Post-Game Talk: Vancouver Canucks Young Stars Classic Penticton BC Sept 5-9

[Win One Before I Die]

Excited for this team: Sedin Sedin Kesler
Shinkaruk Horvat i dont care who else

 

[MS]

Andersson played to start the year in the AHL last season against decent competition and looked pretty good. Personally I think Tanev has more than bottom pairing potential and his mobility is the best on our blueline. Corrado to me also projects to be more than a bottom pairiing defencemen that should be able to provide some offence at the next level.

Andersson on the other hand looks to have bottom pairing potential. He isn't as good with the puck as Corrado or Tanev, and doesn't skate as well. However he has good positioning and skates well for his size. He isn't flashy but if he can be leaned on to be a shutdown guy in the AHL and gain experience I see him having bottom pairing NHL potential.

Andersson to me just looks extremely fringe-y.

It wouldn't shock me if he hung around the NHL a bit as a #6-7 defender, but even that I think isn't very likely. I don't see what he does well enough in any area to be a decent NHL player.

I don't mean to say that Andersson is a carbon copy of Tanev nor is he as promising as Tanev was/is; just that I see his game as comparable to Tanev's on the most optimistic end of his potential.

Corrado is someone who I feel plays quite a different game than Tanev. They share excellent anticipation and defensive awareness, but their similarities beyond that aren't many, IMO.

I get what you're saying (and I agree that Tanev and Corrado are different - but they get lumped together constantly by fans) but think the gap between Tanev and Andersson is *far* greater than you're making out.

To me, Andersson and Tommernes were disappointing.

Maybe I was expecting too much. However, felt that Andersson showed enough in Chicago last year to have some belief that Andersson could dominate in this tournament. And I feel that you have to dominate here if you have expectations of moving to the next level. Moreover, Andersson has to toughen up around his crease. You can't just let people run or whack away at your goalie.

Still I would not say Andersson was bad. I never saw him get beat one on one (which was a problem in the past) and his spacing and coverage were good. Furthermore, the wingers often screwed up decent outlet passes creating major difficulties for all the defensemen in the tournament. Ultimately Andersson will be a complementary player who should work well with other skilled players. That is probably the best you can expect. I would say that he did not show he was moving it up to the next level in this tournament and confirmed the thought that he is not going to be a "take charge" type of player.

Tommernes got better as the tournament moved along and was apparently good today. But he was not as dynamic as you might have expected. Like Andersson there is skill here but also open questions about his grit in handling people around his net. I think it was pretty obvious these would always be the questions about this player and I don't think that Tommernes play in this tournament did much to dispel those doubts.

Player that I believe is being under-rated here and elsewhere is Eriksson. I thought he was every bit as good as Lack was a couple of years ago (when everyone was raving about Lack). Every game I saw Eriksson in he was good (and seems like he was again excellent today). It was almost like people (especially some of the local commentators) went into the tournament with a negative attitude toward Eriksson and found every excuse to criticize him. In reality, there were often times when he was a one man show facing shots from all over. Indeed, if he hadn't been good, the Canucks could have been blown out in some games. Also, some of the goals he did let in (especially in the Calgary game) were nothing like his fault or were, in some cases, fluky.

Eriksson still has a lot to prove but based on this tournament I think you can have some hope.

Would also say that some seem to think other people are trying to be too conclusive. Like their criticism was tantamount to declaring someone a bust. I believe instead that, in the main, people are only giving what you might call progress reports (and that is basically what this and other such sites are about). If you are saying someone is looking more like a prospect or less like a prospect you are not being definitive. I do believe that there are cases were the player is obviously too fundamentally poor or weak to say you think he has no chance (say with people like Hall and Franson) but with significant prospects, such as Gaunce, you are only giving your impression at this time.

Agreed on Tommernes and Andersson.

On Eriksson ... not really sure what to think. On one hand he seemed to battle hard, cover the bottom of the net very well, and be in decent position for 2nd/3rd chances. On the other hand, he plays super-deep in his net and let in some *ugly* goals as a result, his rebound control was a bit iffy, and his puckhandling was poor. I still need more viewings of him to start forming any sort of defined opinion.

