Hansen for picks/expansion exempt prospects though, and/or someone like Granlund/Etem/Rodin play well enough to make themselves a more enticing option...Gaunce is probably the top candidate for us to lose in the expansion draft whether he plays the entire year in Utica or Vancouver. So i wouldn't get too dearly attached, personally.

I don't know that it says much about Gaunce. If he plays well (as I prefaced my comment) and still gets sent down "just cause", well I think any competitive hockey player would be pretty steamed about that. It's certainly not the merit-based system I think we should be striving for at the least.

 

[biturbo19]

I don't know that it says much about Gaunce. If he plays well (as I prefaced my comment) and still gets sent down "just cause", well I think any competitive hockey player would be pretty steamed about that. It's certainly not the merit-based system I think we should be striving for at the least.

Sure. If Gaunce plays well enough to clearly force their hand. But imo, that would be a noteworthy step from where he left off last season. Hardly a guarantee.

And even then, being sent down isn't some death sentence. Unless things have significantly changed since last season, Gaunce can still continue to build consistency and offensive confidence down in Utica. Going down to the AHL to play a ton is still probably a better situation than pissing his remaining waiver exemption into the wind bouncing in and out of the lineup in the NHL.

A player pouting/slacking off/losing focus/whatever you want to call it, because they're sent down absolutely does say something about that player. The NHL is a tough league, and it's a business. Adversity is part of the deal - handling it in a constructive way. Especially when it's pretty clear that Gaunce will get NHL games in at some point this season - one way or another.

 

[Regnes]

I don't know why Ruutu is even trying at this point. I know stats aren't everything. But 1 point in 33 games is pretty bad for a forward. Does he really need the money that badly?

 

[CanaFan]

Sure. If Gaunce plays well enough to clearly force their hand. But imo, that would be a noteworthy step from where he left off last season. Hardly a guarantee.

And even then, being sent down isn't some death sentence. Unless things have significantly changed since last season, Gaunce can still continue to build consistency and offensive confidence down in Utica. Going down to the AHL to play a ton is still probably a better situation than pissing his remaining waiver exemption into the wind bouncing in and out of the lineup in the NHL.

A player pouting/slacking off/losing focus/whatever you want to call it, because they're sent down absolutely does say something about that player. The NHL is a tough league, and it's a business. Adversity is part of the deal - handling it in a constructive way. Especially when it's pretty clear that Gaunce will get NHL games in at some point this season - one way or another.

I think you're applying blanket sentiments rather than looking at Gaunce's specific situation. He's 22, spent 2 years in the AHL already, progressed in every season, and has seen an organization that spouts things like "draft and develop" and "youth movement" but then brings in outside talent to fill its bottom 6 roster - the exact part of the roster that Gaunce is considered to be ideal for. At a certain point I think players can feel there is no future for them in an organization and start to regress. Maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's just human nature but not every player is the "**** you I'll show you were wrong about me" personality. I think Gaunce has paid his dues and assuming he plays well enough then I'd much rather see him be rewarded for his patience and development than stash him in the minors again for various reasons (waiver wire management, expansion strategy, etc). I felt the same way about Shinkaruk not getting opportunities either and I see Subban in the same boat. This regime blows at rewarding good play but defaults to nepotism and what makes them look good. I'm tired of it and I wouldn't look unkindly on any player who felt the same way.

 

[biturbo19]

I think you're applying blanket sentiments rather than looking at Gaunce's specific situation. He's 22, spent 2 years in the AHL already, progressed in every season, and has seen an organization that spouts things like "draft and develop" and "youth movement" but then brings in outside talent to fill its bottom 6 roster - the exact part of the roster that Gaunce is considered to be ideal for. At a certain point I think players can feel there is no future for them in an organization and start to regress. Maybe it's a character flaw or maybe it's just human nature but not every player is the "**** you I'll show you were wrong about me" personality. I think Gaunce has paid his dues and assuming he plays well enough then I'd much rather see him be rewarded for his patience and development than stash him in the minors again for various reasons (waiver wire management, expansion strategy, etc). I felt the same way about Shinkaruk not getting opportunities either and I see Subban in the same boat. This regime blows at rewarding good play but defaults to nepotism and what makes them look good. I'm tired of it and I wouldn't look unkindly on any player who felt the same way.

