Camp surprises

[Zarpan]

I have never seen Dane Fox, but the comments people make about him remind me so much of Jesse Schultz...6'0, 185, poor skating but tears up juniors as an overager on a 50-win team, doesn't get drafted, signs with the Canucks...

I haven't really seen Fox either (aside from some videos), but one odd thing is all that the 2012 scouting reports I've read had him pegged as a decent to good skater (albeit with an unorthodox style).

One difference with Schultz though is that he wasn't ranked in the top 180 North American skaters his draft year, while Fox was ranked 46. Narrative is probably a bit different if he was drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round.

 

[shortshorts]

Scouts also said Hodgson was an "decent to good" skater.

 

[JoeCool16]

Scouts also said Hodgson was an "decent to good" skater.

Did they? Either way, he's a weak skater at an NHL level, but there have been a fair amount of weak skaters who went onto very successful NHL careers. They're still good skaters at the pro level, just not compared to the top-level players in the NHL. Some players who look bad in the NHL still do fine in Europe or the AHL, like Schremp, Omark and Cheechoo. Other ones are good enough at enough things that their weaker skating doesn't hamper them (and they find time to improve on it a bit), like Tavares, Hodgson, Antropov, and former NHLers Ryan Smyth and Luc Robitaille.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Did they? Either way, he's a weak skater at an NHL level, but there have been a fair amount of weak skaters who went onto very successful NHL careers. They're still good skaters at the pro level, just not compared to the top-level players in the NHL. Some players who look bad in the NHL still do fine in Europe or the AHL, like Schremp, Omark and Cheechoo. Other ones are good enough at enough things that their weaker skating doesn't hamper them (and they find time to improve on it a bit), like Tavares, Hodgson, Antropov, and former NHLers Ryan Smyth and Luc Robitaille.

One is our captain and the other his twin brother.
Mind you their work ethic and hockey IQ are off the charts and help make up for it.

 

[NiceGuyDrP]

One is our captain and the other his twin brother.
Mind you their work ethic and hockey IQ are off the charts and help make up for it.

I would argue that the Sedins are actually quite good skaters except mostly in small areas - they just don't have the high end speed. Their edgework when they are making those small passes in/around the boards is actually quite impressive.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I would argue that the Sedins are actually quite good skaters except mostly in small areas - they just don't have the high end speed. Their edgework when they are making those small passes in/around the boards is actually quite impressive.

Read their draft reports though.
Like I said their work ethic is off the charts.

 

[Fat Tony]

Some players who look bad in the NHL still do fine in Europe or the AHL, like Schremp, Omark and Cheechoo.

Cheechoo fell off the map when the hip and groin injuries started piling up.

 

[Trelane]

Been saying it for months... Dane Fox.

All you overager naysayers leave out too many preceding facts. His skating can be remedied. Anyone remember how improved Booths skating was after he worked on it with a trainer?

2013-2014 - !07 points. 64goals, 43 assists, in 67 games. Playoffs: 19 points in 14 games

Skating can be noticably improved in some cases only. Kassian did it, Hodgson not so much. Booth, product of a US system, which I find over the years produces better skaters than the CHL at the high end, was always a good skater. More fair to say that toward his end here he finally recovered more fully from his knee and other injuries.

If your skating is sub par you pretty much have to be a beast in some other capacity to stick around. Eager to see how Gaunce, Horvat and Fox do in this department. Of course being a consistent scorer would probably trump any heavy foot shortcoming.

 

[Shareefruck]

The Sedins were way slower skaters than Hodgson when they broke into the league

What's the worse case scenario with Horvat if they play him? He doesn't play great and they dont win the Cup?

I think we're used to that by now.

Worst case scenario for Horvat would be Horvat makes the team, the team plays well enough to be at least in the playoff hunt, Horvat's play drops off and doesn't look ready, Matthias/Richardson/Vey win the 3rd line center spot, and Horvat gets buried on the 4th line or worse, is stuck on the bench, unable to be sent down to either junior or the AHL

Very possible scenario and would be devastating if it happened, IMO.

