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

[absolute garbage]

Gaunce is truly the Great Divider. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player who draws the line as clearly as he does between people who have knowledge and understanding of this sport and people who don’t. It’s soooo easy to say he’s a nothing player. You just take a quick look at his abysmal statline, his clunky skating stride and seemingly low skill level. It’s so obvious. It’s a low hanging fruit and the majority is going to take that and ignore all the nuance and context.

The fact is Gaunce has been outscored 3-6 this season 5-on-5 while playing the toughest minutes in the NHL (16% zone starts, most common opposition forwards: Gaudreau and Monahan, Giroux and Couturier, Turris Smith and Fiala, Pavelski and Thornton) in a team that has -12 goal differential 5-on-5. If you think that's overall a bad or replacement level performance, that a whatever AHLer could play the same role just as effectively, you are simply clueless.

For the record, the foundational player Sutter with his 20M+ contract, who many were singing praises to early for his defensive efforts, has been outscored 8-9 while getting almost twice the favorable zone starts (28%) with pretty much the same corsi as Gaunce.

Just like everything was going in for Dorsett early in the year, nothing is going in for Gaunce right now. But there's no realistic or reasonable world where pucks won't start going in at some point as long as Gaunce keeps playing and getting chances like he did against Calgary and that he isn't going to start getting his on-average ~20 points per season.

 

[m9]

Dorsett got points and goals because he went to the net, dug out pucks from the corners,and was aggressive on the forecheck. Gaunce doesn't do any of those things. He's an extremely limited offensive player at the NHL level and when you combine that with his deployment it's a recipe for very few goals and points.

 

[absolute garbage]

Dorsett got points and goals because he went to the net, dug out pucks from the corners,and was aggressive on the forecheck. Gaunce doesn't do any of those things.

What are you even watching? Gaunce does literally all of those things. Those are the exact things (and also the only things) he's good at offensively. Most of the of time it just doesn't translate to points (see Dorsett who was a career 20 point player).

He's an extremely limited offensive player at the NHL level and when you combine that with his deployment it's a recipe for very few goals and points.

Yeah, he is. As is the definition of a ~20 point player. Just like Dorsett. The difference is Gaunce plays way more brutal minutes and so far has shown he can handle those fairly effectively.

 

[Ainec]

Who praises Sutter??

His low zone starts might have to do with.. as you mentioned
-low skill level
-canucks being a team that will be outmatched every night

 

[rune74]

Not only that, he was our most dangerous offensive player in that game while doing a great job defensively in the toughest minutes on the team.

I feel that there are a lot of people who were super stoked about Benning's off-season and how many picks we'd trade his great signings for who now really, really don't want to talk about that anymore and for whom LOL GAUNCE 0 GOALS is the easiest bit of low-hanging BUT GILLIS! fruit for them to latch onto and try to deflect with.

Likewise, these same people are suddenly really negative about Hutton while somehow thinking the worse Pouliot is just terrific.

I'm sorry what a bs statement. You double down on this all the time and cry when people say "it's a Gillis pick so thats why people are high on him." That's the way things work here now.

Completely doing the same thing but pretending you aren't.

Gaunce is a 4th line player and that's it.

 

[Hit the post]

Who praises Sutter??

CDC but then again, they're mostly Guds fanboys & wanted Benning's contract extended already.

Gaunce is a 4th line player and that's it.

I'm not even ready to call him even that (that is NHL 4th line player). Let's see how the rest of his season goes (that is, if he's given the chance).

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Some times the simpliest answer is the best. He is not that good. He is not bad, nor does he look out of place, but at the moment of truth he does not come through.

Love how your framed your post. Knowledgeable people think one way and ignorant people think the other way. Then go on to point out you are one of the knowledgeable ones. It is not that clearcut that Gaunce is a good player. This board can not agree whether Canucks won the Gradlund Shinkaruk trade and you think that Gaunce being a good player is clearcut. The argumemt for and against him are just different sides of the same coin. To me he needs to play with an edge as his work on the pk is not so impressive that you can have him providing little else. If he played with an edge or scored every 15 games or so I would be satisfied with him is a limited role. He does not do that right now so to me his spot is open for the next wave. Gaudette or Lockwood, Lind seem like plausible replacements to him. Or any of 50 pto available each year. Upshall for example plays same role but better.

