Prospect Profile: #1 Brendan Gaunce

Thomas Drance
August 30 2013 10:10AM


Image via Matthew Henderson

Brendan Gaunce clocks in as our number one overall Canucks prospect! That probably comes as a bit of a surprise considering Frank Corrado's emergence over the past twenty-four months and Vancouver's selection of Hunter Shinkaruk and Bo Horvat at the 2013 NHL entry draft. I'd add that my personal list didn't peg Brendan Gaunce as Vancouver's top prospect (I had him ranked third).

There are some legitimate concerns about Gaunce's overall upside, but I have no trouble standing behind this consensus pick from an editorial perspective. Gaunce is a powerful hockey player, and an extraordinary defensive player with NHL size. His skating is a concern for some scouts in the industry, but I generally think he has the tools and hockey smarts to develop into a play-driving forward at the NHL level. Certainly he wins puck-battles with machine-like regularity at the major junior level.

More on the other side of the jump.

Gaunce is probably the safest bet among Canucks prospects to emerge as an NHL regular. He's also probably the third most likely player on this list to see NHL action this upcoming season (behind only Corrado and perhaps Eddie Lack). The harder question to answer when it comes to Gaunce's development, in my view, is whether or not he has the offensive upside to project as a top-six forward at the NHL level.

At the OHL level Brendan Gaunce is an elite two-way forward who has consistently produced even-strength offense at a very impressive rate. In fact, among Ontario Hockey League players in Gaunce's draft class, only one skater scored more even-strength goals per game last season and that was Alex Galchenyuk (who played thirty-three games with the Sarnia Sting during the lockout). In his draft year, Gaunce produced even-strength goals at a higher per game rate than every draft eligible skater, which speaks volumes.

The big centreman had a tough, percentage driven start to the 2012-13 OHL season and missed time due to a shoulder injury. Upon his return to the lineup, Gaunce played mostly on the left-wing, moving over from his natural position down the middle to accommodate Belleville's acquisition of hotshot scoring centre Tyler Graovac.

Groavac and Gaunce had instant chemistry, with Gaunce playing setup man from the wing and Groavac pulling the trigger. The combination of the two (along with Jets prospect Austen Brassard) gave the Belleville Bulls one of the most dangerous lines in the OHL over the latter half of the season and into the Ontario Hockey League playoffs.

Gaunce in particular went off in the postseason, posting 22 points in 17 games. He scored an awful lot of garbage goals in the OHL playoffs, including two greasy ones in game six of the OHL's Eastern to force game 7 against the Barrie Colts in the OHL's Eastern Conference final. You can call that luck if you want, but I tend to give him full credit because Belleville dominated the puck whenever he was on the ice.

He has solid hands in tight and a professional quality shot, but he doesn't have a flashy finishing game generally speaking. I have, however, seen him show off high-end playmaking ability in past viewings. His vision and ability to pass out of traffic and find teammates with an assortment to saucer passes is a big reason why I'd rate Gaunce as a guy with top-six upside.

In terms of Gaunce's statistical profile, it's pretty impressive, especially at five-on-five. Gaunce was a point-per-game player last season despite the fact that Belleville's power-play was kind of woeful. In fact 70% of Gaunce's points came at even-strength, which is a pretty ridiculous number. The Bulls outscored opponents by fourteen last season with Gaunce on the ice, controlling 57% of goal events. That's a figure made even more impressive when one remembers that Gaunce was -8 through four games to begin the year.

In terms of Gaunce's skating, it's certainly not a strong suit of his game but it might not be the issue some have made it out to be. ESPN's Corey Pronman gave me a preview of his Canucks top-10 prospect list, which includes this note on Gaunce's skating: "Gaunce's skating still isn't the best. His top speed is ok but he isn't a blazer or a very elusive player."

Gaunce's skating is a weakness, or at least a perceived weakness, that he's obviously aware of. In addressing that supposed limitation Gaunce got pretty fired up in a conversation with Jim Jamieson this past spring.

Finally let's address a couple of intangible things about Gaunce, as much as that makes me shudder. Beyond Gaunce's statistical profile and on-ice performance, he is by all accounts a dedicated gym rat. He's worked out with Gary Roberts for the past three years (though he wasn't at the 2013 BioSteel camp this summer).

In speaking with him, he comes across as eloquent, mature and extremely competitive. That competitiveness can get the best of him on the ice and lead to undisciplined penalties occasionally from what I've seen, but that's to be expected of a nineteen year old who rather clearly hates losing.

