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

[arsmaster*]

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?

I think it's Frankie and it's hilarious.

 

[Steveorama]

Lack is the backup. Relax.

Lack has never played an NHL game, played only 13 AHL games last year, and has not played a meaningful game for almost a year due to serious injury.
I'm having a hard time relaxing, given those facts.

 

[JoeCool16]

Lack has never played an NHL game, played only 13 AHL games last year, and has not played a meaningful game for almost a year due to serious injury.
I'm having a hard time relaxing, given those facts.

If it makes you feel better, look at what Calgary is going into the season with for goaltending

 

[Steveorama]

I think it's Frankie and it's hilarious.

Wasn't that Hank Kingsley's catch phrase from the great Larry Sanders Show?
One of the funniest shows of all time...

 

[Steveorama]

BTW, Canucks announced four cuts this morning. Does this imply everybody else from Penticton is coming to the main camp?
Wishing the Nucks would get their training camp roster online, almost every other team has theirs up now...

 

[Proto]

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.

Yeah. Corrado took a few seasons (and a new situation) to really start to produce the kind of offense you'd like from a defenseman. Could be a bit of luck and/or good scouting there. Either way, his last season puts him more firmly on the radar as a potential Top 4 defenseman in my mind.

I think if he's a 20-25 ES point defenseman, you're happy. Whether he develops a PP game will determine whether he's more than that.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks to everyone who was there and shared their insights, and to those who watched and provided their reports for those who didn't get to see. Also to feebster for the highlight packages; much appreciated, folks.

 

[Wisp]

Yeah. Corrado took a few seasons (and a new situation) to really start to produce the kind of offense you'd like from a defenseman. Could be a bit of luck and/or good scouting there. Either way, his last season puts him more firmly on the radar as a potential Top 4 defenseman in my mind.

I think if he's a 20-25 ES point defenseman, you're happy. Whether he develops a PP game will determine whether he's more than that.

Brandon Saad and Corrado are two players who plummeted down the prospect rankings of 2011 because of how little help they had on their teams come draft time.

I don't see a reason why Corrado couldn't be at least a top 4 d-man. I really like Corrado's tool set, and while I don't like making comparisons, it's awfully similar to what makes Duncan Keith successful.

edit: Not saying that Corrado is going to be as successful as Keith, only that their tool sets are similar and that's cause for optimism.

 

[quat]

I just wanted to take a moment to say thanks to everyone who was there and shared their insights, and to those who watched and provided their reports for those who didn't get to see. Also to feebster for the highlight packages; much appreciated, folks.

Yes, well said. Thanks for all the info and updates people.

 

[tc 23]

Gaunce is so serious, even when celebrating a goal.

"Good job."

"Hey, good quick move, eh?"

 

[Hansen]

Gaunce is so serious, even when celebrating a goal.

"Good job."

"Hey, good quick move, eh?"

"Im still smiling more than Toews right?"

 

[CanaFan]

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.

I agree in general that one should never draw an *absolute* conclusion of a player or prospect based on a single viewing, whether an NHL game, a prospects tourny, or Game 7 of the SCF. There is so much variability inherent in competitive sports that no single viewing can ever be representative of a player's total body of work.

That said, a tourny like this can (IMO) be used to inform a view of a player or prospect. It must or else NHL teams wouldn't host them in the first place. In particular, I take the view of tempering expectations when a player stands out in a tournament like that - a prospect like Jensen, Horvat, or Shinkaruk should look good against other junior age kids and walk-ons - but pay more attention when a player looks poor or shows deficiencies in their game. Now I didn't see any of the tourny myself so have no actual take on any of the players mentioned above, but I do value the take-aways that come from those who did watch and don't dismiss their criticisms as purely meaningless or useless. It may not be totally representative of Andersson's total body of work, but it isn't encouraging either.

