Player Discussion Brendan Gaunce (Canucks will not extend qualifying offer - Dhaliwal)

[Fire Benning]

Derp 7 goals is more than 4 though1!!

Gaunce has 0 cups, I mean the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

It's also insanely hilarious how one the arguments in favor of the Beagle signing that have been parroted is that he's a good defensive forward who can take the tough assignments in heavy defensive zone usage.

The exact same can be said about Gaunce and despite his good results in those tough minutes, he continues to be hammered meanwhile Beagle, who has yet to play a minute of ice time in a Canucks jersey and just got paid 12 million through his age 32-36 seasons with a buyout proof contract is put on a pedestal for some reason? That's a weird one.

WTF? I'm glad I missed those. I thought we were all in agreement that that was an awful contract.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

I can get my head around people not enjoying watching Gaunce or wishing he had some more edge, but last yr he was undeniably a very effective player. I'm confused as to why people struggle so much to understand a concept that you succinctly laid out.

Hard minutes + Positive results = good. Didn't even need BEDMAS.

Yeah, I mean, his lack of offence is almost comical. But here's a guy getting some the toughest deployment numbers in the NHL on one of the worst teams in the NHL with the worst linemates in the NHL...and he still comes out as an even player. But hey, he's a bad player because didn't move up in the lineup!!1! Oh, that's a good argument.

And seriously LOL at the fact certain people understand deployment in the Beagle thread but not the Gaunce thread.

 

[F A N]

Ah, the Gaunce thread. Always revealing to see who understands hockey and who doesn't.

If someone really doesn't understand why it's a good thing a player who's almost exclusively deployed defensively doesn't get scored on, I really don't know what to say. Here's a young, cheap, homegrown player who still manages to saw off points despite being buried in his own zone...let's hate him!

For me I think it's legitimate to discuss whether you can afford to have a player who produces as little offensively as Gaunce does and whether he is expendable. There's no reason why he can't produce Tim Schaller numbers. That's the frustrating part. If Gaunce plays 76+ games and puts up 12+ goals and 22+ points on the 4th line with his usual underlying numbers I would say he's a keeper if you can sign him for cheap.

It's also insanely hilarious how one the arguments in favor of the Beagle signing that have been parroted is that he's a good defensive forward who can take the tough assignments in heavy defensive zone usage.

The exact same can be said about Gaunce and despite his good results in those tough minutes, he continues to be hammered meanwhile Beagle, who has yet to play a minute of ice time in a Canucks jersey and just got paid 12 million through his age 32-36 seasons with a buyout proof contract is put on a pedestal for some reason? That's a weird one.

Beagle's value is inflated by the fact he is a right shot C who is one of the best at faceoffs. If Gaunce is a 4th line C coming off a 10+ goal 20+ point season, do you have any issues signing him to 3-4 years at $2M AAV? I certainly don't. I would be in favour of locking him up even at $3M AAV.

 

[sting101]

For me I think it's legitimate to discuss whether you can afford to have a player who produces as little offensively as Gaunce does and whether he is expendable. There's no reason why he can't produce Tim Schaller numbers. That's the frustrating part. If Gaunce plays 76+ games and puts up 12+ goals and 22+ points on the 4th line with his usual underlying numbers I would say he's a keeper if you can sign him for cheap..

Somebody gets it.

Yes crazy that one would question Gaunce's worth and position on this team going forward, be disappointed in his impact and create some data to chew on to support my thoughts and i get absolutely blasted because of it..........oh well

All this while i lauded him for his smarts, coachability, defensive work and stated he will be a good 4th liner IMO someday down the line.........crazy to want results from players who have had 5yrs to make an impact after getting selected in the 1st round of the draft.

I honestly admire the cult like following this guy has created, hopefully Roussel Schaller and Beagle dont steal the fridges kitchen.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

For me I think it's legitimate to discuss whether you can afford to have a player who produces as little offensively as Gaunce does and whether he is expendable. There's no reason why he can't produce Tim Schaller numbers. That's the frustrating part. If Gaunce plays 76+ games and puts up 12+ goals and 22+ points on the 4th line with his usual underlying numbers I would say he's a keeper if you can sign him for cheap.