What I mean to say here is that Gaunce plays the game with commendable intensity, and his work ethic, polished defensive game and maturity are major reasons why, I'd think, he'll get a long look at Canucks training camp this fall.

Needless to say, the Canucks have a gaping hole in the middle of their third-line. Gaunce may not be ready to play a top-nine role at the NHL level, but the Canucks have made noise all summer about wanting to go younger.

As such, Gaunce goes into this season with a major opportunity. If he can impress at the prospects tournament, at training camp, and in the preseason, I'd certainly think he could earn a nine-game cup of coffee in the show (the maximum number of games a 19 year old prospect can play without burning a year of their entry-level contract). And maybe more depending on how he performs.

Those are lofty goals for Gaunce, and it's more likely that he'll return to Belleville. In that case he'll also probably be considered for Team Canada's U20 team, as he impressed in a mostly fourth line role at the World Junior Development camp this past August.

With only the likes of Brad Richardson, Jordan Schroeder and Mike Santorelli to beat out for roster spots, it's conceivable that Brendan Gaunce could make his NHL debut sooner rather than later. Though of course it remains a stretch to imagine Gaunce being ready to help a good team win games in a top-nine role at only 19 years old.

This series seems to get more and more traction as each year passes, and that's because of you, the reader. Thanks for following along and keeping the comments section lively. Also, a big thank you to Mrs. Gaunce, whose first job as a member of the Nations Network - ranking every prospect in Vancouver's system, and then setting up a Top 20 for us to work with and profile - was a difficult one. Look for her next series which will be coming sometime in September, titled "Reasons Why Brendan Gaunce is the Next Big Thing".

Other Prospect Profiles in This Series:

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#51 Ted
August 30 2013, 05:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props
Thomas Drance wrote:

@NM00

I do think MG and co have done reasonably well to find solid Dmen prospects in unconventional places (Tanev, Corrado, and I really like Subban+Cedarholm). But yeah, Gillis' drafting has been average to below average during his tenure, no doubt.

@Thomas

While the jury is still out on many of these picks, I am not a fan of what Gillis has done. His drafts seem somewhat suspect but if you look at the organization, you'll see they have a poor draft history. It has been weak for decades. It is obvious they have drafted very few star NHLers. I'm hoping Gillis bucks the trend with the latest crop. When you compare Gillis to previous Canuck regimes then you see he actually hasn't been that bad.

I, too, am looking forward to the Young Guns tourny.

Avatar
#52 antro
August 30 2013, 06:27PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
Thomas Drance wrote:

@NM00

I do think MG and co have done reasonably well to find solid Dmen prospects in unconventional places (Tanev, Corrado, and I really like Subban+Cedarholm). But yeah, Gillis' drafting has been average to below average during his tenure, no doubt.

By what or who's measure?

Avatar
#53 JCDavies
August 30 2013, 07:44PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"It would be fruitless to attempt any hard and fast analysis on drafting since 2008."

"5 years is simply too small of a lag"

I agree that the time frame makes analysis difficult, which is why I haven't passed judgement on Gillis' drafting record yet. (His trading record is another story, however.)

"But I am working from the premise that the 10th overall pick being used on the 10th best player, for example, is maintaining value."

My concern about this line of thinking is the massive amount of variance attached to it.

Is the value of the 10th overall pick, the 10th best player in the draft or the the 10th best chance to select a top-ten player?

Avatar
#54 JCDavies
August 30 2013, 07:46PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

"To answer this question in any compelling way, you need a data set that includes all 30 teams, and some kind of testable criterion about success in drafting. That criterion could be NHL games, but probably NHL games to draft position would be far better."

Ask and ye shall receive.

Well, only because I've already looked at this.

Here are the total games played so far by draft picks from 2008-2012:

1. NYI (1,392) 2. LAK (972) 3. TBL (876) 4. COL (873) 5. EDM (801) 6. WPG (793) 7. NYR (775) 8. BUF (731) 9. OTT (728) 10. NAS (656) 11. WAS (631) 12. ANA (624) 13. PHI (571) 14. PHO (555) 15. FLA (556) 16. CBJ (515) 17. TOR (500) 18. NJD (487) 19. CAR (429) 20. STL (384) 21. BOS (369) 22. MIN (349) 23. SJ (322) 24. CHI (314) 25. CAL (247) 26. DAL (247) 27. VAN (180) 28. MTL (161) 29. PIT (83) 30. DET (72)

The above gives credit to the drafting team (i.e. the Canucks get full credit for Hodgson).

