Prospect Info: Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?

[Freakshow]

Gaunce
Horvat
Shinkaruk
Jensen

 

[opendoor]

No im saying if i eat the same VERY high amount of calories as i do when i work out, my body wants to drop until it gets to 150. i never said anything about maintenance levels. obviously maintenance levels are what you need to take in to maintain

if i eat the same amount while im working out, typically your body has more calories to work with and will most likely store them as fat. however in my case, my body doesn't metabolize them very well if im not working out. so my maintenance level would be even HIGHER. to an almost unreachable level

That doesn't really make sense unless you have an underlying medical issue. There are variations in BMR, but they're not that great to the point where you need to consume thousands of extra calories relative to another person of the same weight and lean body mass. In all but the most extreme cases, the difference in BMR between adults with the same lean body mass will be only a few hundred calories per day.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

That doesn't really make sense unless you have an underlying medical issue. There are variations in BMR, but they're not that great to the point where you need to consume thousands of extra calories relative to another person of the same weight and lean body mass. In all but the most extreme cases, the difference in BMR between adults with the same lean body mass will be only a few hundred calories per day.

Generally speaking, you are right. But it also depends on how quickly you are talking about gaining this weight and how much you want to gain and each little hurdle takes another certain amount more as your maintenance level rises. If you are talking 5lbs over a longer period of time, sure, the difference is tiny. But we weren't exactly talking specific numbers. And regarding why it changes so much when im working out, that is the reason right there why the levels change from the standard couple hundred one way or the other which you are speaking of, the difference of working out and not working out changes the way your body metabolizes calories. By quite a bit. The difference in the 200 one way or the other that you are speaking of when it comes to losing or gaining, thats if you are doing the same level of activity

But this isn't the thread to go into specifics. My point was simply, im a hard gainer with a very thin frame.

and I have continued to get my blood tested for things, re: to why its harder for me. nothing has came out positive yet. had my thyroid and test levels checked.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

Im looking forward these polls after Gaunce takes the next one. Well maybe after Lack takes the one after?

I recall last year, the huge push for corrado to be higher and i had no idea why, now i know!, im curious who will be the ones to fill out the top 10-12 now

we all share the same top 6 or so so it hasn't been as interesting so far

 

[Eddy Punch Clock]

Im looking forward these polls after Gaunce takes the next one. Well maybe after Lack takes the one after?

I recall last year, the huge push for corrado to be higher and i had no idea why, now i know!, im curious who will be the ones to fill out the top 10-12 now

we all share the same top 6 or so so it hasn't been as interesting so far

I think the last guy picked should get a Honda CR-Z.

 

[CanaFan]

I didn't, that was another user. Get your quotes right.

My mistake. One of the hazards of posting on a phone. Apologies for the incorrect attribution.

But in regards to your post (even if youre lumping different peoples opinions and arguments together) , inconsistencies? hes a young player, playing pro. they wont be consistently putting up points and thats the type of player he is. a point getting, when ehs not getting points, hes not as noticeable, like sedins. why they get ridden more about not scoring than other players, theyre pure point getters and nothing else.

Sorry, why does Jensen get *forgiven* for his main area of weakness (inconsistent play) at 20 years of age but you get to label Shinkaruk as too small and weak, despite being just 18? At least be fair to both players. And at least Shinkaruk's main area of weakness can be addressed through a combination of diet, strength training, and simply getting older. It is a problem today but there is no reason for it to remain a problem by the time he is 20. Yet you don't seem overly willing to give an 18 yo kid the chance to develop the body of a not-20 yo kid. Puzzling. Jensen on the other hand has been noted by several posters who have watched him as being inconsistent both game to game as well as shift to shift. And it seems to be as much a problem at 20 as it was at 18. This concerns me because inconsistent play has kept innumerable players far more talented than Jensen out of the league. As for getting "ridden more than other players for not scoring", what are you talking about? He scored fewer goals in his post draft year than his draft year. He then scored 2 goals in 20 AHL games and looked invisible in a 2 game call up. Bizarrely, he does this immediately after an good season in the SEL. This is concerning because in order to make it as an NHL scorer - which is what he will be, not a Hossa-level defensive forward as someone else suggested - he needs to start to actually SCORE at some level, no? This starts in junior - which didn't happen to any exceptional level - then progress to the AHL - which has t happened yet. Rather than ask why people are down on Jensen, perhaps we should be asking you why are you so high on him? He's got a lot of nice skills, but hasn't even come close to putting them together for a full season at any level yet.

