Prospect Info: Who is Canucks #4 prospect?

CanadianPirate

Registered User
Apr 17, 2007
1,241
38
I don't think a criteria is necessary. Who is the most skilled, who has the most potential, who has the highest asset value and who is the closest to the nhl should all be viable criteria. This is a personal ranking with each poster having to choose not only which prospects they value the most but which criteria at different points in the ranking they value the most.
 

m9

m9
Sponsor
Jan 23, 2010
25,107
15,229
It's impossible to say. In this past draft, Gaunce and Jensen no problem - Corrado maybe. Mccann was clearly worth a very late 24-30 in a weak draft. Next years draft he might be a late second. Gaunce was taken in the first round in a better draft, thus he is a better prospect. Ditto for Jensen. Using the same theory.

This all is completely opinion though, giving player value to his particular draft is tangible. But when you put stock into a players skill based on that you will run into problems as each draft year has different amount of talent.

Finally this is why ranking prospects is very difficult. In my eyes, it is the best player currently not who has the highest upside.

Edit:To your last post. It has to do with definition of "Best Prospect" and in that, lays our difference in opinion, I suppose.

You are incorrect in how you interpreted my "theory" as you are not accounting for how players have progressed. Aside from that I don't want to hijack the thread, as posters are free to vote however they would like. I just think the point of the list should be to imitate how an organization would value their prospects, and these other methods simply don't do that.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
It's impossible to say. In this past draft, Gaunce and Jensen no problem - Corrado maybe. Mccann was clearly worth a very late 24-30 in a weak draft. Next years draft he might be a late second. Gaunce was taken in the first round in a better draft, thus he is a better prospect. Ditto for Jensen. Using the same theory.

i dont think you could trade jensen for a first round pick this year
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,956
3,688
Vancouver, BC
It's impossible to say. In this past draft, Gaunce and Jensen no problem - Corrado maybe. Mccann was clearly worth a very late 24-30 in a weak draft. Next years draft he might be a late second. Gaunce was taken in the first round in a better draft, thus he is a better prospect. Ditto for Jensen. Using the same theory.

This all is completely opinion though, giving player value to his particular draft is tangible. But when you put stock into a players skill based on that you will run into problems as each draft year has different amount of talent.

Finally this is why ranking prospects is very difficult. In my eyes, it is the best player currently not who has the highest upside.

Edit:To your last post. It has to do with definition of "Best Prospect" and in that, lays our difference in opinion, I suppose.
I don't think that aligns at all with the meaning of the actual word "prospect".
 

King Crimson

Registered User
Oct 6, 2011
105
37
Voting Gaunce until he wins a poll. I also think he should be #1 because I think he has the best chance to reach his potential. Not that I'm selling our other prospects short, since I honestly feel that Gaunce tops out as a 70pt 1c captain who beasts at both ends of the ice and elevates his game in the playoffs.
 

canuck4life16

It what it is-mccann
May 29, 2008
13,380
0
Vancity
Voting Gaunce until he wins a poll. I also think he should be #1 because I think he has the best chance to reach his potential. Not that I'm selling our other prospects short, since I honestly feel that Gaunce tops out as a 70pt 1c captain who beasts at both ends of the ice and elevates his game in the playoffs.

so basically David Krejic? he(David) elevates his game in the playoff for the bruins
 

SighReally

Registered User
Sep 6, 2011
1,625
0
Voting Gaunce until he wins a poll. I also think he should be #1 because I think he has the best chance to reach his potential. Not that I'm selling our other prospects short, since I honestly feel that Gaunce tops out as a 70pt 1c captain who beasts at both ends of the ice and elevates his game in the playoffs.

Uh that's really optimistic.

Like "I'll win the lottery" optimistic. 70 Pt 1C captains usually aren't found in players projected to play on the 2nd/3rd line with skating deficiencies and above average junior output.

Also people who keep bandying about statements like "Jensen has a lowered bust factor" "Jensen has a very good top 6 upside" need to bring up some tangible evidence other than his "pedigree" and "oh he scored a bunch of goals in a short span of time in the AHL" and "he played really really well with the Sedins," because that's not evidence.
 

pahlsson

Registered User
Mar 22, 2012
9,951
469
Voting Gaunce until he wins a poll. I also think he should be #1 because I think he has the best chance to reach his potential. Not that I'm selling our other prospects short, since I honestly feel that Gaunce tops out as a 70pt 1c captain who beasts at both ends of the ice and elevates his game in the playoffs.

wow who knew we had toews 2.0 in our prospect pool
 

King Crimson

Registered User
Oct 6, 2011
105
37
Uh that's really optimistic.