My argument, again, is that an AHL eligible player has an advantage/better reasons to make the team over a guy who doesn't, rather than the other way around, which seems to be the consensus here.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

He can still be sent back to junior any time...

 

[Ace101]

He can still be sent back to junior any time...

If you mean Horvat he he gets 9 games then the team decides is he going to stay in the NHL for the whole year or go back to junior and not be available until his team in juniors is eliminated from the me memorial cup.

 

[biturbo19]

If you mean Horvat he he gets 9 games then the team decides is he going to stay in the NHL for the whole year or go back to junior and not be available until his team in juniors is eliminated from the me memorial cup.

The 9 games is the deadline for whether or not it will burn a year of his ELC. There is still an opportunity to return him to Juniors after that, it's just extremely uncommon for good reason, and the "asset management" crowd would completely flip their lids and probably riot outside Benning's office.

 

[JoeCool16]

Cheechoo fell off the map when the hip and groin injuries started piling up.

Still a really good player in Europe. Guy can barely skate and led his KHL team in scoring last season. Point is, poor skating can be overcome. Cheechoo was never a skating force anyway, but he didn't really drop off in production until his lower body completely fell apart. He also was a goal scorer, like Fox. I don't think Fox's skating will hold him back that much.

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

The 9 games is the deadline for whether or not it will burn a year of his ELC. There is still an opportunity to return him to Juniors after that, it's just extremely uncommon for good reason, and the "asset management" crowd would completely flip their lids and probably riot outside Benning's office.

That's what I was referring to.


I was going to touch more on the AHL thing Shareefruck is mentioning but got cut off...

It simply comes down to roster spots. If you keep Jensen, Gaunce, Shinkaruk and Fox in the AHL to start the year, it gives you the flexibility to keep 14 forwards on 1 way contracts on the roster.

Now if they play well, I couldn't care less, but in a situation where it's a "maybe", well you know the teams probably going to go the no-waiver route.

 

[biturbo19]

Personally, i still think that the way many people here would intend to use the "9 game rule" isn't entirely constructive or wise. I'm of the opinion that it should be a "fallback" position in the event that you misjudge things, not used as an "extended tryout" that isn't extended to other players.

That is, give a guy like Horvat lots of preseason work. Put him in a situation to succeed, put him in some tough situations...if he looks clearly able to handle it all, keep him for the season. If he doesn't look ready, or if he doesn't look clearly ready...send him back to Juniors. Truly NHL-ready players should be able to "stand out" in Preseason competition. If he does look clearly ready for the NHL and you keep him, that's where the 9 games come in...if you misjudged it, or his play drops off and you're sitting there at game 6 and he no longer looks ready, you cut your losses, fold, and send him back to Juniors with no real consequence. But that's as a last ditch sort of thing...a "mulligan" if something changes when the real season kicks off...not as a chance to give one specific player twice as long of an "audition" as others.

That's just my take on it though.

 

[Alflives*]

Skating can be noticably improved in some cases only. Kassian did it, Hodgson not so much. Booth, product of a US system, which I find over the years produces better skaters than the CHL at the high end, was always a good skater. More fair to say that toward his end here he finally recovered more fully from his knee and other injuries.

If your skating is sub par you pretty much have to be a beast in some other capacity to stick around. Eager to see how Gaunce, Horvat and Fox do in this department. Of course being a consistent scorer would probably trump any heavy foot shortcoming.

The top three picks in this year's draft are said to have skating issues. Smarts, and the ability to handle the puck with your head up are very important too. Look what happened to Ekblad, when he tried to (slowly) carry the puck up the ice, with his head down, last week? The three Canuck prospects you mentioned all handle the puck, at their top speed - albeit a bit slower than some quicker skaters - with their heads up.

 

[Shareefruck]

He can still be sent back to junior any time...