As for the games to draft position part, I have also looked at it, weighted based on potential games played (i.e. a 2008 draft selection has had the opportunity to play 376 games while a 2012 draft selection has had the opportunity to play 48 games), and put a +/- score to show the difference between the weighted average draft position and total games played.

2008 - 2012 has been weighted at 35/28/20/12/5:

1. NYI (0) 2. WPG (-4) 3. TOR (-14) 4. EDM (-1) 5. CBJ (-11) 6. FLA (-9) 7. LAK (+5) 8. TBL (+5) 9. STL (-11) 10. COL (+6) 11. PHO (-3) 12. OTT (+3) 13. MIN (-9) 14. BUF (+6) 15. NAS (+5) 16. CAR (-3) 17. CAL (-8) 18. DAL (-8) 19. ANA (+7) 20. NYR (+13) 21. VAN (-6) 22. BOS (+1) 23. NJD (+5) 24. CHI (0) 25. MTL (-3) 26. WAS (+15) 27. SJ (+4) 28. PIT (-1) 29. PHI (+16) 30. DET (0)

There is a big limitation, though, in that this does not account for traded draft picks.

For example, Toronto's terrible +/- is based almost entirely on the Kessel trade.

In case you are wondering, here are 1st round picks yielded in trade (by bottom 10 teams in terms of WADP) excluding 1st rounders traded for multiple later round draft picks:

SJ (2008, 2009, 2011), PHI (2009, 2010, 2011), BOS (2010, 2011), MTL (2008), PIT (2008), VAN (2010), NJ (2010), WAS (2011), DET (2012), CHI (N/A).

And there are the other obvious limitations (SSS, positional differences, man games being a poor proxy for value etc).

This can at least give you a sense of where the Canucks stack up relative to other teams with poor draft picks.

Though that is only a small part of my criticism of the organization.

The Canucks may have drafted Grabner, Hodgson & KConn. But another team will reap that value.

*sigh*

I thought we were making progress.

Avatar
#55 JCDavies
August 30 2013, 09:58PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"What now?

Aside from going over old ground and stuff to which I have already agreed."

I don't know what was agreed upon because if you really understood what I was trying to say, you wouldn't still be posting those same stats expecting to convince people of your argument.

But I can take 100% ownership in my inability to get my point across. That's on me.

"maintaining value"

I'm with antro, I don't really get this either.

The expected value of a draft pick is never an NHL player. Even a "no-brainer" like Crosby has a small chance of not making it to the NHL. If a team actually ends up with an NHL player, they have done more than "maintain value". They've won the lottery.

Avatar
#57 Fred-65
August 31 2013, 09:16AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Too many try to make s couting in tp a science when in fact it's much an art form as a any science.

Avatar
#58 orcasfan
August 31 2013, 10:15AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
4
props

Good discussion, you guys! Glad to see people challenging NMOO's blatant, unfounded analysis. One point/factor that hasn't been mentioned so far in the discussion of draft success is the speed with which organizations bring up their draft picks (especially 1st rounders). Often, we have seen weak, struggling organizations rush their draftees into the NHL, sometimes to the detriment of said draftee - hello Brule!

Strong organizations (perennial playoff teams, esp.) tend to take more time bringing up their draftees, placing more importance on development. This discrepancy has been going on for years. If you're only looking at recent history of the Canucks (especially after 2008), it needs to be recognized that Vancouver has definitely not rushed the promotion of their draftees during that time (with a possible exception of Corrado!). They have not had the need!

So, using NHL games played as a basis of comparing the draft success of different organizations is full of holes. If someone can come up with a method for taking these kind of factors into account, I would be more inclined to listen!

Avatar
#59 bullfiSh
August 31 2013, 11:07AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

I'd like to comment on Gaunce if that's ok? This is a thread about him yes?...

I remember hearing the reports when the Canucks drafted Gaunce and he reminded me a lot of Ryan Kesler - without the wheels. As he's progressed i'd say he sounds even more like Kes. Big body, smart player, raises his game highest when it counts the most. Versatile, physical, competes hard & has a decent scoring touch. I'm really excited for this prospect and i think he makes sense as the consensus #1.

I'm not too concerned about his "ceiling" as a "number 2 centre" or his "skating". I know some people are troubled when they read things like that and unfortunatly those stigma's tend to stick to a young kid, but i think given the quality of prospect we're talking about (hard working, well rounded game, leader) the sky is the limit for him. Skating etc, those are just normal developmental areas that every prospect needs to focus on to make the jump to the next level. It's really the job of the coaching staff and trainers to work on those areas of his game, and i think they will.