Never said he'd be a NHLer just that there is no point reading much into what he did or didn't do in this tournament. Yes he's 23 and he may indeed suck. He's also a guy that has played at a much higher level of competition quite successfully the past handful of years compared to this tournament. He a guy who knows he's going to be at main camp and knows that is where he needs to impress. This tournament for a guy like him is essentially meaningless beyond getting accustomed to the rink dimensions. Don't be shocked that a guy like Tommernes is the one amongst the various young blueliners that is able to take a major step forward when the real camp begins.

and that goes for any of the players that already have NHL contracts. This tournament is only an extra week to warm up and get into shape before the real work begins.

I don't buy the 'oh, he was just coasting' argument. He's in his first taste of North American hockey, with his first chance to impress his new employers. If he's just coasting waiting for the main camp, that doesn't say a lot for his character.

And that isn't what I saw, in any case. A 23 y/o with years of SEL experience should look *unreal* without even trying if he's up against a bunch of teenagers, if he's any sort of prospect. He looked OK, but he was hardly in a different class. And showed zero NHL-translatable skills.

Guimond, along with Cassels, Subban, Corrado, Shinkaruk, Horvat, Gaunce and Jensen, should all be included in the trek to the Rupe. Believe it or not, I think Mallet and a few others should get the call too, but I don't see he or guys like Friesen making too big an impact this year.

Who else would/should/could join the big Canucks team?

Everyone who is a Canuck draft pick will be going to the main camp, plus a few others. The only guys cut at this point will be the majority of the invites, who were basically just there to make up numbers in the first place.

This.

Particularly in reference to Anderson imo. From everything i've seen, he's beyond just being the 'safe, steady, reliable' defensive defenceman territory...and basically into the territory of, 'doesn't make plays' with the puck. He just simply doesn't do...anything. It was evident in the AHL, but even more so in a tournament like this where the veteran guys have some room to freelance a bit and actually make tape to tape passes, generate offense, make plays. Andersson just...doesn't.

Even those 'safe' defensive defencemen like Tanev who hasn't a hint of offensive swagger at the NHL (or really even AHL) level, looked offensively gifted in a tournament like this, just on his anticipation and the speed the game was played at for him there.

Exactly.

Nobody is saying these guys should be making end-to-end rushes. But against very poor competition, older guys with the level of experience they do should look like they're playing the game from an easy chair when they have the puck in their own zone if they're actually going to be NHL material. As Tanev and Corrado did, at a much younger age.

 

[Wilch]

Outside of our first rounders, I'd say Guimond, Eriksson and Subban stood out the most.

Everyone else was either meh or just decent.

Though Eriksson did decently in this tournament, I wasn't too impressed with his puck control and decision making.

If you check out Guimond's history, he's made very impressive progression. Went from Midget AA to CHL, then scored at a 0.6PPG clip in the Q, became an ECHL all star and saw a few games in the AHL. That's a very steep climb.

Subban plays tough, and is quite dangerous on the PP. If he grows another inch or two, he could very well end up being a major major steal at the fourth round. I fear he may not though, given how developed his muscles are. Hopefully I'm wrong.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

Of course Subban is going to stand out so he shouldn't even count, its no secret he dominates and he will , until he gets to the NHL

 

[jigsaw99]

Outside of our first rounders, I'd say Guimond, Eriksson and Subban stood out the most.

Everyone else was either meh or just decent.

Though Eriksson did decently in this tournament, I wasn't too impressed with his puck control and decision making.

If you check out Guimond's history, he's made very impressive progression. Went from Midget AA to CHL, then scored at a 0.6PPG clip in the Q, became an ECHL all star and saw a few games in the AHL. That's a very steep climb.

Subban plays tough, and is quite dangerous on the PP. If he grows another inch or two, he could very well end up being a major major steal at the fourth round. I fear he may not though, given how developed his muscles are. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Guimond was one of the worst players in games 1 and 2 but he really turned it around. it will be interesting to see how he do in Ultica.

 

[Shareefruck]

Outside of our first rounders, I'd say Guimond, Eriksson and Subban stood out the most.

Everyone else was either meh or just decent.

Though Eriksson did decently in this tournament, I wasn't too impressed with his puck control and decision making.