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.

 

[CanaFan]

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.

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html


I don't know why I'm in such a "rush". I must be crazy to think a 22 year old drafted 4 years ago might be past the "slow bake for another year" phase. Again I'm saying if he plays well then let him start the year here. You are saying "but what's the rush? He can work on even MORE things in the AHL." Are you assuming he can't learn those things at the NHL level too? 8 minutes a night in a pro environment vs 16 minutes a night in the same environment he's already been in for the last 2 years? Not to mention the confidence boost that would come from being "officially" part of the team - like Horvat got two years ago and Hutton, Virtanen, and McCann last year - rather than being just an injury fill in who'll be booted back down when the roster spot disappears.

I don't know why we can't find some common ground on this one BT. I like a lot of your posts but this one (and the general rebuild theme) is one area we are just not on the same page.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

A couple decent depth shots for vets. Let's see how they stack up. I think a young players progression through the year is important and something to consider when making a decision on these try outs.

 

[biturbo19]

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/draft/nhl2012e.html


I don't know why I'm in such a "rush". I must be crazy to think a 22 year old drafted 4 years ago might be past the "slow bake for another year" phase. Again I'm saying if he plays well then let him start the year here. You are saying "but what's the rush? He can work on even MORE things in the AHL." Are you assuming he can't learn those things at the NHL level too? 8 minutes a night in a pro environment vs 16 minutes a night in the same environment he's already been in for the last 2 years? Not to mention the confidence boost that would come from being "officially" part of the team - like Horvat got two years ago and Hutton, Virtanen, and McCann last year - rather than being just an injury fill in who'll be booted back down when the roster spot disappears.

I don't know why we can't find some common ground on this one BT. I like a lot of your posts but this one (and the general rebuild theme) is one area we are just not on the same page.

For me, a big part of it is what you said earlier...

He's 22, spent 2 years in the AHL already, progressed in every season, and has seen an organization that spouts things like "draft and develop"

What makes you so certain that if he does go back to the AHL for parts of this season, he will hit a wall so to speak, or stop developing? Like you said...he's progressed in every season there so far...What makes the end of training camp this year the breaking point? Why will he suddenly not continue to progress every year he's been there?

I ask that half rhetorically, but also with some genuine curiousity because i honestly don't follow the AHL like i do the NHL and CHL. Is there something in particular about Gaunce's play down there that makes you think he's hit the limit of things to learn down there? Because the player i saw in the NHL last year looked like one with plenty of things left to work on - and a waiver situation that should permit that.


The NHL Gaunce i saw last year simply wasn't the difference between the Canucks winning and losing games. He was just a completely replaceable passenger at the very bottom of the roster. I'd argue he was less effective than guys like Etem or even Granlund at this point. He'd just end up muddled in that quagmire of 4th line filler clawing for a foothold - when he could still be playing top minutes in the A, and still come up and play his NHL 4th line minutes (or maybe even more) as the injuries happen.

As concerns rebuilding, i want to see the best possible Gaunce at the end of his waiver exemption...and i just don't see how being the 12th/13th forward on the Canucks is the best route to that unless he's made substantial strides over the summer. The future is what matters in rebuilding, and the future is still a long ways away. Wouldn't it be better to have a Gaunce who could be a PPG player down in the AHL who can be called up whenever needed? And next year, maybe ready to step into more meaningful minutes in the NHL - as opposed to a guy just mucking his way through a pinball 4th line to press box season in the NHL when waivers don't necessitate that?

 

[CanaFan]

For me, a big part of it is what you said earlier...



What makes you so certain that if he does go back to the AHL for parts of this season, he will hit a wall so to speak, or stop developing? Like you said...he's progressed in every season there so far...What makes the end of training camp this year the breaking point? Why will he suddenly not continue to progress every year he's been there?

I ask that half rhetorically, but also with some genuine curiousity because i honestly don't follow the AHL like i do the NHL and CHL. Is there something in particular about Gaunce's play down there that makes you think he's hit the limit of things to learn down there? Because the player i saw in the NHL last year looked like one with plenty of things left to work on - and a waiver situation that should permit that.