Of course you can sign him for cheap. He is signed for cheap.

Hey, wait. He just got signed to a new contract.

Canucks sign Brendan Gaunce to two-year, one-way contract

That's two more years, folks. Let's just knock down another contract spot.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

Somebody gets it.

Yes crazy that one would question Gaunce's worth and position on this team going forward, be disappointed in his impact and create some data to chew on to support my thoughts and i get absolutely blasted because of it..........oh well

All this while i lauded him for his smarts, coachability, defensive work and stated he will be a good 4th liner IMO someday down the line.........crazy to want results from players who have had 5yrs to make an impact after getting selected in the 1st round of the draft.

I honestly admire the cult like following this guy has created, hopefully Roussel Schaller and Beagle dont steal the fridges kitchen.

Yeah, we're all sorry you lack the intelligence to understand deployment.

 

[sting101]

Yeah, I mean, his lack of offence is almost comical. But here's a guy getting some the toughest deployment numbers in the NHL on one of the worst teams in the NHL with the worst linemates in the NHL...and he still comes out as an even player. But hey, he's a bad player because didn't move up in the lineup!!1! Oh, that's a good argument.

And seriously LOL at the fact certain people understand deployment in the Beagle thread but not the Gaunce thread.

 

[F A N]

Of course you can sign him for cheap. He is signed for cheap.

Hey, wait. He just got signed to a new contract.

Canucks sign Brendan Gaunce to two-year, one-way contract

That's two more years, folks. Let's just knock down another contract spot.

? He signed that in 2017. He is in the last year of his contract.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[Melvin]

Somebody gets it.

Yes crazy that one would question Gaunce's worth and position on this team going forward, be disappointed in his impact and create some data to chew on to support my thoughts and i get absolutely blasted because of it..........oh well

All this while i lauded him for his smarts, coachability, defensive work and stated he will be a good 4th liner IMO someday down the line.........crazy to want results from players who have had 5yrs to make an impact after getting selected in the 1st round of the draft.

I honestly admire the cult like following this guy has created, hopefully Roussel Schaller and Beagle dont steal the fridges kitchen.

What data did you "create" outside of "points!"

The reason you get blasted is because you regularly ignore what everyone is saying to you so that you can return to the same elementary argument. People have acknowledged umpteen times over that he does not put up many points but he adds value due to not getting scored on and getting the puck out of the zone. You never address this line of reasoning and instead retort again with "but points!" Thus we just go in circles.

Nobody thinks Gaunce is some kind of all-star but when comparing him to someone like Granlund who just barely puts up more points despite a MUCH more offense-friendly deployment while getting lit up defensively it shouldn't be some sort of mystery as to what people see in Gaunce.

If you actually want to debate this then try addressing the actual points people are making instead of ignoring them to keep harping on the same "but poiintzz" argument. We get it, he doesn't put up points. If you won't move on from this then we will continue to not get anywhere.

 

[Shareefruck]

For me I think it's legitimate to discuss whether you can afford to have a player who produces as little offensively as Gaunce does and whether he is expendable. There's no reason why he can't produce Tim Schaller numbers. That's the frustrating part. If Gaunce plays 76+ games and puts up 12+ goals and 22+ points on the 4th line with his usual underlying numbers I would say he's a keeper if you can sign him for cheap.

That's a ridiculous expectation, even ignoring the "If you can sign him for cheap" part, which is especially ludicrous given how impressive those numbers would be. How many 12+ goal, 22+ point players who suppress shots at the rate that Gaunce does play on 4th lines, let alone for cheap.

What you're describing would be a high end third line center stuck on a 4th line. You'd expect prime Malhotra to put up those kinds of numbers from the 4th line.