The 9 games is the deadline for whether or not it will burn a year of his ELC. There is still an opportunity to return him to Juniors after that, it's just extremely uncommon for good reason, and the "asset management" crowd would completely flip their lids and probably riot outside Benning's office.

I actually wasn't aware of this, so that changes my skepticism a little bit.

But still, all things being equal, I think the tiebreaker would/should goto the AHL eligible player, personally. It's still a risk not worth taking, IMO. No sense in rushing Horvat, no sense in being conservative with Gaunce (if he looks like he's got a chance, let him try it and send him down if it doesn't work, unlike with Horvat, where it's a huge gamble for little to no gain).

 

[VanJack]

Interesting that all the focus is on rookies and draft picks....but I'm wondering about some of the depth guys the Canucks signed like Bobby Sanguinetti and Dustin Jeffrey....were ppg guys at the AHL level in the past...still mid-20's veterans...and what about Alex Biega?....had a banner year in Utica....although a little undersized...any upward mobility for these guys or just AHL fodder?

 

[Fat Tony]

Still a really good player in Europe. Guy can barely skate and led his KHL team in scoring last season. Point is, poor skating can be overcome. Cheechoo was never a skating force anyway, but he didn't really drop off in production until his lower body completely fell apart. He also was a goal scorer, like Fox. I don't think Fox's skating will hold him back that much.

It's unfortunate how things turned out for him, that's all. Especially how his career has been perceived.

 

[Lindgren]

Interesting that all the focus is on rookies and draft picks....but I'm wondering about some of the depth guys the Canucks signed like Bobby Sanguinetti and Dustin Jeffrey....were ppg guys at the AHL level in the past...still mid-20's veterans...and what about Alex Biega?....had a banner year in Utica....although a little undersized...any upward mobility for these guys or just AHL fodder?

I'll pipe in very helpfully by saying I think that's a terrific question. It'd be great to get opinions from the experts, or even the non-experts who just happen to have opinions. If you absolutely had to pick a potential surprise from among candidates of that sort, who would it be?

 

[BobbyJazzLegs]

I actually wasn't aware of this, so that changes my skepticism a little bit.

But still, all things being equal, I think the tiebreaker would/should goto the AHL eligible player, personally. It's still a risk not worth taking, IMO. No sense in rushing Horvat, no sense in being conservative with Gaunce (if he looks like he's got a chance, let him try it and send him down if it doesn't work, unlike with Horvat, where it's a huge gamble for little to no gain).

Yeah I see where you're at. It's still about roster spots though. You get to keep an extra forward around if you stagger them. Bo gets the first shot (if he gets a shot) because he cant be called up.

 

[Shareefruck]

Yeah I see where you're at. It's still about roster spots though. You get to keep an extra forward around if you stagger them. Bo gets the first shot (if he gets a shot) because he cant be called up.

That seems like a big risk for relatively small gain to me, personally. You're not going to use up all your prospect callups due to injury anyways, and I doubt the difference between getting to call up Gaunce as opposed to Fox on a callup for a few games is going to change the course of the season very much.

Vey, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Jensen, Kenins, Fox, and Archibald seem like more than enough forward prospect depth to carry around in case of callup.

Risking Horvat's development just to have slightly more stacked up call-up depth seems like overkill/greedy to me.

 

[biturbo19]

Interesting that all the focus is on rookies and draft picks....but I'm wondering about some of the depth guys the Canucks signed like Bobby Sanguinetti and Dustin Jeffrey....were ppg guys at the AHL level in the past...still mid-20's veterans...and what about Alex Biega?....had a banner year in Utica....although a little undersized...any upward mobility for these guys or just AHL fodder?

I honestly agree. That's why as i said earlier, my top two picks to "surprise" in Camp are Sbisa and Vey.

Sbisa in the sense that a lot of people here may be surprised that he's more than the "non NHL player" a large portion of the fans here seem to think he is for some reason.

Vey for the fact that i think people are really underrating what he did in Manchester because he wasn't in our own prospect system at the time. But he has a nice skillset and is right on the cusp of breaking in to the NHL, and will probably be given some prominent opportunities in camp/preseason.