 

[tantalum]

That said, a tourny like this can (IMO) be used to inform a view of a player or prospect. It must or else NHL teams wouldn't host them in the first place. etc

I would say it is primarily the opposite....it is used to inform the player about some of the steps they need to take to become professionals (or north american professionals). Yes the team is looking for a diamond in the rough but it is much more a learning experience for the player, the beginning of the learning experience for some, than it is a learning experience for the team.

 

[Callhee]

I'm not sure where all the negatives for Andersson are coming from. I thought he played well, very stable and solid, and quick for his size. In fact; Travis Green agrees; and a Jets Nation writer thought that Andersson was one of the better Nucks players on the ice. http://canucksarmy.com/2013/9/9/canucks-vs-oilers-review-young-stars-edition

 

[Wisp]

I'm not sure where all the negatives for Andersson are coming from. I thought he played well, very stable and solid, and quick for his size. In fact; Travis Green agrees; a Jets Nation writer thought that Andersson was one of the better Nucks players on the ice. http://canucksarmy.com/2013/9/9/canucks-vs-oilers-review-young-stars-edition

Travis Green is going to have trouble writing for Jets Nation and coaching the comets at the same time.

 

[Callhee]

Travis Green is going to have trouble writing for Jets Nation and coaching the comets at the same time.

Sorry, I meant Travis Green along with a Jets Nation writer agrees...

 

[CanaFan]

I would say it is primarily the opposite....it is used to inform the player about some of the steps they need to take to become professionals (or north american professionals). Yes the team is looking for a diamond in the rough but it is much more a learning experience for the player, the beginning of the learning experience for some, than it is a learning experience for the team.

You may be right but I don't see how a tournament setting is the best way to accomplish that. Probably an orientation camp or something would do a better job. I still see the tournament setting more as a chance to watch these young kids play against their own peer group (or close enough) rather than what they'll face at main camp (namely mostly NHL and AHL pro's). Guys like Shinkaruk may be hard pressed to show his skills against players with pro strength and conditioning but will show his potential (and did) against kids closer to his age group. I'd actually argue that main camp is where teams spend the most time helping kids take the first step towards being a pro with the opportunity to take part in pro drills and learn from vets and coaches, trainers, etc. In main camp the coaches are so focused on assembling their NHL rosters there isn't as much time to spend watching young kids and playing them in different situations (PP, PK, etc) that are probably going to be filled by the fits anyway.

 

[tantalum]

You may be right but I don't see how a tournament setting is the best way to accomplish that. Probably an orientation camp or something would do a better job. I still see the tournament setting more as a chance to watch these young kids play against their own peer group (or close enough) rather than what they'll face at main camp (namely mostly NHL and AHL pro's). Guys like Shinkaruk may be hard pressed to show his skills against players with pro strength and conditioning but will show his potential (and did) against kids closer to his age group. I'd actually argue that main camp is where teams spend the most time helping kids take the first step towards being a pro with the opportunity to take part in pro drills and learn from vets and coaches, trainers, etc. In main camp the coaches are so focused on assembling their NHL rosters there isn't as much time to spend watching young kids and playing them in different situations (PP, PK, etc) that are probably going to be filled by the fits anyway.

I think what you have here along with the rookie orientation early in the summer is that orientation. The early one really focuses on things like fitness, nutrition etc whereas this one is really one that likely focuses more on executing a game plan set forth by coaches and what is expected of you as a player. It's also likely a check on how well you put those things you learned two months ago into practice!

Main camp is the next step and I think I've mentioned that. But what this touney allows the coaching staff and organization to do is ease the younger players into that mindset (along with the orientation and workshops earlier in the summer). You ramp up the expectations gradually from one "event" to the next. Tends to be a much better way to do things then simply tell them on July 2nd to show up for main camp mid-September ready to play. 18-21 year old kids in general, even the extremely focused on a goal ones, don't take things as seriously as they actually should be. They need to be shown the way slowly. At that age we're all, quite honestly, know it alls who know nothing at all.