He fits the organization like a glove. Much like in the early 2000's when Kes was young and schooling under the great Trevor Linden, now you have Gaunce coming in and learning from Kesler. I think the timing of his arrival is perfect because as Kesler slowly scales back his workload (maybe not this year but soon) Gaunce will be on the rise, earning NM00's respect & hopefully silence.

Love the prospect series. Can't wait to look back on it next year and see who moves up the rankings. (I'm hoping McNally makes a push)

Cheers

Avatar
#60 nateb123
August 31 2013, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

@bullfiSh

Agreed. Nice to see some levelheadedness.

Gaunce might not have an exceptional natural stride but he also doesn't have physical limitations like stumpy legs. His technique might need work but that's hardly an uphill battle when he's only 19. I think people just forget that he's already as big as Zack Kassian (which feels weird to say) and is still filling out.

Avatar
#61 Ted
August 31 2013, 02:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props
nateb123 wrote:

Agreed. Nice to see some levelheadedness.

Gaunce might not have an exceptional natural stride but he also doesn't have physical limitations like stumpy legs. His technique might need work but that's hardly an uphill battle when he's only 19. I think people just forget that he's already as big as Zack Kassian (which feels weird to say) and is still filling out.

I think Gaunce has been working on improving his skating with Gary Roberts as well. It might be the difference between being a line 2 centre and a line 3 centre in the NHL.

Avatar
#62 JCDavies
August 31 2013, 04:38PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

@orcasfan

"So, using NHL games played as a basis of comparing the draft success of different organizations is full of holes."

But he isn't really doing this, is he? He is trying to compare the Canucks' drafting records and trading records at the SAME time and what he comes up with tells us little of value about either.

Avatar
#63 andyg
August 31 2013, 07:24PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props
antro wrote:

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes:

I don't get this. Your notion of comparison is meaningless. Truly meaningless, to anyone who has a sophisticated grasp of how statistical analysis is actually done (to be sure, you are not alone). Can you show us with some kind of quantification and statistical analysis that shows an adequate understanding of *statistical significance*, that the Vancouver Canucks' mgt over the last five years is doing a worse job at drafting NHL players than the other 30 other teams? By statistical significance, I mean that the quantification procedures you provide and the evidence you adduce can be shown through statistical tools to be more than random variation. (This helps to explain how the Frank Corrado's of this world get picked in the fifth round, and then trend upwards. That's just randomness, and there's only so much in drafting.)

You'll notice that to answer this question in any compelling way, you need a data set that includes all 30 teams, and some kind of testable criterion about success in drafting. That criterion could be NHL games, but probably NHL games to draft position would be far better. There are people who have tried to do this kind of thing on the interwebs, and so you probably would do well to read them instead of tooting the same points again and again.

To just list names of prospects/young players from 2008 and 2013 is unbelievably inadequate to the claims you make about Gillis' time as GM.

Now, if you truly wanted to make the case, with both data and analysis, that would be interesting to read.

Of course, if I may add a friendly, if snide, critique, you might need to learn something about paragraph structure to make it more readable.

I don't think you can use statistic's to analyze the teams drafting in the first few years because the organization was being evaluated and changes in the way it was run were being made.

I think that the first thing that Gillis did was start to change the the mindset of the entire organization.(this can't be done over night) This started at the NHL level and we began to see that players were never happy with status qua and are now always working to improve on their weaknesses. We watched good players like Kesler and the Sedins become elite players in a mater of a few years. This same approach of evaluating players and giving them every means to improve is being used with prospects.The purchase of our own farm team is going to make this process easier.

People say Gillis has a bad record of developing talent but I say his system developed the talent that is on the teem now and in time we will see if that is what happens to this group that we have been reading about.

Avatar
#64 NM00
September 02 2013, 04:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

Uh what?

How am I "comparing" the drafting and trading records at the same time?

My post was about draft pick utilization (and Grabner).

Antro wanted to shift the discussion to draft picks...

Avatar
#65 NM00
September 02 2013, 04:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@orcasfan

"NMOO, if you were only interested in comparing Vancouver with teams who were also picking lower in the draft, then why didn't you do so at the beginning of this discussion storm?"

I wasn't "only" interested in comparing Vancouver with low drafting teams.

A big part of the story has been traded prospects/picks.

The closest thing the Canucks have to a drafted and developed NHL regular since 2008 is Jordan Schroeder who has played all of 31 NHL games.