 

[biturbo19]

I actually wasn't aware of this, so that changes my skepticism a little bit.

But still, all things being equal, I think the tiebreaker would/should goto the AHL eligible player, personally. It's still a risk not worth taking, IMO. No sense in rushing Horvat, no sense in being conservative with Gaunce (if he looks like he's got a chance, let him try it and send him down if it doesn't work, unlike with Horvat, where it's a huge gamble for little to no gain).

I believe it's 50 games is the "final deadline" on sending prospects back to Junior from the NHL. Unless something changed in the new CBA, which i haven't heard anything about.

James Wright is the last guy i can think of off the top of my head who went through that sort of shenanigans. I feel like there was another i'm forgetting, maybe even a few more...but it's obviously not something you want to put your prized prospect through. It's a bad situation and bad management when that happens. It is technically an option though.

That seems like a big risk for relatively small gain to me, personally. You're not going to use up all your prospect callups due to injury anyways, and I doubt the difference between getting to call up Gaunce as opposed to Fox on a callup for a few games is going to change the course of the season very much.

Vey, Gaunce, Shinkaruk, Jensen, Kenins, Fox, and Archibald seem like more than enough forward prospect depth to carry around in case of callup.

Risking Horvat's development just to have slightly more stacked up call-up depth seems like overkill/greedy to me.

It's not about "using up all your callups". I don't really know what that even refers to, unless you're talking post-deadline/clearing day roster adjustment. Which isn't typically that prominent a concern of teams heading into a long season.

It's about "stashing" an extra level of depth. If you keep the Junior guy, you also get to "quasi keep" the AHL guy as well, as he can be recalled whenever you want or need them. Whereas once the Junior guy is sent back to Jrs...he gone, ain't coming back.

And due to the CHL/NHL transfer rules, it's extra insurance for your NHL team to go with the CHL guy. In the event that the CHL player doesn't pan out...you can ship him to Jrs and recall the AHL guy. Whereas if you send the CHL guy back to Jrs and the AHL guy doesn't pan out and you have to demote him...you've suddenly got a hole in your roster because the CHL guy isn't eligible to be "called up".

All theoretical anyway though, as it's extremely unlikely that we'd see two players play their way to a complete dead heat in camp like that...both of whom look completely ready for the NHL.

 

[MS]

Personally, i still think that the way many people here would intend to use the "9 game rule" isn't entirely constructive or wise. I'm of the opinion that it should be a "fallback" position in the event that you misjudge things, not used as an "extended tryout" that isn't extended to other players.

That is, give a guy like Horvat lots of preseason work. Put him in a situation to succeed, put him in some tough situations...if he looks clearly able to handle it all, keep him for the season. If he doesn't look ready, or if he doesn't look clearly ready...send him back to Juniors. Truly NHL-ready players should be able to "stand out" in Preseason competition. If he does look clearly ready for the NHL and you keep him, that's where the 9 games come in...if you misjudged it, or his play drops off and you're sitting there at game 6 and he no longer looks ready, you cut your losses, fold, and send him back to Juniors with no real consequence. But that's as a last ditch sort of thing...a "mulligan" if something changes when the real season kicks off...not as a chance to give one specific player twice as long of an "audition" as others.

That's just my take on it though.

Agreed 100%.

Junior-age players should only get their 9 games if they stand out in camp and earn a spot on merit. Then if the actual grind proves too much and they can't duplicate their preseason performance, you have an out to send them back.

Deciding in advance to give guys 9 games regardless of performance is stupid management of stupid organizations. We did it in 2006 with Bourdon after a disaster preseason and it was horrible for his development.

The other thing that keeping a non-ready teenager does is adds unnecessary roster pressure. You have to waive one guy you normally wouldn't have, and/or don't have an extra spot to add an extra player from another team with roster concerns.

Would it have been worth losing an opportunity to pick up Ryan Stanton on October 1 so that we could have carried Horvat for 9 games last year? No way.