For pre-season putting various players that aren't the obvious fits into different situations is what it's for. The coaching staff know who the first PP unit is likely to be and the main PKers. And those guys will get some time to knock the rust off but the others will also see a bunch of time in those situations to see if they can indeed contribute. I expect Horvat, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk etc will see a lot of special teams time during the first few preseason games.

 

[Lindgren]

I'm not sure where all the negatives for Andersson are coming from. I thought he played well, very stable and solid, and quick for his size. In fact; Travis Green agrees; and a Jets Nation writer thought that Andersson was one of the better Nucks players on the ice. http://canucksarmy.com/2013/9/9/canucks-vs-oilers-review-young-stars-edition

Interesting article. He's also positive about Jensen and Cassels.

 

[CanaFan]

I think what you have here along with the rookie orientation early in the summer is that orientation. The early one really focuses on things like fitness, nutrition etc whereas this one is really one that likely focuses more on executing a game plan set forth by coaches and what is expected of you as a player. It's also likely a check on how well you put those things you learned two months ago into practice!

Main camp is the next step and I think I've mentioned that. But what this touney allows the coaching staff and organization to do is ease the younger players into that mindset (along with the orientation and workshops earlier in the summer). You ramp up the expectations gradually from one "event" to the next. Tends to be a much better way to do things then simply tell them on July 2nd to show up for main camp mid-September ready to play. 18-21 year old kids in general, even the extremely focused on a goal ones, don't take things as seriously as they actually should be. They need to be shown the way slowly. At that age we're all, quite honestly, know it alls who know nothing at all.

For pre-season putting various players that aren't the obvious fits into different situations is what it's for. The coaching staff know who the first PP unit is likely to be and the main PKers. And those guys will get some time to knock the rust off but the others will also see a bunch of time in those situations to see if they can indeed contribute. I expect Horvat, Gaunce, Jensen, Shinkaruk etc will see a lot of special teams time during the first few preseason games.

I don't disagree with the orientation aspect but I disagree that a tournament that pits prospects for 5 different teams has no role in evaluating players - where they are at, what they need to work on, and who to take to main camp. These aren't mutually exclusive propositions - orientation and evaluation - and I don't see why a team would invest significant dollars into a glorified orientation session when it can serve as both. Now how teams *evaluate* is no doubt different than fans - we tend to use this tourny to draw conclusions like "Gaunce will never be more than a 3C" or "Horvat showed the skill to make him a better choice than Domi at #9". But even if the primary goal is to focus "more on executing a game plan set forth by coaches and what is expected of you as a player" (your words) then evaluation and further feedback/coaching is a necessary component of that.

As for main camp, obviously the coach knows who his regular guys are going to be for PP, PK, etc however the pre-season games are (or have been under AV) primarily tune up games for Game 1 of the reg season and as such you don't see teams go out of their way to see what some 18 yo kid can do as much as test different units and combinations or even just get the vets into game shape after the summer. Maybe if a prospect has shown well at camp or is a 1st round pick, they might get some time (though not long if they don't produce) but if Cole Cassels or Peter Andersson get anything more than a sniff of PP time this pre-season I will be stunned. Hence the prospects tourny is likely the best look we'll get at a number of the kids not named Horvat, Jensen, or Shinkaruk.

 

[tantalum]

the problem is that as fans we don't know what the coaching staff is asking the players to do so we can't really evaluate. I also don't think I said there isn't some evaluation going on but it is just a shinny tournament. There isn't a whole lot of intensity at all and the ones really looking to turn heads are the ones who are trying to secure some type of contract (or improve on the one they have by turning a AHL deal into a two-way deal).

I disagree with the AV used the preseason for tune ups. That is not really what he did at all and one of the reasons that some have speculated why the canucks have often come out of gate slow.

 

[CanaFan]

the problem is that as fans we don't know what the coaching staff is asking the players to do so we can't really evaluate. I also don't think I said there isn't some evaluation going on but it is just a shinny tournament. There isn't a whole lot of intensity at all and the ones really looking to turn heads are the ones who are trying to secure some type of contract (or improve on the one they have by turning a AHL deal into a two-way deal).