If you check out Guimond's history, he's made very impressive progression. Went from Midget AA to CHL, then scored at a 0.6PPG clip in the Q, became an ECHL all star and saw a few games in the AHL. That's a very steep climb.

Subban plays tough, and is quite dangerous on the PP. If he grows another inch or two, he could very well end up being a major major steal at the fourth round. I fear he may not though, given how developed his muscles are. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Cassels, man.

 

[StringerBell]

Cassels, man.

Not to mention Corrado, if he counts.

 

[DennisReynolds]

One note about Eriksson is that he has to shave off about 2 inches from his pads due to new NHL rules for goalies. Just as a perspective, Luongo has to shave off about 0.5 inches from his pads. I'm not sure how much it'll make difference it'll will make but it sure will be interesting how he can handle the transition to the NHL

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Mychan is a guy who I could see getting a contact with Utica depending on how main camp goes. He's probably never going to get a sniff at the NHL, but he would be a good depth player for the farm.

 

[ephmrl]

hope mychan and hall get contracts

 

[me2]

One note about Eriksson is that he has to shave off about 2 inches from his pads due to new NHL rules for goalies. Just as a perspective, Luongo has to shave off about 0.5 inches from his pads. I'm not sure how much it'll make difference it'll will make but it sure will be interesting how he can handle the transition to the NHL

It will be interesting to see which NHL goalies suffer from this change.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

Vancouver, B.C. – Vancouver Canucks President and General Manager Michael D. Gillis announced today that the Canucks have reduced their prospects training camp roster by four players.
The following players have been released:
Adam De Champlain Left Wing
Cain Franson Left Wing
Daniel Johnston Defence
Philippe Maillet Centre
Don't know if that was posted, but those are the cuts.

No surprise. Of the lot, only Johnston had one decent half period, then was a train wreck.

 

[tantalum]

I don't buy the 'oh, he was just coasting' argument. He's in his first taste of North American hockey, with his first chance to impress his new employers. If he's just coasting waiting for the main camp, that doesn't say a lot for his character.

And that isn't what I saw, in any case. A 23 y/o with years of SEL experience should look *unreal* without even trying if he's up against a bunch of teenagers, if he's any sort of prospect. He looked OK, but he was hardly in a different class. And showed zero NHL-translatable skills.

You don't need to believe it. But neither should you be drawing conclusions from a shinny tournament on a guy that will be going to main camp. Main camp and pre-season is where you start to draw those conclusions. It doesn't say a darn thing about his character if he was coasting because really NO ONE knows how he was asked to play or what he was asked to focus on.

Nobody is saying these guys should be making end-to-end rushes. But against very poor competition, older guys with the level of experience they do should look like they're playing the game from an easy chair when they have the puck in their own zone if they're actually going to be NHL material. As Tanev and Corrado did, at a much younger age.

But there's the rub. At a much younger age. Guys who had something to actually prove in a glorified shinny. That isn't the place Tommernes has anything to prove. He's proven he can play at a higher level of hockey than that for the past several years. The coaches know it and the organization knows it. It's why they signed him. He now needs to prove he can play in the AHL and hopefully the NHL and that happens starting now in main camp and pre-season games not shinny.


I should note that my expectations for guys like Andersson and Tommernes are as guys who if they develop would top out as #6-8 defenders. I hold no illusions that either stand a chance of being a top 5 defender in the NHL ever.

 

[SgtToody]

Plenty of positives IMO from the tournament, and most of the disappointments can/should be chalked up to small sample size and youth. However my spidery senses can't help but explode over management's quandary when it comes to goaltending; the guys in camp may be able to contribute something at some point this season, but no one looked ready to be an NHL backup immediately. Maybe the divorce settlement will allow the club to dip their toe into the (cheap) FA market for some help?

 

[Proto]

I think a lot of people are falling into a trap of calling every defender who plays a similar style to Tanev 'another Tanev'.

Tanev and Corrado both stood out above their competition pretty much from the first shift of their first training camps. They did this despite not being offensive players or actively joining the rush, because of their obviously superior anticipation, footwork, and mobility, and ability to react to pressure situations and always look completely in control and make the right play.

As NHL players, yeah, they might blend into the woodwork as 'solid defensive defenders who are usually doing the little things right'. But at lower levels, they look like absolute studs. And I think it's a trap to think that every 'conservative' player is comparable, because they look similar against ECHL competition to how Tanev/Corrado look against NHLers.

