While I wouldn't call him a bust(we were picking at 26th overall), I do think he'll end up as only a good-to-great 3C. Which is fine, I guess, but I'd still have preferred Collberg to him.
Collberg is having his own issues. 8 points in 16 games in Allsvenskan after not being able to crack his SEL team (16 games being the 13th forward). In fact, I don't see anyone picked after Gaunce that's having a great season.
Collberg is having his own issues. 8 points in 16 games in Allsvenskan after not being able to crack his SEL team (16 games being the 13th forward). In fact, I don't see anyone picked after Gaunce that's having a great season.
Well, at the draft he's who I would have picked, and it's still far too early to tell. In hindsight Matt Finn is looking like a bit of a steal, but who knows?
Well, at the draft he's who I would have picked, and it's still far too early to tell. In hindsight Matt Finn is looking like a bit of a steal, but who knows?
Why? On pace for same number of points as last year. Not invited to the WJC camp unlike Pelech. I agree that it's too early to judge, just saying that statistically no one is standing out.
While I wouldn't call him a bust(we were picking at 26th overall), I do think he'll end up as only a good-to-great 3C. Which is fine, I guess, but I'd still have preferred Collberg to him.
You would have preferred a guy who's looked worse? I never understood why people give Swedish prospects the benefit of the doubt. Don't know if it's intentional or not, but just something I've noticed.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
Collberg has like two points in his last 50 games.
Look at Belleville's goals for and goals against, we can be disappointed in Gaunce's production (like most of our prospects) but he's the product of his environment. Not much he can do about it.
Ehhh... it was a weak draft after first 15 picks or so (plus a few sliders). I don't see the point of arguing over the picks. Pretty sure there will be a whole ton of busts and guys that barely scrape into the league. Hopefully Gaunce is one of the better ones, I think he has the work ethic and talent for it.
2012 was a victim of a lot of highly touted prospects not developing as they were expected to. Matia Marcantuoni still comes to mind as someone that was supposed to be a Top 10 pick a year before draft and now can't even put up .5PPG season post-draft.
Just to add, if Gaunce can develop into a Bolland or Malhotra type player, it's a pick well spent. Those guys are hard to find and are so versatile and useful. (or Laich as y2k says)
Personally I was (and still am) happy that Gaunce was there when we picked. I didn't think he'd be there and was hoping for either Aberg or Collberg...would have been ok with them but happier we got Gaunce. Had hoped for Severson with the 2nd, but still ok with Mallet.
Just to add, if Gaunce can develop into a Bolland or Malhotra type player, it's a pick well spent. Those guys are hard to find and are so versatile and useful. (or Laich as y2k says)
I don't think he will become a pure defense specialist like Malhotra, but Bolland probably isn't too bad of a comparison.
You would have preferred a guy who's looked worse? I never understood why people give Swedish prospects the benefit of the doubt. Don't know if it's intentional or not, but just something I've noticed.
What do you mean? I thought Collberg's upside was higher at the draft and I think it's still higher now. Half a season isn't enough to write off anyone off, and it is a lot harder for 18-year olds to make an impact in the SEL than it is in the OHL.
Why? On pace for same number of points as last year. Not invited to the WJC camp unlike Pelech. I agree that it's too early to judge, just saying that statistically no one is standing out.
The fact that he's outscoring Gaunce despite being a defenseman might have something to do with that.
Where do you guys see this potential from Gaunce? I haven't seen anything from his game that makes me think "Bolland, Laich" potential.
He's a smart player, not the best skater, big and physical. Plays great defense, good in the circle. His team doesn't score much, they're last in the league in GF and they play shutdown hockey so his numbers reflect that. He had 68 points last year with barely any supporting cast.
What makes you think he's going to top out as a 4th liner?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vankiller Whale
The fact that he's outscoring Gaunce despite being a defenseman might have something to do with that.
Have you looked at their teams? 82GF vs 130GF. Guess which team is leading their division though?
Have you looked at their teams? 82GF vs 130GF. Guess which team is leading their division though?
Malcolm Subban is definitely a bigger factor in winning that than Gaunce. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter how offensive a team is, if a defenseman is getting more points than a forward, than the odds are he's a better player. I'm not questioning Gaunce's defensive game, simply that I don't think he has the offensive skill to become more than a very good third liner.