 

[F A N]

That's a ridiculous expectation, even ignoring the "If you can sign him for cheap" part, which is especially ludicrous given how impressive those numbers would be. How many 12+ goal, 22+ point players who suppress shots at the rate that Gaunce does play on 4th lines, let alone for cheap.

What you're describing would be a top of the line third line center stuck on a 4th line.

12+ goals and 22+ points is below average production for a 3rd line C. How is that top of the line 3rd line C? And in my next post I said I would be in favour of locking Gaunce up even at $3M AAV if he was a 4th line C with those metrics and production.

 

[Shareefruck]

12+ goals and 22+ points is below average production for a 3rd line C. How is that top of the line 3rd line C? And in my next post I said I would be in favour of locking Gaunce up even at $3M AAV if he was a 4th line C with those metrics and production.

Seriously? I said:

You'd expect prime Malhotra to put up those kinds of numbers from the 4th line.

If you place a top of the line 3rd line center who would normally put up 30+ points (like prime Malhotra), onto a permanent 4th line with limited icetime, you can expect his totals to drop to 20-25 points, and that's being generous. You'd have to be completely out to lunch to not expect a significant drop in production when transitioning from 3rd line icetime to 4th line icetime.

On top of that, even if we were talking about a guy producing 22+ points with third line icetime (which I agree would be below average production), that level of defensive ability would make up that difference pretty easily and you could still feasibly consider a player like that an average 3rd liner. But this isn't even relevant, because we're talking about producing that much on a 4th line.

12+ goals and 22+ points while playing mistake-free defense in around 10 minutes of icetime is pretty unheard of (unless your team is stacked and has good 3rd liners playing on the 4th line). Nobody should be expecting anything like that from even the best 4th liners in the league.

I read the next part, but I couldn't make sense of how it's compatible with the first part. You already said that that kind of player is a keeper "if you can sign him for cheap", but $3M AAV isn't cheap, so I'm not really sure what you're saying there.

 

[F A N]

If you place a top of the line 3rd line center who would normally put up 30+ points (like prime Malhotra), onto a permanent 4th line with 4th line icetime, you can expect his totals to drop to 20-25 points, and that's being generous. You'd have to be completely out to lunch to not expect a significant drop in production when differentiating between those two roles.

On top of that, even if we were talking about a guy producing 22+ points with third line icetime (which I agree would be below average production), that level of defensive ability would make up that difference pretty easily and you could still feasibly consider a player like that an average 3rd liner.

12+ goals and 22+ points while playing flawless defense in under 10 minutes of icetime is pretty unheard of, because any 4th liner who is capable of that would instantly be bumped up to the third line (unless the team is completely stacked) and probably end up producing noticeably more than that. Nobody should be expecting anything like that from even the best 4th line centers in the league.

I read the next part, but I couldn't make sense of how it's compatible with the first part. You already said that that kind of player is a keeper "if you can sign him for cheap", but $3M AAV isn't cheap, so I'm not really sure what you're saying there.

Do you have an example of a top line 3rd line C playing a 4th line role? I don't see why a top of the line 3rd line C would play a permanent 4th line role with 4th line ice time. That's crazy depth.

I make a distinction between a 4th line winger and a 4th line C. And just because I am supportive doesn't mean I think it is cheap. There are posters here who would never or almost never be supportive of a deal that they consider to be an overpayment. I'm not like that. I am willing to support a deal that I consider an overpayment.

 

[Shareefruck]

Do you have an example of a top line 3rd line C playing a 4th line role? I don't see why a top of the line 3rd line C would play a permanent 4th line role with 4th line ice time. That's crazy depth.

I make a distinction between a 4th line winger and a 4th line C. And just because I am supportive doesn't mean I think it is cheap. There are posters here who would never or almost never be supportive of a deal that they consider to be an overpayment. I'm not like that. I am willing to support a deal that I consider an overpayment.

Err.. Yeah, exactly. That was my point. It doesn't really happen. That's exactly why I think the expectation is ridiculous. The bar you're setting for meeting the expectations of being a good 4th liner is too high.