 

[Melvin]

Nobody said anything about him being Manny Malhotra at winning faceoffs. I have no idea what you are talking about there. No clue. Nobody has said a word about him being a faceoff stalwart. He doesn't even play centre most the time. This is one of the more absurd straw men that has been posted recently.

We are talking about USAGE. Green is a coach who heavily alters his deployment based on the location of the faceoffs. Right now the canucks have three of the most extreme forwards in the nhl in terms of how they are deployed. Henrik, who starts in the offensive zone more than any player in the nhl, and Gaunce on the defensive end. Also Sutter is about the 7th or so most extremely-defensive deployed forward.

His extreme deployment mirrors that of Malhotra and it clearly has an impact on his numbers. Nobody says that Gaunce is any great shakes offensively, just that if not for his extreme deployment he would probably have a couple more points.

Do we really believe that if Gaunce had two goals like Sutter (1 empty net) that he would therefore have been a substantially better player? Think about that.

It is pretty poor form to write such a long purported retort only to ignore the only point anyone has actually made.

I agree with you however about the lack of objective standard. If what you are saying about Gaunce is true, then the same applies to Sutter who makes 6x the salary.

Granlund is not a player who gets deployed in an extremely defensive fashion so he has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Hit the post]

This board can not agree whether Canucks won the Gradlund Shinkaruk trade

Assuming Benning trades Virtanen for an established bottom six NHL forward & Virtanen later busts. He wins the trade! I'd still would be 100% against such a move because the Canucks aren't in the position to make such trades (we don't have that much of an abundance of potential top six forwards). Better to keep the lottery ticket.

 

[I am toxic]

What are you even watching? Gaunce does literally all of those things. Those are the exact things (and also the only things) he's good at offensively. Most of the of time it just doesn't translate to points (see Dorsett who was a career 20 point player).


Yeah, he is. As is the definition of a ~20 point player. Just like Dorsett. The difference is Gaunce plays way more brutal minutes and so far has shown he can handle those fairly effectively.

And at a fraction of the cap hit, no?

 

[Pip]

Dorsett got points and goals because he went to the net, dug out pucks from the corners,and was aggressive on the forecheck. Gaunce doesn't do any of those things. He's an extremely limited offensive player at the NHL level and when you combine that with his deployment it's a recipe for very few goals and points.

Dorsett’s goals were largely flukes. Bouncing off of players and making weird deflections.

 

[m9]

What are you even watching? Gaunce does literally all of those things. Those are the exact things (and also the only things) he's good at offensively. Most of the of time it just doesn't translate to points (see Dorsett who was a career 20 point player).

Yeah, he is. As is the definition of a ~20 point player. Just like Dorsett. The difference is Gaunce plays way more brutal minutes and so far has shown he can handle those fairly effectively.

Nowhere to really go with this except to say that I disagree. I don't see these things present in Gaunce's game at all. Part of it is deployment as he's not in a position to show these things, but he also has not shown these things in the opportunities he has gotten.

 

[m9]

Dorsett’s goals were largely flukes. Bouncing off of players and making weird deflections.

Sure, those things will happen sometimes when you drive hard to the net.

 

[Pip]

Sure, those things will happen sometimes when you drive hard to the net.

No that stuff happens sometimes regardless. It’s luck and it’s random.

 

[Jay Cee]

Kind of weird to slag Dorsett's goals in defense of Gaunce, when Dorsett was/is clearly a superior offensive player. Gaunce should be doing more of what Dorsett does, obviously.

 

[m9]

Kind of weird to slag Dorsett's goals in defense of Gaunce, when Dorsett was/is clearly a superior offensive player. Gaunce should be doing more of what Dorsett does, obviously.

I think they both are below-average offensive players at the NHL level. My only thing is that Dorsett found ways to collect points (some years) and Gaunce hasn't yet, and you can just throw your hands up and say 'luck' or try to figure out what it causing it.

Attributing Dorsett's offense to "luck" and Gaunce's offense to "bad luck" is extremely lazy non-analysis when there are definite things in each of their games that have caused one guy to get a point every 4 games and the other guy to get one every 13 or 14.