Malcolm Subban is definitely a bigger factor in winning that than Gaunce. And quite frankly, it doesn't matter how offensive a team is, if a defenseman is getting more points than a forward, than the odds are he's a better player. I'm not questioning Gaunce's defensive game, simply that I don't think he has the offensive skill to become more than a very good third liner.
That was the same criticism Ryan Kesler had when he was drafted.
He's a smart player, not the best skater, big and physical. Plays great defense, good in the circle. His team doesn't score much, they're last in the league in GF and they play shutdown hockey so his numbers reflect that. He had 68 points last year with barely any supporting cast.
What makes you think he's going to top out as a 4th liner?
Have you looked at their teams? 82GF vs 130GF. Guess which team is leading their division though?
He's smart, big, physical. However, he has no offensive dynamics besides a very good shot. He doesn't seem to be able to play a fast paced game as he has a tendency to slow the game down as much as he can when the puck is on his stick. His abilities(taking a pass and doing something with it) at higher speeds aren't very good either. I can see him being a solid 3rd liner, but that is at his best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canucker
That was the same criticism Ryan Kesler had when he was drafted.
Kesler had tools that Gaunce (from what I've seen so far) doesn't. Gaunce is simply not a dynamic player.
Whoever said the Taylor Pyatt comparison is bang-on in my opinion.
He's smart, big, physical. However, he has no offensive dynamics besides a very good shot. He doesn't seem to be able to play a fast paced game as he has a tendency to slow the game down as much as he can when the puck is on his stick. His abilities(taking a pass and doing something with it) at higher speeds aren't very good either. I can see him being a solid 3rd liner, but that is at his best.
Kesler had tools that Gaunce (from what I've seen so far) doesn't. Gaunce is simply not a dynamic player.
Whoever said the Taylor Pyatt comparison is bang-on in my opinion.
Yeah, I see Taylor Pyatt in terms of style as well, although I've only seen Gaunce in highlight clips. But if Gaunce can be a Pyatt with a bit of a mean streak, that's a great player to have. I always found Pyatt to be frustrating as hell to watch - for all that size, he is soft as butter.
I think people forget Bolland was 100pt OHLer (albeit with London).
That caveat is pretty important, he played on a team with Perry post-draft and had 85 points. The next year he was on a line with Schremp who was really the guy running offense (see playoff production).
I don't think somewhere between Malhotra, Laich and Bolland is that crazy of a thing to hope for. None of them are exactly offensive wizards in the NHL. Laich had two pretty decent seasons with lots of PP time, but he's basically a 45 point player. Pyatt plus physical play wouldn't be so bad either.
Yeah, I see Taylor Pyatt in terms of style as well, although I've only seen Gaunce in highlight clips. But if Gaunce can be a Pyatt with a bit of a mean streak, that's a great player to have. I always found Pyatt to be frustrating as hell to watch - for all that size, he is soft as butter.
Gaunce is only slightly more physical. Gaunce is the "forecheck, work off the boards" kind of physical. Not I'm going to go out and hit you hard physical. Which is why I think he makes it as a good 4th liner.
That caveat is pretty important, he played on a team with Perry post-draft and had 85 points. The next year he was on a line with Schremp who was really the guy running offense (see playoff production).
I don't think somewhere between Malhotra, Laich and Bolland is that crazy of a thing to hope for. None of them are exactly offensive wizards in the NHL. Laich had two pretty decent seasons with lots of PP time, but he's basically a 45 point player. Pyatt plus physical play wouldn't be so bad either.
A question I ask myself is what would it cost to acquire that type of player via trade.
Lappierre cost us a 3rd.
Higgins cost us a 3rd + Evan Oberg
You can get some pretty solid players for 2nds and 3rd if you are crafty. I'm not a fan of drafting prospects who's upside is at best what you can get for the pick anyway. I have to hope Gaunce turns out better than an average 3c. If he turns out to be a Paul Gaustad clone you might as well have just given up the first for Gaustad. The only benefit is a million or two saved but a long wait in the mean time.