The NHL Gaunce i saw last year simply wasn't the difference between the Canucks winning and losing games. He was just a completely replaceable passenger at the very bottom of the roster. I'd argue he was less effective than guys like Etem or even Granlund at this point. He'd just end up muddled in that quagmire of 4th line filler clawing for a foothold - when he could still be playing top minutes in the A, and still come up and play his NHL 4th line minutes (or maybe even more) as the injuries happen.

As concerns rebuilding, i want to see the best possible Gaunce at the end of his waiver exemption...and i just don't see how being the 12th/13th forward on the Canucks is the best route to that unless he's made substantial strides over the summer. The future is what matters in rebuilding, and the future is still a long ways away. Wouldn't it be better to have a Gaunce who could be a PPG player down in the AHL who can be called up whenever needed? And next year, maybe ready to step into more meaningful minutes in the NHL - as opposed to a guy just mucking his way through a pinball 4th line to press box season in the NHL when waivers don't necessitate that?

bolded puzzles me. What bottom 6 player IS the difference between winning and losing games? If he was the difference - as a player making his NHL debut - then would we be having a conversation about him making the team or not?

As for how much he has left to learn at the AHL level that is an unanswerable question. What specifically do you think he has to "learn" at that level? He produced at a 68 point pace. Could he improve that? Sure but is that critical to his future as a bottom 6 player? Does he need to learn the defensive game more? He seemed fairly responsible in his 20 games with the Canucks so I don't see that as being a big "must learn more" at the A level.

Mainly the things I'd like to see him "learn" are simply playing at a higher pace and tempo than he does today. And since he has been fairly successful playing his style in Utica I think moving up a level (NHL) would likely push him to increase his pace and intensity more than returning to that "comfortable" level.

Can he learn more at the AHL? Ya probably. He could probably play there until he is 30 and always "learn more". But is it the *best* place for him to learn? I'm not sure it is. After two seasons - the last one a fairly successful one - I think he could be better served being pushed at a higher level and learning to play an effective NHL game, not just an effective AHL game.

 

[biturbo19]

bolded puzzles me. What bottom 6 player IS the difference between winning and losing games? If he was the difference - as a player making his NHL debut - then would we be having a conversation about him making the team or not?

As for how much he has left to learn at the AHL level that is an unanswerable question. What specifically do you think he has to "learn" at that level? He produced at a 68 point pace. Could he improve that? Sure but is that critical to his future as a bottom 6 player? Does he need to learn the defensive game more? He seemed fairly responsible in his 20 games with the Canucks so I don't see that as being a big "must learn more" at the A level.

Mainly the things I'd like to see him "learn" are simply playing at a higher pace and tempo than he does today. And since he has been fairly successful playing his style in Utica I think moving up a level (NHL) would likely push him to increase his pace and intensity more than returning to that "comfortable" level.

Can he learn more at the AHL? Ya probably. He could probably play there until he is 30 and always "learn more". But is it the *best* place for him to learn? I'm not sure it is. After two seasons - the last one a fairly successful one - I think he could be better served being pushed at a higher level and learning to play an effective NHL game, not just an effective AHL game.

Bottom-6 players can absolutely have a notable impact on a game. That's something i didn't see from Gaunce in his time last year.

But i should've more accurately stated...is the difference from Etem/Granlund/Dorsett types to Gaunce actually the difference in the Canucks winning/losing anything in current form? To me, the difference is completely negligible at best...if not in favour of the older guys. Hopefully not forever...but right now, they all offered flashes of things that can impact a game from the bottom-6.

Etem- hustle, goal-scoring upside.
Granlund- playmaking upside.
Dorsett- obviously been a quality albeit now overpaid 4th liner for a number of years. Even a Grenier/Zalewski- these are guys who offer similar contributions to Gaunce with a lot less potential "upside" to lose by sitting them in the press box every night because they're old fringe guys as this point.


I'm certainly not saying that Gaunce can't probably tread water at the NHL level. But i think the things you identified are issues that Gaunce can still continue to work through at the AHL level. There's nothing stopping a determined player from upping the consistency of his play, intensity and physical engagement, all around tempo of his game down in the AHL. That's where that minor league PPG rate for a player with his ability is going to come from.