You also mentioned earlier that Shinkaruk will need to score +.25 PPG higher than Jensen at the AHL level to compensate for his size. While I question the validity of such an assumption, I'll play along and suggest that with he has already exceeded that by a wider margin at the CHL level (1.38 to 0.98) over Shinkaruk's 17 and 18 yo season (vs Jensen's 18 and 19 yo seasons). So far Shinkaruk projects far better at the only comparable level that is available to analyse. When he does head to the AHL in his 20 yo season - assuming he does - we'll see if he can surpass Jensen's scintillating 0.30 PPG pace or, since you insist on him producing at a +.25 pace, we'll see if he can put up a .55 PPG or a mind-boggling 47 point pace to meet your expectations. TBH I'll be disappointed if he can't eclipse Jensen's mediocre AHL numbers to-date ...

 

[Pseudonymous*]

My mistake. One of the hazards of posting on a phone. Apologies for the incorrect attribution.



Sorry, why does Jensen get *forgiven* for his main area of weakness (inconsistent play) at 20 years of age but you get to label Shinkaruk as too small and weak, despite being just 18? At least be fair to both players. At least Shinkaruk's main area of weakness can be addressed through a combination of diet, strength training, and simply getting older. It is a problem today but there is no reason for it to remain a problem by the time he is 20. Yet you don't seem overly willing to give an 18 yo kid the chance to develop the body of a not-20 yo kid. Puzzling. Jensen on the other hand has been noted by several posters who have watched h as being inconsistent both game to game as well as shift to shift. And it seems to be as much a problem at 20 as it was at 18. This concerns me because inconsistent play has kept innumerable players far more talented than Jensen out of the league. As for getting "ridden more than other players for not scoring", what are you talking about? He scored fewer goals in his post draft year than his draft year. He then scored 2 goals in 20 AHL games and looked invisible in a 2 game call up. Bizarrely, he does this immediately after an good season in the SEL. This is concerning because in order to make it as an NHL scorer - which is what he will be, not a Hossa-level defensive forward as someone else suggested - he needs to start to SCORE. This starts in junior - which didn't happen to any exceptional level - then progress to the AHL - which has t happened yet. Rather than ask why people are down on Jensen, perhaps we should be asking you why are you so high on him? He's got a lot of nice skills, but hasn't even come close to putting them together for a full season at any level yet.

You also mentioned earlier that Shinkaruk will need to score +.25 PPG higher than Jensen at the AHL level to compensate for his size. While I question the validity of such an assumption, I'll play along and suggest that with he has already exceeded that by a wider margin at the CHL level (1.38 to 0.98) over Shinkaruk's 17 and 18 yo season (vs Jensen's 18 and 19 yo seasons). So far Shinkaruk projects far better at the only comparable level that is available to analyse. When he does head to the AHL in his 20 yo season - assuming he does - we'll see if he can surpass Jensen's scintillating 0.30 PPG pace or, since you insist on him producing at a +.25 pace, we'll see if he can put up a .55 PPG or a mind-boggling 47 point pace to meet your expectations. TBH I'll be disappointed if he can't eclipse Jensen's mediocre AHL numbers to-date ...

Im actually pretty tired of typing now so forgive me if i pick and choose. And if you want me to answer something i left out, go ahead and let me know

But in regards to why i "forgive" his inconsistent play but not another players weakness which is being undersized. Well for one, i already said, i dont think his "inconsistency" is a weakness of his because just about every single player that age that is jumping into pros is inconsistent in their scoring. If they weren't, they'd be 60 goal a year guys. And why i dont look past someone being undersized? Well i dont need to answer that.