Like "I'll win the lottery" optimistic. 70 Pt 1C captains usually aren't found in players projected to play on the 2nd/3rd line with skating deficiencies and above average junior output.

Also people who keep bandying about statements like "Jensen has a lowered bust factor" "Jensen has a very good top 6 upside" need to bring up some tangible evidence other than his "pedigree" and "oh he scored a bunch of goals in a short span of time in the AHL" and "he played really really well with the Sedins," because that's not evidence.

Unusual? Sure. Impossible? Never. It's a strange thing to say because it goes against so much of the conventional understanding we have about Gaunce. Nevertheless, I still believe he's a future stud. It's more of a feeling than any logical deduction (despite how much I hate Iridescent's "Virtanen is stupid" soapbox for the same reasons).

There's just something about Gaunce that I think will translate into great NHL success. He'll never be spectacular, but he'll never need to be. He's smart and he's efficient, and that's all he'll need to be great. "Stupid play" and "Brendan Gaunce" are two things you rarely find linked together by commentators. He can shoot, he can pass, he can find the quiet ice, he can defend, and he can protect the puck.

If his only negative is that he's a slow skater, then it's one I'm willing to dismiss. I've always believed that, for cerebral players, skating speed is very low on the priority list: the puck moves faster than a player ever could. Also, you don't need speed to get to a place if you're already there waiting.

Sure, I'm optimistic, but it's better than being pessimistic. And frankly, all cynics need a butterknife in the eye.
 

SighReally

Registered User
Sep 6, 2011
1,625
0
Unusual? Sure. Impossible? Never. It's a strange thing to say because it goes against so much of the conventional understanding we have about Gaunce. Nevertheless, I still believe he's a future stud. It's more of a feeling than any logical deduction (despite how much I hate Iridescent's "Virtanen is stupid" soapbox for the same reasons).

There's just something about Gaunce that I think will translate into great NHL success. He'll never be spectacular, but he'll never need to be. He's smart and he's efficient, and that's all he'll need to be great. "Stupid play" and "Brendan Gaunce" are two things you rarely find linked together by commentators. He can shoot, he can pass, he can find the quiet ice, he can defend, and he can protect the puck.

If his only negative is that he's a slow skater, then it's one I'm willing to dismiss. I've always believed that, for cerebral players, skating speed is very low on the priority list: the puck moves faster than a player ever could. Also, you don't need speed to get to a place if you're already there waiting.

Sure, I'm optimistic, but it's better than being pessimistic. And frankly, all cynics need a butterknife in the eye.

I'm being trolled right?

>feelings
>ever

So basically because he does the little things right even though he hasn't shown offensive promise in his game and can't skate as well as a top player should that's going to somehow translate to a 70 point center.

I'm not even pessimistic. I'm pessimistic about Jensen for example but Gaunce I think I'm fairly on point that he's not going to amount to nothing more than a middling 2nd liner or an excellent 3rd liner.
 
May 31, 2006
10,457
1,320
I voted Corrado.

Jensen remains the most overrated prospect we have. I expect that by this time next year, he will either no longer be in the organization or outside the top-10. Just not a good player.
 

Hyack57

Registered User
Aug 6, 2004
5,520
240
Airdrie, AB
Voted: Corrado

Cedarholm is closer to the NHL than Subban. Please add.

Would you rather have a guy like Luke Richardson or a Marc Andre Bergeron / Rapheal Diaz / Steve McCarthy...
 

thefeebster

Registered User
Mar 13, 2009
7,184
1,646
Vancouver
I'm feeling fairly conflicted with this poll, which is why i haven't voted yet.

I agree with Tim. I just don't think Jensen can get over his inconsistency. This is an issue that has plagued him since his draft year. He simply cannot give the same effort more than 3 or 4 games. It's got to be a mental issue, because he has all of the tools you could ask for. I have a few prospects ahead of him, in my mind.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,956
3,688
Vancouver, BC
Uh that's really optimistic.

Like "I'll win the lottery" optimistic. 70 Pt 1C captains usually aren't found in players projected to play on the 2nd/3rd line with skating deficiencies and above average junior output.