Frankly, i thought over Gaunce's time in the NHL last season, his intensity and tempo dropping were noticeable and detrimental. Not increasing, decreasing. If he can't sustain that through a whole AHL season, or a short NHL stint, why is he going to suddenly do it in the NHL playing on zero leash when he didn't seem to in a decent sample last year?

Logically:
-Improved every year in the AHL so far.
vs...
-Did not improve in 20 NHL games - may have even regressed slightly.


I'm not saying leave him in the AHL to rot forever. He's going to be in the NHL next year...one way or another. And he's going to play NHL games this year, it's pretty much guaranteed.

I'm just saying i think the Gaunce i saw last year would be better served in the long-run by continuing to learn in big minutes in the minors next year, than bouncing in and out of a lineup in small "don't screw up" minutes the NHL. Let him show that he's got the potential to be more than just a guy who can fill 8 limited-event minutes. A guy like Sheppard can do that, and he's here on a PTO.

 

[CanaFan]

Bottom-6 players can absolutely have a notable impact on a game. That's something i didn't see from Gaunce in his time last year.

But i should've more accurately stated...is the difference from Etem/Granlund/Dorsett types to Gaunce actually the difference in the Canucks winning/losing anything in current form? To me, the difference is completely negligible at best...if not in favour of the older guys. Hopefully not forever...but right now, they all offered flashes of things that can impact a game from the bottom-6.

Etem- hustle, goal-scoring upside.
Granlund- playmaking upside.
Dorsett- obviously been a quality albeit now overpaid 4th liner for a number of years. Even a Grenier/Zalewski- these are guys who offer similar contributions to Gaunce with a lot less potential "upside" to lose by sitting them in the press box every night because they're old fringe guys as this point.


I'm certainly not saying that Gaunce can't probably tread water at the NHL level. But i think the things you identified are issues that Gaunce can still continue to work through at the AHL level. There's nothing stopping a determined player from upping the consistency of his play, intensity and physical engagement, all around tempo of his game down in the AHL. That's where that minor league PPG rate for a player with his ability is going to come from.

Frankly, i thought over Gaunce's time in the NHL last season, his intensity and tempo dropping were noticeable and detrimental. Not increasing, decreasing. If he can't sustain that through a whole AHL season, or a short NHL stint, why is he going to suddenly do it in the NHL playing on zero leash when he didn't seem to in a decent sample last year?

Logically:
-Improved every year in the AHL so far.
vs...
-Did not improve in 20 NHL games - may have even regressed slightly.


I'm not saying leave him in the AHL to rot forever. He's going to be in the NHL next year...one way or another. And he's going to play NHL games this year, it's pretty much guaranteed.

I'm just saying i think the Gaunce i saw last year would be better served in the long-run by continuing to learn in big minutes in the minors next year, than bouncing in and out of a lineup in small "don't screw up" minutes the NHL. Let him show that he's got the potential to be more than just a guy who can fill 8 limited-event minutes. A guy like Sheppard can do that, and he's here on a PTO.

See for someone like Virtanen who I think has top 6 upside I would absolutely agree with this. But for Gaunce who I see as a 3C/LW at best I don't think it is as important for him to "get big minutes and dominate". That isn't his game and tbh probably never will be. I don't see him learning to be "the guy" as important for a guy who will never be "the guy". What he needs to learn - IMO - is to play at an NHL tempo, not an AHL tempo. He's had two years to learn the AHL tempo and at this point a 3rd year is mostly diminishing returns. Some value? Probably. But not as much as his first year or last year and probably not as much value as what he could be soaking up on an NHL bench, even playing 8 minutes a night (and hopefully more as he acclimatizes).

I also see a difference in being "on the team" and being called up as an injury replacement. One allows the feeling of maybe being able to relax your game a bit, of not gripping the stick so much for fear of being sent back down tomorrow morning. Sometimes always being on the bubble can make a player play worse than when they feel they can play their game and try to make a difference rather than just "not screw up". For Gaunce I think he's got the ultra-safe game down pretty pat. He needs to show if he can do more than "not screw up" at the NHL level, not the AHL level. But first he needs a chance to show it. And being a mid-season call up isn't likely to remove the urgency of "just don't screw up" to allow us to see if there is more there. If he even gets a call up of course. Shinkaruk was our best scorer in the A last year and what'd he get? A single game?