And regarding the higher numbers needed for a player like shinkaruk, im talking in the AHL specifically. Lets wait and see. Maybe he will Hope so

Oh and i also believe goals per game does matter more than points when it comes to the AHL where top prospects usually play with scrubs who will never touch the nhl. 8 goals in 28 games is fine. for a first small taste. even if you want to add in his poor assists total, 10 points in 28 games is still not bad for a first very short stint. if you go look at alot of successful nhl players, their first short stint is very underwhelming. and it greatly increases the next year when they get a full year.

ive seen it happen enough to know hes on track

 

[Shareefruck]

1. Horvat
2. Corrado
3. Shinkaruk
4. Gaunce
5. Lack
6. Jensen
7. Schroeder
8. Subban

Pretty damn solid top 8

 

[Pseudonymous*]

1. Horvat
2. Corrado
3. Shinkaruk
4. Gaunce
5. Lack
6. Jensen
7. Schroeder
8. Subban

Pretty damn solid top 8

I dont like 5'8 D's so i'd go with someone else in that 8th spot. and i do think we have a few guys who i think will surprise and turn out to good nhl players or else maybe i'd leave him there.

Either way, what a difference one year made.

 

[PG Canuck]

1. Horvat
2. Corrado
3. Shinkaruk
4. Gaunce
5. Lack
6. Jensen
7. Schroeder
8. Subban

Pretty damn solid top 8

Especially considering we've barely had top picks up until this season with Horvat.

 

[CanaFan]

Im actually pretty tired of typing now so forgive me if i pick and choose. And if you want me to answer something i left out, go ahead and let me know

But in regards to why i "forgive" his inconsistent play but not another players weakness which is being undersized. Well for one, i already said, i dont think his "inconsistency" is a weakness of his because just about every single player that age that is jumping into pros is inconsistent in their scoring. If they weren't, they'd be 60 goal a year guys. And why i dont look past someone being undersized? Well i dont need to answer that.

And regarding the higher numbers needed for a player like shinkaruk, im talking at a pro level. Lets wait and see. Maybe he will Hope so

All players have some inconsistency in scoring, yes. But it is offset by the degree to which they score and the degree to which they do other things. Jensen has yet to score much at any level and he doesn't bring anything beyond his modest level of scoring so far. His being inconsistent will be much more detrimental than Jeff Carter who is a 30-40 goal man or Alex Burrows who brings other elements to the table.

As for not being willing to look past Shinkaruk's size, well that is your blind spot I guess. Most reasonable posters see it as a matter of strength and not height, which is a pretty easy fix. You may be worried but IMO it is a pretty petty gripe. He's 5'10 and a half, not 5'9.

And you may be right about Shinkaruk needing to put up numbers at a pro level - how about we give him a chance to get their first though, eh? - but I remain puzzled about your lack of applying the same standard to Jensen. Talk about a player who needs to put up offensive numbers at SOME level. He's the poster child for it IMO.

Anyway, nothing more to say here. We each have our views and seem pretty entrenched in our respective positions. We can always revisit this again in a few months when there is something substantive to debate.

 

[Shareefruck]

I think the posters here dismissing that "thinking our only two blue-chip/high draft pick/top-end-skill prospects are our best prospects clearly must be a case of shiny new toy syndrome" are pretty damn childishly arrogant and obnoxious, personally.

 

[thefeebster]

In the scrimmage Jensen looked disinterested, where as Shinkaruk looked as if he was putting in far more effort. Near the end Jensen really started to look good, very dominant. All I drew from it was that Jensen had been there and done that, he was going through the motions. Shinkaruk on the other hand looked like he had something to prove. What does this mean? Nothing. Why did I mention it? Because I don't think you can judge Jensen's work ethic from the scrimmage. I'm not saying you were, but a number of people were in the GDT for the scrimmage.