 

[MS]

I think they both are below-average offensive players at the NHL level. My only thing is that Dorsett found ways to collect points (some years) and Gaunce hasn't yet, and you can just throw your hands up and say 'luck' or try to figure out what it causing it.

Attributing Dorsett's offense to "luck" and Gaunce's offense to "bad luck" is extremely lazy non-analysis when there are definite things in each of their games that have caused one guy to get a point every 4 games and the other guy to get one every 13 or 14.

What on earth?

Dorsett was playing really well this year before getting re-injured. But his production was almost entirely dumb luck. I think one of his 7 goals was actually shot directly into the net. It seemed like every shot he threw toward the net would take a crazy bounce and go in. Or bounce off his face and in.

Gaunce has been the exact opposite. It should be impossible that a player throw as many pucks toward the net as he has in the last couple years with zero result or luck or bounces, but that's what's happened.

Claiming he isn't generating stuff on the forecheck is bizarre - that's the best part of his game, and he's the best forechecker on the team.

Lazy analysis is claiming that Dorsett's lucky goals were a result of 'working harder' or anything like that. He wasn't doing a thing different from the years where he went an entire season and scored 4 goals.

 

[Pip]

I think they both are below-average offensive players at the NHL level. My only thing is that Dorsett found ways to collect points (some years) and Gaunce hasn't yet, and you can just throw your hands up and say 'luck' or try to figure out what it causing it.

Attributing Dorsett's offense to "luck" and Gaunce's offense to "bad luck" is extremely lazy non-analysis when there are definite things in each of their games that have caused one guy to get a point every 4 games and the other guy to get one every 13 or 14.

Nothing lazy about it actually when luck is mostly the difference

 

[m9]

What on earth?

Dorsett was playing really well this year before getting re-injured. But his production was almost entirely dumb luck. I think one of his 7 goals was actually shot directly into the net. It seemed like every shot he threw toward the net would take a crazy bounce and go in. Or bounce off his face and in.

Gaunce has been the exact opposite. It should be impossible that a player throw as many pucks toward the net as he has in the last couple years with zero result or luck or bounces, but that's what's happened.

Claiming he isn't generating stuff on the forecheck is bizarre - that's the best part of his game, and he's the best forechecker on the team.

Lazy analysis is claiming that Dorsett's lucky goals were a result of 'working harder' or anything like that. He wasn't doing a thing different from the years where he went an entire season and scored 4 goals.

I don't think it's anything to do with "working harder", I'm just saying that lots of goals in hockey are scored when you go to the net. When you don't have a great shot like Dorsett or Gaunce, odds are most of your goals will come from being around there. I'd like to see Gaunce around the net more often, and I think it will lead to some goals.

 

[Bougieman]

Gaunce is truly the Great Divider. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player who draws the line as clearly as he does between people who have knowledge and understanding of this sport and people who don’t. It’s soooo easy to say he’s a nothing player. You just take a quick look at his abysmal statline, his clunky skating stride and seemingly low skill level. It’s so obvious. It’s a low hanging fruit and the majority is going to take that and ignore all the nuance and context.

The fact is Gaunce has been outscored 3-6 this season 5-on-5 while playing the toughest minutes in the NHL (16% zone starts, most common opposition forwards: Gaudreau and Monahan, Giroux and Couturier, Turris Smith and Fiala, Pavelski and Thornton) in a team that has -12 goal differential 5-on-5. If you think that's overall a bad or replacement level performance, that a whatever AHLer could play the same role just as effectively, you are simply clueless.

For the record, the foundational player Sutter with his 20M+ contract, who many were singing praises to early for his defensive efforts, has been outscored 8-9 while getting almost twice the favorable zone starts (28%) with pretty much the same corsi as Gaunce.

Just like everything was going in for Dorsett early in the year, nothing is going in for Gaunce right now. But there's no realistic or reasonable world where pucks won't start going in at some point as long as Gaunce keeps playing and getting chances like he did against Calgary and that he isn't going to start getting his on-average ~20 points per season.

haha "right now"? Nothing has gone in for him... ever.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

Gaunce is truly the Great Divider. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player who draws the line as clearly as he does between people who have knowledge and understanding of this sport and people who don’t. It’s soooo easy to say he’s a nothing player. You just take a quick look at his abysmal statline, his clunky skating stride and seemingly low skill level. It’s so obvious. It’s a low hanging fruit and the majority is going to take that and ignore all the nuance and context.