The added bonus is then we'll have a much clearer idea of what we have in Gaunce come the Feb TDL and whether we should move him (if he's not progressing) or someone like Granlund (if he is progressing) and get an actual asset back rather than just lose him for nothing (or protect him and lose someone else).

He can't stay a mystery box forever.

 

[biturbo19]

See for someone like Virtanen who I think has top 6 upside I would absolutely agree with this. But for Gaunce who I see as a 3C/LW at best I don't think it is as important for him to "get big minutes and dominate". That isn't his game and tbh probably never will be. I don't see him learning to be "the guy" as important for a guy who will never be "the guy". What he needs to learn - IMO - is to play at an NHL tempo, not an AHL tempo. He's had two years to learn the AHL tempo and at this point a 3rd year is mostly diminishing returns. Some value? Probably. But not as much as his first year or last year and probably not as much value as what he could be soaking up on an NHL bench, even playing 8 minutes a night (and hopefully more as he acclimatizes).

I also see a difference in being "on the team" and being called up as an injury replacement. One allows the feeling of maybe being able to relax your game a bit, of not gripping the stick so much for fear of being sent back down tomorrow morning. Sometimes always being on the bubble can make a player play worse than when they feel they can play their game and try to make a difference rather than just "not screw up". For Gaunce I think he's got the ultra-safe game down pretty pat. He needs to show if he can do more than "not screw up" at the NHL level, not the AHL level. But first he needs a chance to show it. And being a mid-season call up isn't likely to remove the urgency of "just don't screw up" to allow us to see if there is more there. If he even gets a call up of course. Shinkaruk was our best scorer in the A last year and what'd he get? A single game?

The added bonus is then we'll have a much clearer idea of what we have in Gaunce come the Feb TDL and whether we should move him (if he's not progressing) or someone like Granlund (if he is progressing) and get an actual asset back rather than just lose him for nothing (or protect him and lose someone else).

He can't stay a mystery box forever.

He's never going to have that same "sense of safety" that he's permanently made the team as guys who would otherwise be bound for Jrs (like McCann, Virtanen, Bo before them). Gaunce this year is always going to have the credible threat of demotion to the AHL hanging over his head anyway.

What he needs to learn - IMO - is to play at an NHL tempo, not an AHL tempo. He's had two years to learn the AHL tempo and at this point a 3rd year is mostly diminishing returns.

That's where it really comes down to..."diminishing returns", or "learning left to do?" If he's consistently playing at the sort of tempo and with the level of physical engagement he'll need to make a real impact in the NHL, while toiling away in the AHL...he will stand out down there and it will be evident. At which point...you're looking for ways to get him up to play and see what he can do. Whether that's from injuries, or guys like Etem/Granlund/Rodin dropping the ball or any number of different situations you can work into NHL games for Gaunce. But it's a game in game out over a significant stretch of time sort of issue to work out there...not a "play a few games at a good pace" thing and then drop off.

 

[Nick Lang]

I don't know why Ruutu is even trying at this point. I know stats aren't everything. But 1 point in 33 games is pretty bad for a forward. Does he really need the money that badly?

I think the Canucks have had interest him several times over his career and came came close to signing him several times.

 

[Balls Mahoney]

Ruutu was a great power forward on some pretty awful teams for a lot of years. I've lost touch with his game over the last two or three years but I'm interested to see what he can bring.

Plus I'm a huge fan of the Ruutu family.

 

[Hit the post]

I don't know why Ruutu is even trying at this point. I know stats aren't everything. But 1 point in 33 games is pretty bad for a forward. Does he really need the money that badly?

Some players are in it for more than just the money - don't know about Ruutu's situation.

 

[CanaFan]

He's never going to have that same "sense of safety" that he's permanently made the team as guys who would otherwise be bound for Jrs (like McCann, Virtanen, Bo before them). Gaunce this year is always going to have the credible threat of demotion to the AHL hanging over his head anyway.