I mostly agree, though I don't think Corrado and Tanev are that similar. Corrado jumping to a .65 PPG player in his draft + 2 year makes me think there's a chance he's a later bloomer offensively. This is particularly notable because he looked more dynamic offensively (from the little I saw/everything I read) once being move to a better Kitchener squad. He could be a second tier offensive player, whereas I don't think Tanev will ever be that guy.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You don't need to believe it. But neither should you be drawing conclusions from a shinny tournament on a guy that will be going to main camp. Main camp and pre-season is where you start to draw those conclusions. It doesn't say a darn thing about his character if he was coasting because really NO ONE knows how he was asked to play or what he was asked to focus on.

But there's the rub. At a much younger age. Guys who had something to actually prove in a glorified shinny. That isn't the place Tommernes has anything to prove. He's proven he can play at a higher level of hockey than that for the past several years. The coaches know it and the organization knows it. It's why they signed him. He now needs to prove he can play in the AHL and hopefully the NHL and that happens starting now in main camp and pre-season games not shinny.

I should note that my expectations for guys like Andersson and Tommernes are as guys who if they develop would top out as #6-8 defenders. I hold no illusions that either stand a chance of being a top 5 defender in the NHL ever.

I agree with tant here. Drawing hard conclusions from this tourney is a mistake.

Leaving Andersson and Tommernes aside for a moment, and just addressing that general theme, the information presented by these prospects isn't substantive. I was going to say something when you (MS) had made the hard ceiling conclusion on Gaunce (career 20 point ceiling) but I had not seen the game, so I could not properly address your post... But then, I seeing these games was/is irrelevant because the act of drawing a firm conclusion from them is faulty in of itself.

These games don't matter, and the real tests are ahead.



--------------

More on Gaunce:

I was looking over past drafts and to some Gaunce comparisons. Specifically, I targeted Malhotra, Chris Kelly and Taylor Pyatt.

- In his draft year, Kelly scored 36 goals, but 15 prior. Gaunce scored 33 and 28. Kelly has largely been a 30~ point player in the pros. Gaunce has a stronger track record in the two years prior to his draft year. So Kelly seems like a good mid-range expectation for Gaunce.

- Malhotra scored 16 and 16. If Gaunce had Malhotra's offensive IQ and passing ability, 20 points would not seem out of line. But he's a much better passer and thinks the game better in the Ozone (IMO). Even still, Malhotra has been a 30~ point player for his career... So projecting Gaunce's hard ceiling to be worse than Malhotra's seems off just based on numbers.

- Lastly, Taylor Pyatt, whom I know both you and I have cited as a playstyle comparison to Gaunce. He has a better goalscoring record in the OHL compared to BG. In the NHL, he has bounced from 20~ points to 30+ points. A tweener. Throughout all the years though, 20 points seemed to be his low end production, not his top end.

So just looking around at the comparable players, I think it seems out of line to categorize him as a 20 point ceiling guy when even they have usually churned out 30+ points over their careers, two of them with weaker OHL numbers. If he turns out to be the C version of Pyatt I'm all good.

 

[Tobi Wan Kenobi]

Plenty of positives IMO from the tournament, and most of the disappointments can/should be chalked up to small sample size and youth. However my spidery senses can't help but explode over management's quandary when it comes to goaltending; the guys in camp may be able to contribute something at some point this season, but no one looked ready to be an NHL backup immediately. Maybe the divorce settlement will allow the club to dip their toe into the (cheap) FA market for some help?

Lack is the backup. Relax.

 

[PhilMick]

More on Gaunce:

I was looking over past drafts and to some Gaunce comparisons. Specifically, I targeted Malhotra, Chris Kelly and Taylor Pyatt.

- In his draft year, Kelly scored 36 goals, but 15 prior. Gaunce scored 33 and 28. Kelly has largely been a 30~ point player in the pros. Gaunce has a stronger track record in the two years prior to his draft year. So Kelly seems like a good mid-range expectation for Gaunce.

