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.
But you haven't debated any of the other points.
There are people who think that the US election in 2016 was "totally rigged" dispute their preferred candidate winning. There are people who think 9/11 was a conspiracy. There are people who believe the world is flat.
Strawman argument. (And that still doesnt make Gaunce very good.)
Yes. Indeed there are people who think those things as well. I am not sure what your point is. You seem to be agreeing with me.
A strawman argument is when you construct an argument your opponent has not made and then attack it. I have not done this.
Pointing out that other people believe other stupid things has no bearing on the stupid thing that some people believe which I posted.
What you are doing is seeking out a psycho contingent who somehow think Gudbranson is better than Tanev (who I have honestly never seen) and use it as an argument to discredit people who think that Gaunce is a borderline NHL player, which is completely normal and valid opinion.
Wouldn’t you like to see a more physical Gaunce, who fights? Why does he suddenly become a worse player by becoming more physical?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?
Wouldn’t you like to see a more physical Gaunce, who fights? Why does he suddenly become a worse player by becoming more physical?
Wouldnt you like to see a more team effective Schaller? Id rather have Gaunce at 1g 1a +1 4pims after 20 games than 3g 3a -7 15pimsWouldn’t you like to see a more physical Gaunce, who fights? Why does he suddenly become a worse player by becoming more physical?
Gaunce was among the team leaders in hits.
The difference is he uses his physical play in a way that's actually effective instead of running around like a Dorsett with his head cut off trying to make the boards rattle.
There wasn't much left on the table when the Canucks picked #26 that year. Brady Skjei was a long term college project that worked out very well but wasn't an obvious choice there at the time and Tanner Pearson was a twenty year old who was difficult to place in the draft order. All things considered I'd say, even in hindsight, that Gaunce was a reasonable choice in that spot. You can't really fault the pick, considering.Gaunce is waiver wire fodder. Easily replaceable with someone much better. Likely a career AHLer. Maybe if he works on his skating enough to be a high end skater he can carve out a career as a Jay Beagle lite but it’s extremely unlikely. Absolute waste of a 1st round pick.
Gaunce is waiver wire fodder. Easily replaceable with someone much better. Likely a career AHLer. Maybe if he works on his skating enough to be a high end skater he can carve out a career as a Jay Beagle lite but it’s extremely unlikely. Absolute waste of a 1st round pick.
I am not here to say that Gaunce has zero value. I have said this multiple times in this thread. I like defensive forwards, just like anyone else who I guess likes them. I think I overvalued them. He just isn't good enough. He is easily replaceable, and offense dies when he plays in no small due to him.
There wasn't much left on the table when the Canucks picked #26 that year. Brady Skjei was a long term college project that worked out very well but wasn't an obvious choice there at the time and Tanner Pearson was a twenty year old who was difficult to place in the draft order. All things considered I'd say, even in hindsight, that Gaunce was a reasonable choice in that spot. You can't really fault the pick, considering.
Weak draft, late drafting position. I think you can live with it.
The fact this opinion's source lends me to believe the exact opposite is true then.
Also let's not forget his age, slight, but steady improvement, defensive ability, cost, and the fact the team should take flyers on any guy that shows an iota of potential at this time.
Or hey, veterans !! Because......
There are people who think that the US election in 2016 was "totally rigged" dispute their preferred candidate winning. There are people who think 9/11 was a conspiracy. There are people who believe the world is flat.
Strawman argument. (And that still doesnt make Gaunce very good.)
I am not here to say that Gaunce has zero value. I have said this multiple times in this thread. I like defensive forwards, just like anyone else who I guess likes them. I think I overvalued them. He just isn't good enough. He is easily replaceable, and offense dies when he plays in no small due to him.
Your opinion is fine. I'm asking for some whys. Some evidence or something.
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.
Brendan Gaunce toughest to play against ?? Is this a prediction?Gaunce is the hardest player to play against on the Canucks aside from Tanev.
Unfortunately, dinosaurs think being 'hard to play against' is the realm of pylons who facewash guys after the whistle like Gudbranson or crappy energy players who throw pointless board-rattling hits like Roussel - when in fact these are the easiest guys to play against for skill players who feast on them - instead of strong, disciplined players who use their smarts and size to dominate puck battles in tough areas and are actually tough and frustrating to play against.
I think Gaunce's physicality is perfectly fine. He takes the body and battles in tough areas consistently, and does it effectively. That's all I can ask of him. And I definitely don't want to him to punch more faces. Why would you want to unnecessarily take a positive player off the ice and put him to penalty box? Makes absolutely zero sense.Wouldn’t you like to see a more physical Gaunce, who fights? Why does he suddenly become a worse player by becoming more physical?