That's where it really comes down to..."diminishing returns", or "learning left to do?" If he's consistently playing at the sort of tempo and with the level of physical engagement he'll need to make a real impact in the NHL, while toiling away in the AHL...he will stand out down there and it will be evident. At which point...you're looking for ways to get him up to play and see what he can do. Whether that's from injuries, or guys like Etem/Granlund/Rodin dropping the ball or any number of different situations you can work into NHL games for Gaunce. But it's a game in game out over a significant stretch of time sort of issue to work out there...not a "play a few games at a good pace" thing and then drop off.

But since all of this is predicated on him having a strong camp in the first place ...

A) Are you assuming he can't keep up the pace of a strong start? In other words are you assuming he would drop off shortly after? If so, why are you making this assumption?

B) Are you relegating Gaunce because of some sort of "independent timeline" that you are applying here regardless of the performance that he shows?

C) Do you believe Gaunce would play better for longer by NOT making the team but being brought up only in spot situations? How long would you continue this? What happens when the roster player returns from injury? Does he he go back down again regardless of his play? If yes, is that smart management? If no, why the inconsistency with the decision out of camp?

D) What if there are no significant injuries to a suitable roster spot for Gaunce? Have you wasted another asset by not having given him a spot earlier in the year to find out what kind of asset we have in Gaunce?

E) Do you believe playing 8 minutes a night in the NHL will stunt Gaunce's development? Do you have examples (even anecdotal) of eventual bottom 6 players who were hurt by playing a bottom 6 role at 22 years of age and after 2 AHL seasons under their belt?


All sorts of questions about this "send him down no matter what" approach. I don't see the sense in it either from a development POV or from an asset management one.

Now if Gaunce plays like garbage then obviously that's the right course of action. What I can't understand is this notion that it "doesn't hurt" to send him down in the other situation. I think it easily could hurt.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

Not sure what Gaunce has done to warrant people penning him into the lineup with a permanent marker. I think he's likely a 13th forward this year. Best to have him in Utica imo.

 

[biturbo19]

But since all of this is predicated on him having a strong camp in the first place ...

A) Are you assuming he can't keep up the pace of a strong start? In other words are you assuming he would drop off shortly after? If so, why are you making this assumption?

B) Are you relegating Gaunce because of some sort of "independent timeline" that you are applying here regardless of the performance that he shows?

C) Do you believe Gaunce would play better for longer by NOT making the team but being brought up only in spot situations? How long would you continue this? What happens when the roster player returns from injury? Does he he go back down again regardless of his play? If yes, is that smart management? If no, why the inconsistency with the decision out of camp?

D) What if there are no significant injuries to a suitable roster spot for Gaunce? Have you wasted another asset by not having given him a spot earlier in the year to find out what kind of asset we have in Gaunce?

E) Do you believe playing 8 minutes a night in the NHL will stunt Gaunce's development? Do you have examples (even anecdotal) of eventual bottom 6 players who were hurt by playing a bottom 6 role at 22 years of age and after 2 AHL seasons under their belt?


All sorts of questions about this "send him down no matter what" approach. I don't see the sense in it either from a development POV or from an asset management one.

Now if Gaunce plays like garbage then obviously that's the right course of action. What I can't understand is this notion that it "doesn't hurt" to send him down in the other situation. I think it easily could hurt.

It's not a "send him down no matter what" approach. It's a..."send him down if he still looks pretty much like he did last year".

If he's taken big strides this summer and comes into camp clearly among our 12 most effective forwards (not just equal to, or "in the mix with" guys like Granlund/Etem/Rodin), and you're confident that his intensity isn't going to drop off like it has in the last experience...that's where you find a way to make space for him.

But i don't give the waiver exempt and younger player the edge if he's just equal to the older waiver eligible player. I wouldn't defer to the younger player just because they're younger. I'd defer to the option among two equals that provides the best balance of roster flexibility and development opportunity for the younger player. That's part of the business.

I think part of this disagreement perhaps, seems to be stemming from you looking at it more from the expectation that Gaunce is going to come in and legitimately earn a roster spot by a noticeable margin. Whereas based on what i've seen, i think i'm a lot more skeptical that he's going to be a clearly more effective player than others who aren't waiver exempt at this point. And i probably have less trust that a higher intensity level in camp is going to be sustained through the season to the point that i'd be waiving and potentially losing a player who could be more effective again by the 20 game mark. His intensity level and pace of play has waned before with complacency or whatever it is.

