HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?

View Poll Results: Who is the Canucks #4 prospect?
Brendan Gaunce 53 22.18%
Nicklas Jensen 134 56.07%
Eddie Lack 29 12.13%
Joacim Ericsson 1 0.42%
Jordan Schroeder 16 6.69%
Alexandre Mallet 1 0.42%
Ben Hutton 0 0%
Cold Cassels 2 0.84%
Ludwig Blomstrand 0 0%
Darren Archibald 0 0%
Joseph LaBate 0 0%
Joe Cannata 1 0.42%
Henrik Tommernes 1 0.42%
Jordan Subban 1 0.42%
Other (specify below) 0 0%
Voters: 239. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-15-2013, 10:17 AM
  #51
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arsmaster View Post
The issue about skating, isn't really big with Jensen from what I've seen, and IMO Gaunce struggles even more with it. It's because they're thinking too much IMO. I think both guys have pretty strong hockey sense but you can almost see their brains thinking out there.

I'd say Hunter has high hockey sense too, but his skating ability and style lend more to actually pressuring the puck and being tenacious more so than laying in the weeds waiting to pounce if you know what I mean.
He struggles big time with changing directions and as a result hasn't been able to get to loose pucks at the AHL level. That's something that would almost never be a problem on bigger ice but is something that is key on small ice. If his transitions don't improve then he'll have a very hard time translating his production at lower levels. You simply need to be able to retrieve the puck, as well as exploit openings in D.

I would argue that Gaunce is actually a much better skater in that regard and he also compensates by taking advantage of his size far more than Jensen does.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:17 AM
  #52
tantalum
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 10,897
vCash: 500
Man I really hope Subban grows a couple of inches. I believe he said PK grew a couple inches at this age. Jordan is already fairly stocky if his 175lbs is true...a couple inches and he might just have the size needed. The talent is certainly there.

Anyways I voted Gaunce. Centers with NHL level talent beyond 4th line grinder are simply more valuable.


Last edited by tantalum: 07-15-2013 at 10:23 AM.
tantalum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:23 AM
  #53
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
I just don't see how anyone can make a case for Shinkaruk over Jensen, given what we know about each prospect. Is this based on the scrimmage? I have to believe only a handful of people on here have even seen Shinkaruk play, they are basing their opinions on a shinny new prospect that dropped in the draft.

Now, I'm not claiming to have seen Shinkaruk play, but I have watched Jensen a number of times. If we're basing our votes on prospects who are likely to make the NHL (which I don't necessarily agree with) then Jensen is miles ahead. The guy has NHL size, he displayed NHL defensive awareness in his short stint, he can skate, and he has an NHL shot. For Jensen, it seems as if his floor is a 3rd line winger at this point. His ceiling? 1st line winger, a guy who is good for 30g and 30a.

Shinkaruk has a high ceiling as well. Heck, I'd even go as far as to say he has the potential to be a PPG player in the NHL. His likelihood to reach that potential, however, is not staggering. There are a ton of high end offensive prospects in juniors that cannot convert their game to the NHL, a key component of that is often size and strength. Many players overcome that by being speedy, or more cerebral, but its certainly safe to say Shinkaruk is working at a disadvantage.

All things considered, ceiling, floor, likelihood of reaching potential, I'd say Jensen should be considered a better prospect. Couple that with what he did in the SEL, and I just don't see how anyone can make a case for Shinkaruk over Jensen. Now, if someone can come out who has seen *both* prospects play extensively and make such an argument I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, I'll chalk this up as a case of classic HF board logic where new is better.
I agree completely. I think people are just obsessed with the new prospects and/or putting way too much stock into the scrimmage.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:24 AM
  #54
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
He struggles big time with changing directions and as a result hasn't been able to get to loose pucks at the AHL level. That's something that would almost never be a problem on bigger ice but is something that is key on small ice. If his transitions don't improve then he'll have a very hard time translating his production at lower levels. You simply need to be able to retrieve the puck, as well as exploit openings in D.
Admittedly I only caught two or three wolves games while Jensen was there this year so yeah, I can't say I've witnessed that to the extent I know you have.

The Wolves were pretty talentless down the stretch IMO, I hope we can see Jensen play with some legitimate top line AHL talent and make a better judgement. At this point we're looking at what? A 28 game sample over two partial seasons.

Can we really separate those? I mean I'm not willing to say he's closer to the 6 goals in 8 games guy, nor am I willing to say he's the 2 goals in 20 games guy.

At this point, I'd say he's the 8 goals in 28 games guy, which is basically a 25 goal man in the AHL at 20. I still think he has potential to be a very good player, with dominating capabilities but needs consistency and better linemates.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:26 AM
  #55
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I agree completely. I think people are just obsessed with the new prospects and/or putting way too much stock into the scrimmage.
Easy to argue when you just dismiss everybody else's opinion with nothing to back up your own.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:27 AM
  #56
y2kcanucks
Cult of Personality
 
y2kcanucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 49,036
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to y2kcanucks
Does Cassels need a blanket?

y2kcanucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:43 AM
  #57
Intoewsables
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Not a ton of value in goalies, let alone unproven goalie prospects. Eddie Lack is quite far down my list this year. Especially given his injury status.
Pretty much. The problem with goalie prospects is that unless they turn into legitimate starters, they essentially have no value. Add in the fact that goalie prospects are incredibly unpredictable...and yeah, it's hard to rank them high on these kinds of lists.

Intoewsables is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:58 AM
  #58
Eddy Punch Clock
Go Herbvat
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Does Cassels need a blanket?
Nope... just a Sanderson.

He'll warm up then.

Eddy Punch Clock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 10:58 AM
  #59
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,319
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kcanucks View Post
Does Cassels need a blanket?
It sounds like some sort of dish to me. Cold Cassels sounds like it would make a great appetizer.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:00 AM
  #60
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Easy to argue when you just dismiss everybody else's opinion with nothing to back up your own.
Who pissed in your cornflakes?

I have actually argued it over the last three threads (in favor of Eddie Lack though). What Lack has achieved at the AHL level has been nothing short of amazing. I could maybe see Horvat over him, but it should be Lack as the #2 even with his injury shortened season.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:02 AM
  #61
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intoewsables View Post
Pretty much. The problem with goalie prospects is that unless they turn into legitimate starters, they essentially have no value. Add in the fact that goalie prospects are incredibly unpredictable...and yeah, it's hard to rank them high on these kinds of lists.
Don't understand this. There is no guarantee that a guy like Shinkaruk (even with a great skill set) will succeed at even the AHL level. Lack has already proved that.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:04 AM
  #62
Eddy Punch Clock
Go Herbvat
 
Eddy Punch Clock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Chillbillyville
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,497
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by m9 View Post
It sounds like some sort of dish to me. Cold Cassels sounds like it would make a great appetizer.
It's not an appetizer... it's a casserole served cold.

Eddy Punch Clock is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:08 AM
  #63
CanaFan
Registered User
 
CanaFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,757
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
I agree completely. I think people are just obsessed with the new prospects and/or putting way too much stock into the scrimmage.
Or maybe, just maybe, people think a kid that scored nearly as many goals in his pre-draft season as Jensen did in his entire junior career might have better offensive upside? Or that Jensen's poor half-season in the AHL takes a lot of the lustre off of his good showing in the SEL? It's lazy to paint anyone who prefers Shinkaruk or Horvat for legitimate reasons as drawn to "shiny and new". Shows a complete lack of insight on your part.

CanaFan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:11 AM
  #64
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Don't understand this. There is no guarantee that a guy like Shinkaruk (even with a great skill set) will succeed at even the AHL level. Lack has already proved that.
Well, there's no guarantee MacKinnon will succeed in the AHL/NHL either, but it's a reasonable bet that he will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Who pissed in your cornflakes?
I'm not the one dismissing people's opinions on the basis of ad hominem and strawmen arguments.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:11 AM
  #65
m9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,319
vCash: 500
I've been pretty vocal about being high on Mallet in the the past because IMO he's almost a lock to be an NHLer based on his skillset. I don't really like the Burrows comparison though, as Mallet can hit and fight. He also isn't as good of a goalscorer but might end up being a better playmaker. I know they are both french and late-bloomers but on the ice they are different.

He should be a top ten guy in the rankings, although if it wasn't for his performance in the the scrimmage he probably wouldn't be. I think his worst-case scenario is a Jarko Ruutu agitator/grinder on the 4th line and best case we have a Steve Downie type guy.

m9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:12 AM
  #66
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Or maybe, just maybe, people think a kid that scored nearly as many goals in his pre-draft season as Jensen did in his entire junior career might have better offensive upside? Or that Jensen's poor half-season in the AHL takes a lot of the lustre off of his good showing in the SEL? It's lazy to paint anyone who prefers Shinkaruk or Horvat for legitimate reasons as drawn to "shiny and new". Shows a complete lack of insight on your part.
Agreed.

Especially when the poster puts zero efforts into justifying his points, when there has been 3 threads of overwhelming input by people who've watched these guys say, this has nothing to do with "shiny and new" and has to do with upside.

----

To be fair, the #5 spot for me is a toss up between Gaunce and Lack. Haven't made up my mind yet.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:26 AM
  #67
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,696
vCash: 500
Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:30 AM
  #68
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"
Would you have ranked Ryan Strome lower than Casey Cizikas because one was closer to the NHL? What's the point of even having a poll if it's simply about who's the most NHL ready? That's already obvious without even having a poll. This should be about prospect value.

Tiranis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:33 AM
  #69
arsmaster
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,187
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ARSix View Post
Facepalm at this entire thread. If Schroeder is still a prospect, he or Horvat is #1 simply by virtue of his having shown he can hang in the NHL. Ranking Hunter Shinkaruk higher when he weighs 173 pounds and is probably 2 years away if he ever even makes it to the show higher is a hilarious example of "OOOOOH EXCITING! SHINY NEW THINGS!"
This my friends is a poster who hasn't read the whole thread and hasn't taken part in any of the discussion.

I like HF because often times there are good discussions to be had, when this type of post gets made, logical reasonable discussion is tossed out of the window and ran over with a semi.

----

What has Horvat proved at the NHL level? Bo diddly haha!

Who cares if he's 200lbs, I'm 200lbs and I'm nowhere near the NHL.

My favourite part....Jordan Schroeder is listed at a whopping 2 lbs heavier than Shinkaruk.

arsmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:37 AM
  #70
ARSix
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post
Would you have ranked Ryan Strome lower than Casey Cizikas because one was closer to the NHL?
No, for the same reason I have Horvat roughly equivalent to Schroeder. I will bet my house at even odds that Strome and Horvat are both useful players in the NHL. They may not become stars, but they are clearly going to be NHLers. The same cannot be said with any degree of certainty about Hunter or Jensen or Gaunce or, to a lesser extent, even Frank Corrado.

Schroeder has shown that at the very least, he has skill, playmaking ability, can skate at high level even among NHL players, and isn't a liability defensively. That makes him extremely well situated to be a useful NHL player going forward, notwithstanding his size. He may not be a star in the league, but he has proved he can stick there.
Quote:
What's the point of even having a poll if it's simply about who's the most NHL ready? That's already obvious without even having a poll. This should be about prospect value.
NHL readiness is a measure by which to evaluate a prospect. It isn't the sole metric, but it's a pretty important one. It's why Baertschi is currently a much more valuable prospect than Monahan for the Flames. This is why Schroeder probably shouldn't even be in the poll - does HF not cut off the "prospect" criteria at something like 30 GP in the NHL?

ARSix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:39 AM
  #71
kilgore111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 181
vCash: 500
Horvat can be a true number one centre, not a huge point producer by any means but will get his share and play well defensively and smartly and not be intimidated physically etc. If Gaunce turns into the number 3 centre the Canucks are in very good shape for the future. Gaunce does not have the skating to generate a lot of offense, but to be a good checking line centre who will pop the odd one yes. Means the Canucks looking to the future need another quality centre who can generate offense. Still HS? Someone else?

This draft has really changed the future for the better for the Canucks IMO, if Gillis had not traded the second rounder it would have been even better

kilgore111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:40 AM
  #72
Intoewsables
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 350
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Don't understand this. There is no guarantee that a guy like Shinkaruk (even with a great skill set) will succeed at even the AHL level. Lack has already proved that.
Forwards and defensemen (especially the former) are much easier to project than goaltenders, and like I said, Lack needs to be a starter to have any sort of value down the road. Shinkaruk's chances of becoming an asset to the team are much higher simply because he doesn't need to become an elite player to have value. Goalie prospects are up against it because until they have a large sample size at the NHL level, there's just no way of knowing how they're going to turn out.


Last edited by Intoewsables: 07-15-2013 at 11:50 AM.
Intoewsables is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:42 AM
  #73
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanaFan View Post
Or maybe, just maybe, people think a kid that scored nearly as many goals in his pre-draft season as Jensen did in his entire junior career might have better offensive upside? Or that Jensen's poor half-season in the AHL takes a lot of the lustre off of his good showing in the SEL? It's lazy to paint anyone who prefers Shinkaruk or Horvat for legitimate reasons as drawn to "shiny and new". Shows a complete lack of insight on your part.
I am questioning ranking Shinkaruk over Lack on the basis of "shiny and new", not Jensen. Sorry if that is not clear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiranis View Post

I'm not the one dismissing people's opinions on the basis of ad hominem and strawmen arguments.
You are doing the same thing!

Quote:
Well, there's no guarantee MacKinnon will succeed in the AHL/NHL either, but it's a reasonable bet that he will.
That in itself is a strawman argument. I have said Eddie Lack has proved himself to be an elite goaltender at a higher level than Shinkaruk has. I have said, besides his elite puck skills, Shinkaruk's size and weight at his point do not transfer well to the NHL level. That could change if he puts on more weight/height, but at this point, Lack is the better bet (even with his injury scare).

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 11:47 AM
  #74
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intoewsables View Post
Forwards and defensemen (especially the former) are much easier to project than goaltenders, and like I said, Lack needs to be a starter to have any sort of value down the road. Shinkaruk's chances of becoming an asset to the team are much highly simply because he doesn't need to become an elite player to have value. Goalie prospects are up against it because until they have a large sample size at the NHL level, there's just no way of knowing how they're going to turn out.
Fair enough. At this point in time, I don't see Shinkaruk having the physical attributes to be an effective NHL player. That could most definitely change as he matures. Lack on the other hand will most likely be our backup as soon next season with starter potential down the road. I guess I value that more.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2013, 12:02 PM
  #75
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,665
vCash: 500
Haha weight being argued as a indicator of value! I wonder how Tanev would fair against Cederholm if that were the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisp View Post
hey thefeebster, you're going to tell me who to pick for 6 and 7, right? #dontbetagainstthefeebs
Haha, I am no fortune teller. Without Schroeder in the equation, I see two goalies, but a D can sneak up there. I think if we were following Ericsson during his run this past season and offseason, we'd be praising him a lot more. Simply unreal performance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddy Punch Clock View Post
It's not an appetizer... it's a casserole served cold.
You kill me.

thefeebster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.