A player scoring 22+ points with 4th line minutes/linemates who was able to come out even against tough competition/deployment even without those points is a helluva lot closer to a good 3rd liner stuck on a 4th line than merely a good 4th liner that is only worth signing cheap. Hell, the current version of him is already a good 4th liner worth signing cheap.

As for the second paragraph, if the point of bringing up the $3M was just to say that it's overpayment but you would support it anyways and don't consider it cheap, then it I don't see how it's relevant to the point that I was contending or why you brought it up as a counter-point that I didn't consider.

 

[absolute garbage]

For me I think it's legitimate to discuss whether you can afford to have a player who produces as little offensively as Gaunce does and whether he is expendable. There's no reason why he can't produce Tim Schaller numbers. That's the frustrating part. If Gaunce plays 76+ games and puts up 12+ goals and 22+ points on the 4th line with his usual underlying numbers I would say he's a keeper if you can sign him for cheap.

[mod] Tim Schaller numbers you say? You mean being -9 last season (5on5) in a powerhouse team with significantly higher o-zone starts than Gaunce? Those are the kind of numbers you want Gaunce to achieve? You want Gaunce to double his production and triple his goals against? That's what would make you happy?

It's gotten to the point where I feel like people have forgotten what the purpose of hockey is. I guess that's what cheerleading for Benning does to you.

 

[sting101]

What data did you "create" outside of "points!"

The reason you get blasted is because you regularly ignore what everyone is saying to you so that you can return to the same elementary argument. People have acknowledged umpteen times over that he does not put up many points but he adds value due to not getting scored on and getting the puck out of the zone. You never address this line of reasoning and instead retort again with "but points!" Thus we just go in circles.

Nobody thinks Gaunce is some kind of all-star but when comparing him to someone like Granlund who just barely puts up more points despite a MUCH more offense-friendly deployment while getting lit up defensively it shouldn't be some sort of mystery as to what people see in Gaunce.

If you actually want to debate this then try addressing the actual points people are making instead of ignoring them to keep harping on the same "but poiintzz" argument. We get it, he doesn't put up points. If you won't move on from this then we will continue to not get anywhere.

My original statements were that Gaunce wasn't a valuable asset, that the signings pointed in the direction of pushing Gaunce off the roster , that he needed to do more than push the puck over centre (produce pts) and that when given the opportunity to do so (and step up) he did not which was the segment of data i provided to support this and it wasn't just me as Travis Green healthy scratched him after reducing his minutes at the end of the example.

If people are happy with a former 1st round selection who has tremendous size and strength and was a force at lower levels topping out like he has so far then good for them.....i'm not satisfied with that.

I have not ignored the points people have made. I have lauded him for being good defensively and that it is harder to put up points from his deployment. Believe it or not i like Brendan Gaunce and feel he can be a solid player. The thing is when you play 13-14 minutes a game i find it unsavory no matter where the start of your shift takes place to not provide more from the LW position. If he was a defenseman or even a centre taking key faceoffs i would adjust my expectations accordingly.

 

[Melvin]

My original statements were that Gaunce wasn't a valuable asset, that the signings pointed in the direction of pushing Gaunce off the roster , that he needed to do more than push the puck over centre (produce pts) and that when given the opportunity to do so (and step up) he did not which was the segment of data i provided to support this and it wasn't just me as Travis Green healthy scratched him after reducing his minutes at the end of the example.

If people are happy with a former 1st round selection who has tremendous size and strength and was a force at lower levels topping out like he has so far then good for them.....i'm not satisfied with that.

I have not ignored the points people have made. I have lauded him for being good defensively and that it is harder to put up points from his deployment. Believe it or not i like Brendan Gaunce and feel he can be a solid player. The thing is when you play 13-14 minutes a game i find it unsavory no matter where the start of your shift takes place to not provide more from the LW position. If he was a defenseman or even a centre taking key faceoffs i would adjust my expectations accordingly.