Also people who keep bandying about statements like "Jensen has a lowered bust factor" "Jensen has a very good top 6 upside" need to bring up some tangible evidence other than his "pedigree" and "oh he scored a bunch of goals in a short span of time in the AHL" and "he played really really well with the Sedins," because that's not evidence.
He was a fantastic component of a Burrows - Sedin - Jensen #1 line. I'd say that's "some" evidence.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,956
3,688
Vancouver, BC
Unusual? Sure. Impossible? Never. It's a strange thing to say because it goes against so much of the conventional understanding we have about Gaunce. Nevertheless, I still believe he's a future stud. It's more of a feeling than any logical deduction (despite how much I hate Iridescent's "Virtanen is stupid" soapbox for the same reasons).

There's just something about Gaunce that I think will translate into great NHL success. He'll never be spectacular, but he'll never need to be. He's smart and he's efficient, and that's all he'll need to be great. "Stupid play" and "Brendan Gaunce" are two things you rarely find linked together by commentators. He can shoot, he can pass, he can find the quiet ice, he can defend, and he can protect the puck.

If his only negative is that he's a slow skater, then it's one I'm willing to dismiss. I've always believed that, for cerebral players, skating speed is very low on the priority list: the puck moves faster than a player ever could. Also, you don't need speed to get to a place if you're already there waiting.

Sure, I'm optimistic, but it's better than being pessimistic. And frankly, all cynics need a butterknife in the eye.
I agree. I'm trading in all my pessimism for optimism about Gaunce. He's going to be a stud, and I'm way higher on him than Jensen, Corrado, or Shinkaruk, personally.
 

luongo321

Registered User
Apr 12, 2011
12,247
33
I voted Corrado.

Jensen remains the most overrated prospect we have. I expect that by this time next year, he will either no longer be in the organization or outside the top-10. Just not a good player.

I agree.

I have high hopes for McCann. Kid's a gamer.
 

dave babych returns

Registered User
Dec 2, 2011
4,977
1
Would you rather have a guy like Luke Richardson or a Marc Andre Bergeron / Rapheal Diaz / Steve McCarthy...

Hate these analogies. I know I'd take Brian Rafalski over Colten Teubert, but that's not relevant because it's completely lopsided to the point where it offers no meaningful information about the two players actually being discussed.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,956
3,688
Vancouver, BC
For all of five games. That's terrible evidence.
We're not talking about evidence that he's a top 6 forward, though.....

"Jensen has a lowered bust factor"
"Jensen has a very good top 6 upside"

These aren't big leaps at all-- I'd say a five game (think it's a little more than that) stretch where he was on fire at the NHL level in his first real stint is some evidence of these (pretty tame) suggestions.

He certainly had top 6 upside when he was drafted, and after catching fire in the SEL, then playing inconsistent hockey, playing inconsistent hockey at the AHL level and then catching fire, and then this stretch, sure he's proven that he's got consistency issues, but I don't think you can argue that it's unreasonable to suggest that he does have top 6 upside.
 
Last edited:

deckercky

Registered User
Oct 27, 2010
9,379
2,452
Also people who keep bandying about statements like "Jensen has a lowered bust factor" "Jensen has a very good top 6 upside" need to bring up some tangible evidence other than his "pedigree" and "oh he scored a bunch of goals in a short span of time in the AHL" and "he played really really well with the Sedins," because that's not evidence.

So...what is 'evidence' in your eyes? Saying McCann has better tools? If Jensen's actual performance isn't evidence, then I expect some magical even more objective form of evidence to be developed by you, or I expect you to stop talking about prospects altogether. :shakehead
 

thehockeyfanatic

Registered User
Oct 1, 2010
86
0
These sort of threads are kind of dumb, imo.

I agree, everyone has a different idea of what the best prospect means. Some say it's whoever is closest to playing in the NHL with votes for Jensen or Corrado. Others say it's who is the safest pick longterm in someone like Horvat. I would define the best prospect to be who has the highest upside but to each their own.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Voted Guance as I think he might be the best bet, or most probable, to play the largest number of NHL games out of the rest of the prospects left.

If it's based on possible impact I would take Demko.
 

John Bender*

Guest
I agree, everyone has a different idea of what the best prospect means. Some say it's whoever is closest to playing in the NHL with votes for Jensen or Corrado. Others say it's who is the safest pick longterm in someone like Horvat. I would define the best prospect to be who has the highest upside but to each their own.

It's just sort of pointless. What does it matter who is the 4th?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad