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.
Lapierre is a 4th line center though. A good 3rd line center usually goes for a 1st or more. Just look at Paul Gaustad this year and he's a 4th line center. Higgins and Lapierre were both considered damaged goods at the time so we definitely were a bit lucky and benefitted from good pro scouting.
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.
I agree one hundred percent. Never make the "safe" pick if there's a guy with a much higher upside.
Supposing over 6 years, you can either draft a guy who will one-hundred percent be a bottom-6 player, but unlikely to surpass that, or a guy that has about a 1 in 3 chance of becoming an impact top-6 forward.
At the end of the day you'll either have 6 bottom-6 players or 2 top-line forwards. And it's a lot easier to fill bottom-6 holes via trade/UFA than it is for high quuality players.
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.
Do you consider O'Reilly a "very good third liner"? Because Gaunce is pretty comparable as far as what each did during his draft year. PPG on weak offensive teams, all situation players.
Of course it matters how offensive a team is, in general. The environment absolutely factors in. Subban has also played more games.
I'm a big fan of the Gaunce pick. Actually I brought up the upside vs. safe pick argument after the draft. For me, it came down to Aberg or Gaunce, and I think the Canucks went the right way. Reason: You have to build the base of the team first. The base is built with players like Gaunce, the two-way size players that open up room, play in all tough situations, and do the dirty work on the boards and in front of the net. The skill players play on top of this base. Without it, the skill players get boxed out or overpowered. There is no "push" in their play, and stuff dies on the perimeter. It's what we saw vs. teams like LA and BOS. As it so happens, these teams are built with strong bases of talent.
I think Gaunce's upside is as a 2nd line C, and his downside is 3rd line C. He will be an NHLer, which is more than you can say about a few of the picks picked in his area.
Do you consider O'Reilly a "very good third liner"? Because Gaunce is pretty comparable as far as what each did during his draft year. PPG on weak offensive teams, all situation players.
Of course it matters how offensive a team is, in general. The environment absolutely factors in. Subban has also played more games.
I'm a big fan of the Gaunce pick. Actually I brought up the upside vs. safe pick argument after the draft. For me, it came down to Aberg or Gaunce, and I think the Canucks went the right way. Reason: You have to build the base of the team first. The base is built with players like Gaunce, the two-way size players that open up room, play in all tough situations, and do the dirty work on the boards and in front of the net. The skill players play on top of this base. Without it, the skill players get boxed out or overpowered. There is no "push" in their play, and stuff dies on the perimeter. It's what we saw vs. teams like LA and BOS. As it so happens, these teams are built with strong bases of talent.
I think Gaunce's upside is as a 2nd line C, and his downside is 3rd line C. He will be an NHLer, which is more than you can say about a few of the picks picked in his area.
Why? I'm curious as why you think so. What have you seen from his play that indicates he has the ability to become a 2nd line C?
The only good thing about your O'Reilly comparison is that they played on low offensive teams. Gaunce and O'Reilly play nothing alike.
Why? I'm curious as why you think so. What have you seen from his play that indicates he has the ability to become a 2nd line C?
The only good thing about your O'Reilly comparison is that they played on low offensive teams. Gaunce and O'Reilly play nothing alike.
Gaunce and O'Reilly played on low offense teams, both are two-way centres. both put up PPG in their draft year, both have issues with their skating, Gaunce is bigger, O'Reilly has better stick skills. Lastly, both are pass first players. They do all the little things right, and play the game at a cerebral level. Nothing alike? I don't think so.
From Gaunce's play in particular, two things make me believe he can be a 2C: His vision and his ability to get to the net. You can flank him with faster, skilled players and he wouldn't drag the line down offensively IMO. He would do the dirty work for them.
One thing to keep in mind is the variation of 2Cs around the league, not what we are used to here. Kesler is a 1C who just so happens to play on the 2nd line. Teams like PHX have a 34 point 2C in Hanzal, or OTT is banking on a 29 point Turris to be their own, or Bozak in TO and so on... Some of these players aren't even good possession players - which Gaunce should be. Thus, if he can manage strong possession numbers and chip in 35 points~ (the cut off for top6 production), he's a 2C for me, and I think he can get there.
The only good thing about your O'Reilly comparison is that they played on low offensive teams. Gaunce and O'Reilly play nothing alike.
Actually they are quite comparable in terms of their strengths and weaknesses in their draft season as well as you guys mentioned their situation on low scoring teams.
If you watched OReilly in his draft year, there were serious concerns with his skating and technique. A few OHL followers questioned its ability to translate to the NHL or any pro level. The next concern was his upside. Most only saw him as a 3rd line C at the next level because he played such a solid defensive game and had some questions of his offense translating. Sound like someone? By the end of his draft season, ROR was seen as one of the best defensive Fwds in the OHL.
Their similarity is also the type of game they play in the OHL. Both grind it out, strong defense first. Their biggest strength at the time was their hockey IQ and ability to read the play. But where they differ offensively is Gaunce's shot and RORs hands in their draft year. I'd also say ROR is more of a pass first player than Gaunce, but both were known as playmakers in the OHL. Also, both are extremely well conditioned players.
I think it's simple to say, for draft year comparables, ROR is a good one. And this is why it is a well used comparison for ppl who follow the OHL. You can however debate who he is more similar to for long term projections as RORs development just skyrocketed after the draft.
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.
Hard to be enthusiastic about a prospect who is thus far has regressed that much to start his over-age season, though. I think that's all people are seizing on with Gaunce. But it was a terrible draft, as you said. Still, it's a bit alarming to see so few of GM MG's draft picks outperform expectations.
Hard to be enthusiastic about a prospect who is thus far has regressed that much to start his over-age season, though. I think that's all people are seizing on with Gaunce. But it was a terrible draft, as you said. Still, it's a bit alarming to see so few of GM MG's draft picks outperform expectations.
Over-age means you're 20.
If need be, Gaunce could play two more OHL seasons after this (clearly he'd be in the AHL in the 2nd though).
Year after your draft is not an overage season, not attacking you, just a pet peeve of mine.
**** hockey canada! Corrado should go make his own team.
I can understand why though. Murphy is a PP specialist so I can understand taking him, and with Ouellet's injury concerns keeping a defensive specialist in Wotherspoon makes sense too.
Had HC taken Dumba over Corrado I would have flipped, but I can live with this decision.
__________________
I told ya so. I was right all along!
If need be, Gaunce could play two more OHL seasons after this (clearly he'd be in the AHL in the 2nd though).
Year after your draft is not an overage season, not attacking you, just a pet peeve of mine.
Haha, I actually meant to right "post-draft season" and I'm not sure why I wrote that. I just came back to edit it but you already called me out. So now I live with the shame
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.
I still don't get how Bolland was able to produce so much in the playoffs that year they won... 16 point in 22 games is basically 2nd line production. For someone who's not an offensive wizard.
But even if Gaunce tops out as an excellent 3rd line center who can put up points and do it all I'd be really happy with the pick. Even if he's not offensively 'dynamic', I'd hope that his hockey sense and vision allow him to make up for it.
And about him never visibly being happy even when scoring a goal - he almost seems to be a Captain Serious of our own in that regard.