See, i think this is a point of contention. You rationalize Jensen as being disinterested for the sole fact that he has been here before. But this is exactly the same kind of play we saw in the AHL this season. He drifts in and out of the play when he chooses. This isn't a one-off where he looked disinterested.

Shinkaruk looked good in his first shift, then Corrado took him into the boards. After that, he looked just merely average. The effort you are seeing is the way he always plays. He plays at a much higher pace than Jensen, an attacking style. If he isn't skating or pressuring the puck, he isn't playing his game. His left leg was stiff in his cross overs and while being at the scrimmage, i watched him get off on several shifts, not putting much pressure on his left foot. I and others believe he may have pulled something.

And my point on "shinny new prospects" isn't absolute. I don't even see how you can possibly argue against this as a trend. It's not just Canuck fans, its everyone. When a player is first drafted, they are often touted very highly. Most prospects often lose momentum with fans as they enter the AHL from Juniors, and newer prospects take their place. Schroeder is an example, although he came from college. In his AHL rookie year, he suddenly became a much less attractive prospect as he didn't dominate. Jensen is similar, its his poor AHL stretch that lowered his worth in the eyes of *MOST* fans. Heck, even Hodgson had this happen to him. The guy was deemed untouchable until after our finals run. Suddenly that offseason he was included in a ton of trade proposals. Why? Because he didn't make an immediate impact, and his worth as a prospect in the eyes of many fans lowered.

You say your theory is not absolute, then throw out statements about how you can't see anyone arguing against it, just like how you "just don't see how anyone can vote Shinkaruk over Jensen". I and others have given you repeated reasons. Can you see a possible reason why? I gave you two recent examples of where new and shiny were not the case. Can you see how it is possible that your shiny new toy theory can be argued against?

I've seen this other places too... its really not true. Jensen has a very very good defensive game. He's much closer to a Eriksson or Hossa type than he is given credit for. Everyone is focusing on his ability as a sniper but he has a 200 foot game and excels in transition.

And I feel like he's been labeled inconsistent by fans who have their own notions about what he should be producing. It reeks of number watching.

He has an average defensive game. When you describe someone with a double very good defensive game, you think of Malhotra circa 2010, not Nicklas Jensen. I've watch 15 of his AHL games and Tiranis has watched even more, so this "reek" of number watching need not apply. He brought up issues with Jensen's defensive game even during his first stint. He looked a bit lost and does not move his feet as much as he should.

Jensen has been labelled inconsistent in several draft year scouting reports, i can link you to them if you like. It is not just Canuck fans who have their own notions about what he should be producing. And it has nothing to do with production. It has to do with his way of drifting in and out of the play, being invisible in numerous shifts, not accomplishing much at either ends.

 

[Pseudonymous*]

Jensen has yet to score much at any level and he doesn't bring anything beyond his modest level of scoring so far.

I disagree that what he put up in sweden was modest for his age. and while what he put up in the ahl could be considered modest, its actually very much the norm for players who go onto good nhl careers. and expect an even better goals per game rate this year

Looking forward to it I will look forward to coming back to this thread when jensen is putting up the goals in the nhl

Theres no secret as to why the canucks called this guy up during this first short "modest" stint in the AHL. He has the tools and size. I think with players like this, they will be working out the kinks with players of his skill level, in the NHL. The same with how Hodgson was moved to the NHL after modest numbers in the AHL (who had the same goals per game rate)

probably just comes down to expectations between us. i personally think you have higher expectations when it comes to what a future goal scorer should do in his first pro games in the nhl

 

[Shareefruck]

The shiny new toy theory doesn't hold up given that Corrado/Jensen became shinier later on in their development.

 

[Luck 6]

See, i think this is a point of contention. You rationalize Jensen as being disinterested for the sole fact that he has been here before. But this is exactly the same kind of play we saw in the AHL this season. He drifts in and out of the play when he chooses. This isn't a one-off where he looked disinterested.