- Malhotra scored 16 and 16. If Gaunce had Malhotra's offensive IQ and passing ability, 20 points would not seem out of line. But he's a much better passer and thinks the game better in the Ozone (IMO). Even still, Malhotra has been a 30~ point player for his career... So projecting Gaunce's hard ceiling to be worse than Malhotra's seems off just based on numbers.

- Lastly, Taylor Pyatt, whom I know both you and I have cited as a playstyle comparison to Gaunce. He has a better goalscoring record in the OHL compared to BG. In the NHL, he has bounced from 20~ points to 30+ points. A tweener. Throughout all the years though, 20 points seemed to be his low end production, not his top end.

So just looking around at the comparable players, I think it seems out of line to categorize him as a 20 point ceiling guy when even they have usually churned out 30+ points over their careers, two of them with weaker OHL numbers. If he turns out to be the C version of Pyatt I'm all good.

Any old timers here know how physical of a game those guys played as juniors? Just going against how those 3 play as pros, Gaunce is much more physical, for whatever that's worth.

 

[PhilMick]

Plenty of positives IMO from the tournament, and most of the disappointments can/should be chalked up to small sample size and youth. However my spidery senses can't help but explode over management's quandary when it comes to goaltending; the guys in camp may be able to contribute something at some point this season, but no one looked ready to be an NHL backup immediately. Maybe the divorce settlement will allow the club to dip their toe into the (cheap) FA market for some help?

You gotta give Eriksson time to adjust to the different angles of NA ice. Either way, Nuck is right too, it's Lack's job to lose.

 

[Wisp]

I mostly agree, though I don't think Corrado and Tanev are that similar. Corrado jumping to a .65 PPG player in his draft + 2 year makes me think there's a chance he's a later bloomer offensively. This is particularly notable because he looked more dynamic offensively (from the little I saw/everything I read) once being move to a better Kitchener squad. He could be a second tier offensive player, whereas I don't think Tanev will ever be that guy.

I've always felt Corrado has significantly more upside than Tanev. Once he's an NHL regular, I don't think 30 points is an unfair expectation.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I've always felt Corrado has significantly more upside than Tanev.

At this point I'd agree as Corrado has shown some offence that Tanev lacks and given the age difference he has more time to improve. I also think he has more of a physical edge to his game.
Having said that, I'm not sure that Tanev cannot still improve his offence and his physical play. He needs to fill out his frame and could still become a solid second pairing defenceman. If Willie Mitchell can develop a decent offensive game maybe Tanev can too.
In terms of upside though, I am more optimistic on Corrado. In an ideal world both continue to develop and Tanev becomes our shutdown guy and Corrado a solid number 3.

 

[arsmaster*]

Any old timers here know how physical of a game those guys played as juniors? Just going against how those 3 play as pros, Gaunce is much more physical, for whatever that's worth.

I don't think Gaunce is any more physical than a player like Taylor Pyatt. Both guys tantalize with their physiques but they don't have the mentality to be physically dominant players.

What both have is a frame that can withstand punishment in all areas of the ice (and dish it out infrequently).

Part of the reason I use the Pyatt comparison with Gaunce is that, just like with Pyatt, you always wished that button would be pushed or the switch flipped, that turned him into a Dustin Brown/Cal Clutterbuck high volume forechecker.

I don't see it. No mean spirit to be found with either. Doesn't make them bad players, they're just not imposing players.

 

[PhilMick]

Short clip from the Jets game:


That's the second video "mic'd up" video they've had where someone in the huddle keeps going "hey now!" after they score, who is that?

 

[PhilMick]

I don't think Gaunce is any more physical than a player like Taylor Pyatt. Both guys tantalize with their physiques but they don't have the mentality to be physically dominant players.

What both have is a frame that can withstand punishment in all areas of the ice (and dish it out infrequently).

Part of the reason I use the Pyatt comparison with Gaunce is that, just like with Pyatt, you always wished that button would be pushed or the switch flipped, that turned him into a Dustin Brown/Cal Clutterbuck high volume forechecker.

I don't see it. No mean spirit to be found with either. Doesn't make them bad players, they're just not imposing players.

You don't think? It seemed like he had so many "check to the head" penalties this year

 

[arsmaster*]

You don't think? It seemed like he had so many "check to the head" penalties this year

It's the OHL, softies out east.