At which point, the AHL still seems a plenty viable place for Gaunce to continue to develop to me. Some players just take time. And it'd hardly be permanent. Plenty of season for guys like Granlund/Etem/Rodin to prove they're garbage...while Gaunce proves he can sustain the sort of play i'd want to see. Or trades to happen, or for the injuries to pile up as they always do and create a more permanent NHL roster spot for a Gaunce that's earned it with consistency through a good chunk of the early season.

 

[CanaFan]

It's not a "send him down no matter what" approach. It's a..."send him down if he still looks pretty much like he did last year".

If he's taken big strides this summer and comes into camp clearly among our 12 most effective forwards (not just equal to, or "in the mix with" guys like Granlund/Etem/Rodin), and you're confident that his intensity isn't going to drop off like it has in the last experience...that's where you find a way to make space for him.

But i don't give the waiver exempt and younger player the edge if he's just equal to the older waiver eligible player. I wouldn't defer to the younger player just because they're younger. I'd defer to the option among two equals that provides the best balance of roster flexibility and development opportunity for the younger player. That's part of the business.

I think part of this disagreement perhaps, seems to be stemming from you looking at it more from the expectation that Gaunce is going to come in and legitimately earn a roster spot by a noticeable margin. Whereas based on what i've seen, i think i'm a lot more skeptical that he's going to be a clearly more effective player than others who aren't waiver exempt at this point. And i probably have less trust that a higher intensity level in camp is going to be sustained through the season to the point that i'd be waiving and potentially losing a player who could be more effective again by the 20 game mark. His intensity level and pace of play has waned before with complacency or whatever it is.

At which point, the AHL still seems a plenty viable place for Gaunce to continue to develop to me. Some players just take time. And it'd hardly be permanent. Plenty of season for guys like Granlund/Etem/Rodin to prove they're garbage...while Gaunce proves he can sustain the sort of play i'd want to see. Or trades to happen, or for the injuries to pile up as they always do and create a more permanent NHL roster spot for a Gaunce that's earned it with consistency through a good chunk of the early season.

Bolded is the crux of our disagreement. In my eyes you give the "tie" to the younger player, not the older. That's how you facilitate a draft and develop strategy. Expecting young players to come in and not only be as good but BETTER than a vet is a high bar to set and more often than not will result in a team rarely graduating it's prospects. There will always be a Dorsett or a Granlund who looks "competent" and because of their greater experience will appeal more to a safety-first coach like WD. If you listen to him he didn't want Horvat in 2014 or either of McCann or Virtanen in 2015. And he'll probably prefer Granlund or Sheppard to Gaunce too. Older, more experience, safer.

But I shouldn't be surprised we disagree given how vast our differences on the topic of rebuilding. You favour a "what's the rush, we're gonna be bad in 2-3 years anyway" while I favour a "we aren't winning the cup anytime soon so let's begin the rebuild". Since we don't see eye to eye on that I'm not surprised we don't agree on developing and graduating prospects either.

All I would suggest is take a look at the games played for the rest of Gaunce's draft class. We aren't just taking a slow approach with him, we are basically overcooking him. And for what? For the marginal improvement of James Sheppard? Markus Granlund? It's puzzling to me.

 

[Hit the post]

For the marginal improvement of James Sheppard? Markus Granlund? It's puzzling to me.

At least Sheppard cost us zero assets to "acquire".

It's the acquistion of Granlund that has absolutely ZERO justification (at least for what his acquisition cost was).

 

[ProstheticConscience]

re: Gaunce.

Look at another player from that draft year: Ben Hutton. Why was he on the team last season? Were they feeding him minutes for his development? No. He was on the team because he was the best option available. At some point, Gaunce has to earn his place on the team. It's been 4 years since his draft. If he can't beat out washed-up vets on PTOs or marginal talent like Granlund, then at some point you just have to accept he's just not that good a player.

 

[CanaFan]

re: Gaunce.

Look at another player from that draft year: Ben Hutton. Why was he on the team last season? Were they feeding him minutes for his development? No. He was on the team because he was the best option available. At some point, Gaunce has to earn his place on the team. It's been 4 years since his draft. If he can't beat out washed-up vets on PTOs or marginal talent like Granlund, then at some point you just have to accept he's just not that good a player.

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.