Shinkaruk looked good in his first shift, then Corrado took him into the boards. After that, he looked just merely average. The effort you are seeing is the way he always plays. He plays at a much higher pace than Jensen, an attacking style. If he isn't skating or pressuring the puck, he isn't playing his game. His left leg was stiff in his cross overs and while being at the scrimmage, i watched him get off on several shifts, not putting much pressure on his left foot. I and others believe he may have pulled something.

You say your theory is not absolute, then throw out statements about how you can't see anyone arguing against it, just like how you "just don't see how anyone can vote Shinkaruk over Jensen". I and others have given you repeated reasons. Can you see a possible reason why? I gave you two recent examples of where new and shiny were not the case. Can you see how it is possible that your shiny new toy theory can be argued against?

He has an average defensive game. When you describe someone with a double very good defensive game, you think of Malhotra circa 2010, not Nicklas Jensen. I've watch 15 of his AHL games and Tiranis has watched even more, so this "reek" of number watching need not apply. He brought up issues with Jensen's defensive game even during his first stint. He looked a bit lost and does not move his feet as much as he should.

Jensen has been labelled inconsistent in several draft year scouting reports, i can link you to them if you like. It is not just Canuck fans who have their own notions about what he should be producing. And it has nothing to do with production. It has to do with his way of drifting in and out of the play, being invisible in numerous shifts, not accomplishing much at either ends.

Well the statement I made about not being able to see how someone could make a case of Shinkaruk over Jensen was over the top. I'll rescind that, as it seems as if an argument can be made. I will say I'm not sure I'm convinced, because despite everything you are saying about Jensen (much of which I agree with) I still think he has what it takes to be a 1st line winger, and will bottom out as a 3rd liner with a good shot. I'm expecting a strong showing from Jensen this season in the AHL. If he doesn't display that, feel free to throw that one back in my face. That's my prediction, as I feel he will utilize this offseason to prepare for the AHL.

I do however stand behind my "shinny new prospect" statement because it is a clear and recurring trend. Am I accusing you of following suit? Certainly not. But the "masses," for lack of a better term, often seem to sway this way. If you don't agree, then fine. I've given what I believe to be ample examples of what I describe, so I don't feel we have much left to discuss on that topic.

So, then, you feel as if Shinkaruk has 1st line upside, and Jensen is likely a 1st line AHLer? Or 3rd line PP specialist? Or what? Where do you see each prospect 5 years from now based on what you've seen?

 

[Luck 6]

The shiny new toy theory doesn't hold up given that Corrado/Jensen became shinier later on in their development.

Corrado, and Tanev, are exceptions. Why? Because they had excellent first showings in pro hockey. Where prospects normally lose their worth in the eyes of fans is when they transition from Junior (or college, or even SEL) to the AHL/NHL. The reason why is because many prospects struggle with that transition. When a player struggles, and new prospects are drafted who are dominating their league (often junior) they look more attractive then the prospects that are struggling. It can't be absolute because not ALL prospects struggle with the transition, but many high profile prospects do. Schroeder was a good example, even Hodgson was another. There are others, and this is a common occurrence with every fan base. You disagree that this is a common trend amongst fan bases?

 

[thefeebster]

Well the statement I made about not being able to see how someone could make a case of Shinkaruk over Jensen was over the top. I'll rescind that, as it seems as if an argument can be made. I will say I'm not sure I'm convinced, because despite everything you are saying about Jensen (much of which I agree with) I still think he has what it takes to be a 1st line winger, and will bottom out as a 3rd liner with a good shot. I'm expecting a strong showing from Jensen this season in the AHL. If he doesn't display that, feel free to throw that one back in my face. That's my prediction, as I feel he will utilize this offseason to prepare for the AHL.

So, then, you feel as if Shinkaruk has 1st line upside, and Jensen is likely a 1st line AHLer? Or 3rd line PP specialist? Or what? Where do you see each prospect 5 years from now based on what you've seen?