The fact is Gaunce has been outscored 3-6 this season 5-on-5 while playing the toughest minutes in the NHL (16% zone starts, most common opposition forwards: Gaudreau and Monahan, Giroux and Couturier, Turris Smith and Fiala, Pavelski and Thornton) in a team that has -12 goal differential 5-on-5. If you think that's overall a bad or replacement level performance, that a whatever AHLer could play the same role just as effectively, you are simply clueless.

For the record, the foundational player Sutter with his 20M+ contract, who many were singing praises to early for his defensive efforts, has been outscored 8-9 while getting almost twice the favorable zone starts (28%) with pretty much the same corsi as Gaunce.

Just like everything was going in for Dorsett early in the year, nothing is going in for Gaunce right now. But there's no realistic or reasonable world where pucks won't start going in at some point as long as Gaunce keeps playing and getting chances like he did against Calgary and that he isn't going to start getting his on-average ~20 points per season.

Gaunce is indeed the great divider.

Speaks to our impressive attention to detail here I believe.

 

[Pip]

haha "right now"? Nothing has gone in for him... ever.

This season is the first time he’s had more than 8-10 minutes a night and he’s been creating chances on a fairly consistent basis. That’s when the bad luck comes in “right now”

 

[Cupless44]

What are you even watching? Gaunce does literally all of those things. Those are the exact things (and also the only things) he's good at offensively. Most of the of time it just doesn't translate to points (see Dorsett who was a career 20 point player).


Yeah, he is. As is the definition of a ~20 point player. Just like Dorsett. The difference is Gaunce plays way more brutal minutes and so far has shown he can handle those fairly effectively.

Yes but there are players in the NHL who play his role and chip in some offence. In today's NHL, successful teams are getting a few goals out of their 4th lines. it is not all plugs and enforcers anymore.

I don't mind Gaunce but he is a 12th, 13th forward. Not a player who cant be fairly easily replaced. Not someone who should stand in the way of the Gaudettes and Gadhjovichs when they start coming.

 

[Melvin]

Yes but there are players in the NHL who play his role and chip in some offence. In today's NHL, successful teams are getting a few goals out of their 4th lines. it is not all plugs and enforcers anymore.

.

Branson Sutter has two goals in 23 games. One was an empty netter. The other was in the first game of the season when Boeser was scratched and his deployment was more favourable.

Of the guys who get deployed like Gaunce, with 20% ozone starts, basically none of them score. Guys like Jay beagle who has 4 empty net goals or something and a few other guys who have one or two goals playing the whole season.

Gaunce has played 18 games and is deployed even more extremely than those guys. Eventually he will get one or two and be at around the same level of production.

If I concede that Sutter is a superior offensive player, will you concede that the difference between having 2 goals in 23 games, of which one is an empty netter, and having 0 goals in 18 games is not especially significant? And Gaunce makes 15% the salary.

I don't have issue with your second paragraph.

 

[Cupless44]

Branson Sutter has two goals in 23 games. One was an empty netter. The other was in the first game of the season when Boeser was scratched and his deployment was more favourable.

Of the guys who get deployed like Gaunce, with 20% ozone starts, basically none of them score. Guys like Jay beagle who has 4 empty net goals or something and a few other guys who have one or two goals playing the whole season.

Gaunce has played 18 games and is deployed even more extremely than those guys. Eventually he will get one or two and be at around the same level of production.

If I concede that Sutter is a superior offensive player, will you concede that the difference between having 2 goals in 23 games, of which one is an empty netter, and having 0 goals in 18 games is not especially significant?

I don't have issue with your second paragraph.

I am not looking at Brandon Sutter. I am looking at our opponents who have players like Mathieu Perrault, Adam Lowry on their 4th lines. Scottie Upshall would have brought a more well rounded game to the 4th line actually. Though there is the element of youth to Gaunce on a rebuilding team, though not sure what "upside" he actually has to improve much.