The "first round pick" angle is pretty silly. First of all it was a late pick in a bad draft. He was selected closer to Kole Lind than Jake Virtanen. And it's not relevant to assessing his play anyway.

Acting like him being drafted five spots lower would dramatically change your opinion doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[MS]

[mod] Tim Schaller numbers you say? You mean being -9 last season (5on5) in a powerhouse team with significantly higher o-zone starts than Gaunce? Those are the kind of numbers you want Gaunce to achieve? You want Gaunce to double his production and triple his goals against? That's what would make you happy?

It's gotten to the point where I feel like people have forgotten what the purpose of hockey is. I guess that's what cheerleading for Benning does to you.

Yup. It just keeps coming back to this.

Either you can move beyond the numbers you saw on the back of a hockey card when you were a kid and understand context and roles and that the point of hockey is to outscore the opposition ... or you can't.

This isn't rocket science. Defensive forwards playing heavily defensive roles and sawing off their goal differentials is good, regardless of whether they put up points or not. Offensive players playing offensive minutes and scoring a little bit (but well less than average production league-wide for the role) and getting outscored badly is bad.

Oh, and Gaunce was 4-1-5 in 11 games where he played over 15 minutes last year, for the record. When he was given icetime, he scored.

 

[Fatass]

[mod] Tim Schaller numbers you say? You mean being -9 last season (5on5) in a powerhouse team with significantly higher o-zone starts than Gaunce? Those are the kind of numbers you want Gaunce to achieve? You want Gaunce to double his production and triple his goals against? That's what would make you happy?

It's gotten to the point where I feel like people have forgotten what the purpose of hockey is. I guess that's what cheerleading for Benning does to you.

Aren’t Schaller and Gaunce different players though. Schaller plays a much more physical game, and fights too. I think if ?Gaunce could add Schaller’s physical play to his own, we would have a really good player. Maybe that’s why Schaller is here, to show Gaunce how he needs to play to stay in the league?

 

[MS]

The "first round pick" angle is pretty silly. First of all it was a late pick in a bad draft. He was selected closer to Kole Lind than Jake Virtanen. And it's not relevant to assessing his play anyway.

Draft position matters for evaluating the team's drafting and the job that scouts and management are doing. That's it.

If Jake Virtanen was the exact identical player but drafted 143rd overall, how does that change anything about the job he's doing on the ice right now and where he fits in the plans of the team going forward?

When people are throwing crap like this on the wall regarding Gaunce and hoping it sticks, it shows how weak the arguments are.

 

[absolute garbage]

Aren’t Schaller and Gaunce different players though. Schaller plays a much more physical game, and fights too. I think if ?Gaunce could add Schaller’s physical play to his own, we would have a really good player. Maybe that’s why Schaller is here, to show Gaunce how he needs to play to stay in the league?

This is so backwards. Try this:

If Schaller was able to add Gaunce's defensive efficiency, we would have a really good player.

Gaunce's physicality (or the lack of, however you see it) generates vastly superior results compared to Schaller's game. Why are you people so hell-bent in wanting to see Gaunce become a worse and less effective player?

 

[Melvin]

This is so backwards. Try this:

If Schaller was able to add Gaunce's defensive efficiency, we would have a really good player.

Gaunce's physicality (or the lack of, however you see it) generates vastly superior results compared to Schaller's game. Why are you people so hell-bent in wanting to see Gaunce become a worse and less effective player?

There are still people who prefer Erik gudbranson to Chris tanev, because hitzzz are more entertaining than a hockey-playing ninja who materializes out of thin air to calmly skate the puck out of danger.

Some of these people even work for hockey teams.

 

[Shareefruck]

It's crazy how overvalued hits and fighting ability is. It's a marginal quality that can serve as a nice bonus, but people act like it dwarfs the importance of defensive play (which is every bit as valuable as offensive play).

It's not like he's lacking in strength and is afraid to use his size, which is what's actually important when it comes to being effective at hockey.