We are moving past the talk of shiny new toys! Agree to disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have it in for Jensen and it's not as if i don't want him to succeed at the AHL level. Its that I like Shinkaruk a mere 2 spots more than Jensen and I feel that several people have glossed over his issues and the amount of work he will have to do to get to the NHL. Did i think he was ready for his call up last season? Hell no. He will benefit from the scoring role the Canucks will undoubtedly put him in for this coming season with the Comets, he will benefit from the extra time to work out the kinks in his defensive game as well as improve his consistency shift to shift. If Portland's system is anything like the one Green is implementing, Jensen will benefit from playing at a higher pace. I expect a good developmental year from Jensen.

I see Shinkaruk as having 1st line upside with the ability to carry the offense, a guy opponents will focus on shutting down, whereas I see Jensen as a 2nd line goal scoring winger who will dominate with the man advantage. I see both of their floors as busts.

 

[arsmaster*]

We are moving past the talk of shiny new toys! Agree to disagree.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have it in for Jensen and it's not as if i don't want him to succeed at the AHL level. Its that I like Shinkaruk a mere 2 spots more than Jensen and I feel that several people have glossed over his issues and the amount of work he will have to do to get to the NHL. Did i think he was ready for his call up last season? Hell no. He will benefit from the scoring role the Canucks will undoubtedly put him in for this coming season with the Comets, he will benefit from the extra time to work out the kinks in his defensive game as well as improve his consistency shift to shift. If Portland's system is anything like the one Green is implementing, Jensen will benefit from playing at a higher pace. I expect a good developmental year from Jensen.

I see Shinkaruk as having 1st line upside with the ability to carry the offense, a guy opponents will focus on shutting down, whereas I see Jensen as a 2nd line goal scoring winger who will dominate with the man advantage. I see both of their floors as busts.

NHL bust or AHL bust, or both

 

[CanaFan]

Corrado, and Tanev, are exceptions. Why? Because they had excellent first showings in pro hockey. Where prospects normally lose their worth in the eyes of fans is when they transition from Junior (or college, or even SEL) to the AHL/NHL. The reason why is because many prospects struggle with that transition. When a player struggles, and new prospects are drafted who are dominating their league (often junior) they look more attractive then the prospects that are struggling. It can't be absolute because not ALL prospects struggle with the transition, but many high profile prospects do. Schroeder was a good example, even Hodgson was another. There are others, and this is a common occurrence with every fan base. You disagree that this is a common trend amongst fan bases?

I can't speak with absolute knowledge on this b/c I've never done or seen a thorough analysis on how well immediate success in AHL vs immediate struggles in AHL translates to NHL, though intuitively it makes sense that immediate struggles are predictive of lower success in NHL (sort of obvious I know). It's also true that not all prospects even transition through the AHL at all. In fact most top/elite prospects never play an AHL game but move on straight from junior to the NHL. Merely playing in the AHL is a sign of lower success in general.

Your example of Schroeder is flawed because he hasn't demonstrated he is an everyday NHLer yet, so his 3 years of low AHL productivity may yet be predictive of his mediocrity. It isn't yet I'll admit, but you certainly can't lump him into the "success" pile yet either.

Hodgson is another unusual case, as his AHL season came immediately after missing nearly a whole junior season with his back injury. Whether his AHL season was impacted by this is not clear, but it is a possibility. By the time he made the NHL a year later, he had clearly recovered his strength and foot speed (such as it is) and that may have created the appearance of a huge gap between his AHL and NHL performances.

I don't think it is unfair to look at young players who struggle at the AHL level with some concern. Obviously there are gradients to this, depending on the length of time they struggle, the age they are at, and the degree to which they struggle. Jensen is still quite young and so it isn't terribly concerning, however it isn't something I would write off completely either. This upcoming AHL season will be highly telling in terms of whether his struggles are part of a progression or simply him hitting his ceiling. Given that he has a fairly advanced frame and physique already, I would expect him to transition faster than a smaller player like Schroeder or Hodgson. Must say that following prospects is going to be a lot of fun next year!