I disagree with the AV used the preseason for tune ups. That is not really what he did at all and one of the reasons that some have speculated why the canucks have often come out of gate slow.

I don't know about the first part as The discussion in the tourny thread on the main boards by and large indicated that the best prospects were the best players (Monahan, Poirier, Petan, Trouba, Horvat, Jensen, etc). Yes the odd surprise made a good impression (Cassels, Roy, Ortio) and a few top prospects disappointed (Baertschi, Hertl) but by and large I think you see the better players perform the best. And the idea that this is 'just shinny' is true to an extent but you are also discounting the competitiveness of pro (or aspiring pro) players. Those that make it this far rarely ever 'mail it in' regardless of the setting. To be honest I would worry about the compete level of any player who doesn't try their best in this tourney. Sure it's not main camp but it's not a practice either and players are expected to bust their ***** in practice too ...

Anyway, it seems we are both 'guessing' a fair bit at the motives and application of this tournament so I'll leave it at agree to disagree and hopefully we see better from some players at main camp.

 

[tantalum]

And the idea that this is 'just shinny' is true to an extent but you are also discounting the competitiveness of pro (or aspiring pro) players. Those that make it this far rarely ever 'mail it in' regardless of the setting.

For those that are assured spots the preseason is all about mailing it in to a certain extent. You aren't going to see even the Sedins who can never be knocked for work ethic giving it their all in the preseason. They will pick their spots to work hard. This tourney isn't much different for the older pros.

But we are likely to continue to go around in circles so I too will agree to disagree.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree in general that one should never draw an *absolute* conclusion of a player or prospect based on a single viewing, whether an NHL game, a prospects tourny, or Game 7 of the SCF. There is so much variability inherent in competitive sports that no single viewing can ever be representative of a player's total body of work.

That said, a tourny like this can (IMO) be used to inform a view of a player or prospect. It must or else NHL teams wouldn't host them in the first place. In particular, I take the view of tempering expectations when a player stands out in a tournament like that - a prospect like Jensen, Horvat, or Shinkaruk should look good against other junior age kids and walk-ons - but pay more attention when a player looks poor or shows deficiencies in their game. Now I didn't see any of the tourny myself so have no actual take on any of the players mentioned above, but I do value the take-aways that come from those who did watch and don't dismiss their criticisms as purely meaningless or useless. It may not be totally representative of Andersson's total body of work, but it isn't encouraging either.

To be clear, I don't dismiss their criticism, only the later hard ceiling projections used to emphasize their point.

I think it's neither encouraging/discouraging on the whole. Not in the sense of projecting the prospect long-term. If that were the case, why not take the greater AHL sample? On the whole, this prospect tourney is a blip on the radar screen. Far more information, better information, will come outside of it.

 

[CanaFan]

To be clear, I don't dismiss their criticism, only the later hard ceiling projections used to emphasize their point.

I think it's neither encouraging/discouraging on the whole. Not in the sense of projecting the prospect long-term. If that were the case, why not take the greater AHL sample? On the whole, this prospect tourney is a blip on the radar screen. Far more information, better information, will come outside of it.

On the whole I agree that when there is information that is more recent, substantial, or in-context that it should be given priority in assessments. And I'm not even arguing that Andersson's performance at the tourney is all that telling, but I also disagree with people who want to dismiss it entirely as "shinny" or "mailing it in". Every viewing adds to an overall opinion of a player, even if it simply speaks to their compete level or consistency. I actually take more issue with the part of this fan-base that loves to extol Jensen's SEL season but ignore his disappointing AHL stint. Both tell part of the story and you can't focus on one but exclude the other without good cause (which I don't believe "re-adjusting to NA ice surface" fairly constitutes).

Anyway I don't intend to pursue this conversation much more, as it was just a general comment on the views some have about this tournament rather than a critic of any particular player.