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

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[Jay Cee]

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.

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.)

 

[Jay Cee]

But you haven't debated any of the other points.

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.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[Melvin]

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.

 

[Jay Cee]

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.

 

[Melvin]

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.

I have done no such thing. Ironically enough, what you are doing now is an actual strawman since it's an argument that I never made or came close to making.

I was responding to a poster asking why people value physical play so highly. And yes there are certainly people in here who have held gudbranson over tanev. It's not necessary for me to name them.

 

[Fatass]

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?

 

[Melvin]

Wouldn’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.

 

[Kryten]

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 15pims

 

[MS]

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.

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.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

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.

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.

 

[Disappointed EP40]

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.

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......

 

[bossram]

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.

There are perfectly reasonable arguments to make that Gaunce is a replacement level player. Some of those I am pretty sympathetic too. I just haven't seen many people make them

My opinion is that Gaunce is a credible/useful player due to his defensive value. I supplied a variety metrics that lend support to the idea that he is a good defensive player.

Like you, I don't think he is or ever will be a half-decent offensive player. But I do think there is good reason to expect it will get better, and to such a level that his overall value as a player will be firmly positive. If his on-ice Sh% regresses to even an average 4th line level (which I think is a reasonable expectation), then his offensive contributions will be commensurate with a player in his role.

If a team is going to have pure defensive specialists, you can do worse than Gaunce who is young, versatile, and very cheap.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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.

Skjei broke into the NHL at exactly the same time as Gaunce so we can’t say he was a long term project anymore than Gaunce was. It was a terrible pick because you had high profile coaches like Sutter who saw him up close say that they saw no offensive upside or potential in him at the World Junior camps. He has no offensive creativity which any scout should notice. I think they just picked him because he had a big body and he had leadership and they recently lost to the Bruins and overreacted to that by changing their whole philosophy and de-emphasizing offensive creativity and skill in exchange for size and toughness. It was absolutely a blown pick because you never go for a forward with limited offensive upside in the 1st round. It’s a waste. If you’re picking that high you go for high end skill, plain and simple.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

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......

Ad hominem aside, I can’t bring myself to see Gaunce as a young player anymore because his upside is non existent at this point. He’s basically, you see what you get, so he’s in the same boat as a veteran in my mind. I don’t see much potential there, he’s good at all the little things, he isn’t a party animal, there isnt anything he realistically can improve on to reaonsably project any significant increase in production. He’s just not an offensive guy.

 

[terrible dee]

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.)

-Belittling distraction
-Belittling distraction
-Rhetorical "Insta-dismiss" new-speak. (I can't counter your point so I'll label it with a slur)
-Player dis

You add nothing of value here,

just Astroturfing pollution,

 

[forty47seven]

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.

Gaunce played 65% of his EV shifts with either Sutter or Virtanen. When Gaunce was on the ice at even strength, his line produced 12 goals for over 37 games (12GF/37GP=0.32GF/GP) Sutter's line scored 37% more (0.51GF/GP) and Virtanen's line 23% more (0.42GF/GP) at even strength overall. I don't know if this proves the offense "dies" when Gaunce is on the ice but his line mates are significantly more productive without him.

The biggest problems with Gaunce are his borderline skating and heavy hands. If he was even just average in both these regards, he would be a very good middle six center; he thinks the game so well. I'm not overly optimistic, at this point, he will improve his skill set enough to be more than a defensive specialist.

 

[Wo Yorfat]

So still no halfway intelligent arguments that Gaunce wasn't a good player last yr? Cool.

 

[F A N]

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.

Are we even talking about the same thing? I think you are confused. If Gaunce is playing 10 minutes a game mostly on the wing next season and putting up less than 20 points, he's not an elite 3rd line C. If Gaunce putting up 12+ goals 22+ points on the 4th line means he needs a bump up in minutes and he gets those minutes his value to this team has increased IMO. A good 4th line player that you would sign long term at $2M-3M AAV shouldn't average 10 minutes a game on your 4th line. Somehow, there seems to be posters here who think all it matters are the averages like if you give Gaunce Sutter's minutes he will score 20+ goals. It doesn't work that way.

 

[Megaterio Llamas]

 

[sting101]

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.

Brendan Gaunce toughest to play against ?? Is this a prediction?

* 3rd lowest QOC of all regular forwards last year behind Dowd and Virtanen
* the 2nd highest Giveaways p/60 of all forwards behind only Virtanen
* the 11th best shot blocks amongst the forward group.
* 6th in takeaways p/60 behind Virtanen who blows everyone away Eriksson Vanek Boeser and Dowd.
* 5th in hits p/60 forwards
* GF p60 of 1.59 and a GA p/60 of 1.73 compared to Sutter 1.80 - 1.50 who lined up at centre actually against top lines instead of the weakest of competition.
* plays W instead of C which is the easiest position to play
* he almost never fights which most could care less about but would make him tough to play against for takers if he was good at it (not a big deal)
* is one of the if not the worst threats to score and was scratched by his coach

And this migration to +/- is a little over the top considering Luca Sbisa was the 2nd best amongst the defense in 2017 just slightly behind Tanev. Does this mean all the claims of Sbisa being horrendous are false and he was holding his own at -1 and Gudbranson was a decent target because he was +3 in Florida?

Yes MS Gaunce is youngish, good defensively and he has some promise as a shut down player and maybe more with improvement. He is far from the hardest forward to play against and his job is in jeapordy without a step forward.

So help me see what you see. I like the player. I just don't get the hype. He had a good half season of withstanding the most defensive deployment in the NHL but how do we get the "toughest to play against" and "good 3rd liner" ?. Isn't there data to support that after 15-20 seconds the defensive zone start has no bearing on CA numbers? Why is it the last 20-30 seconds of 52% of his shifts he couldn't do a little more offensively and half those shifts roughly they won the faceoff and they had the puck so the 15-20 seconds would not apply?. And what about the 48% he wasn't in his own zone to start? i honestly dont even care that much about his scoring because he likely figures it out but he hasn't yet so why should he get the benefit of the doubt? I get responses from my prediction of Virtanen getting 20 this year with what has he done to prove it?

 

[absolute garbage]

Wouldn’t you like to see a more physical Gaunce, who fights? Why does he suddenly become a worse player by becoming more physical?

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.

I just think you (and a lot of other people too) have serious issues in not being able to identify low event non "energy players" as good bottom 6 players. There's this deeply rooted archaic thinking that if you don't put up points, then you must be a "high energy guy" for not be considered useless. This is especially true if you also are not playing center/don't win faceoffs. And Gaunce checks both of these boxes. Gaunce also checks the even more ridiculous "Gillis pick" and "1st rounder - DISAPPOINTMENT" boxes for some people. And unlike Beagle, who Gaunce is really a copy of, Gaunce is new and doesn't have that career and pedigree that people can just point at and say "well he's been here a long time so clearly he must be doing something right".

And I have no doubts Gaunce could give the team the same strong defensive play at center if given the opportunity. Maybe the faceoffs would take a bit of time to come along, but that's normal for every young center and this team definitely had the time here to go through that development. But Benning didn't see it that way. He went full Pejorative Slur once again, lazily gave buyout proof 12 million to an over the hill, 10 years older acclaimed and distinguished version of Gaunce coming off a max exposure Cup win, and probably ends up losing the homegrown, young, cheap and improving Gaunce for nothing. Just pitiful.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Defense is great but in today’s NHL you just don’t cut it with such low offensive production. If he doesn’t produce more goals and points this year he’s pretty much done as a regular NHL player imo.