There isn't a single NHL team doing as poorly as Vancouver in this respect.

And for all the limitations of man game totals, actually playing is a prerequisite to value.

It's why plate appearances and innings pitched are a big component of WAR.

Avatar
#66 andyg
September 02 2013, 06:26PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

"NMOO, if you were only interested in comparing Vancouver with teams who were also picking lower in the draft, then why didn't you do so at the beginning of this discussion storm?"

I wasn't "only" interested in comparing Vancouver with low drafting teams.

A big part of the story has been traded prospects/picks.

The closest thing the Canucks have to a drafted and developed NHL regular since 2008 is Jordan Schroeder who has played all of 31 NHL games.

There isn't a single NHL team doing as poorly as Vancouver in this respect.

And for all the limitations of man game totals, actually playing is a prerequisite to value.

It's why plate appearances and innings pitched are a big component of WAR.

Bla ,bla ,bla.

Avatar
#67 JCDavies
September 02 2013, 09:02PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@NM00

"Uh what?"

This could explain quite a bit, actually.

Avatar
#68 JCDavies
September 02 2013, 09:06PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"My post was about draft pick utilization (and Grabner)."

IF you were really interested in assessing the value the Canucks received from their draft picks during those seasons and you wanted to use games played as your criterion, then you would have included the value the Canucks received from their 2012 3rd round draft pick and from their 2010 1st, 2nd and 3rd round draft picks, correct? You would have included the 482 games* the Canucks received from Higgins, Lapierre, Alberts, Ballard, Bernier and Roy, right? Oh, you didn't ...

Well then, I guess you would have adjusted your expected value formula to reflect this decision. Oh, you didn't do that either ...

(*note: This number does not include the 332 games the Canucks received from Higgins', Lapierre's and Alberts' 2nd contracts with the Canucks.)

Avatar
#69 pheenster
September 03 2013, 01:35AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

This isn't about 2011-2013 and this isn't merely about drafting.

It's about how 2008-2010 draft picks were utilized, using man games as a starting point and seeing where it leads.

I'm not trying to do what you are suggesting.

For starters, man games is a terrible measure.

Mike Brown has played more NHL games than Cory Schneider. Who do you prefer?

But I am working from the premise that the 10th overall pick being used on the 10th best player, for example, is maintaining value.

Quantity (man games) is the starting point. I would have gone further if I felt there was any argument for quality.

And, as you may have noticed, half of what I consider to be sunk costs pertain to traded picks & Grabner.

"Of course, if I may add a friendly, if snide, critique, you might need to learn something about paragraph structure to make it more readable."

Pasting things onto this site isn't very user friendly :)

What a complete and total non-reply to the original post. You're blowing smoke here and everyone knows it.

And regards the whole comparison of the current prospect group to that of 2008, there was already a thread about that. You blew smoke in that one too.

Avatar
#70 NM00
September 03 2013, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

The post was about 2008-2010.

And I did mention Ballard, Alberts, Bernier and KConn (who was later traded for Roy).

With Ballard, Alberts & Bernier, each player's market value fell/plateaued after being acquired by Vancouver.

That should give you a pretty good idea about how much surplus value the Canucks received in these transactions.

As I said, "draft picks were also used to acquire Steve Bernier (2nd & 3rd) and Andrew Alberts (3rd).

I’d suggest spending $4.5 million for two years of Bernier and around $1.5 million on 1.2 years of Andrew Alberts was at (or above) the free agent market price and, as such, should not have required draft picks.

But perhaps that is debatable."

Just look up the dollars the Canucks paid to Bernier & Alberts.

Where is the surplus value provided on those contracts?

Fangraphs has numerous articles on the price of free agent wins.

Teams shouldn't be giving up assets to acquire players that aren't providing (financial) value above that which can be found in free agency.

And the Ballard trade doesn't need to be explained to anyone aside from the wilfully ignorant, does it?

The Canucks would have been better off trading Grabner and their 2010 1st rounder for a 7th round pick.

Avatar
#71 NM00
September 03 2013, 12:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

I may be missing a smaller trade or two here...

Ballard ($13.6 million for 3 seasons)

Bernier ($4.5 million for 2 seasons)

Alberts ($1.5 million for 1.2 seasons)

Roy ($1.375 million for 0.25 seasons)

Pahlsson (0.6625 million for 0.25 seasons)

Higgins ($0.4 million for 0.25 seasons)

Lapierre ($0.225 million for 0.25 seasons)

Considering the salary cap at the time the Canucks were paying each of these players, I don't see the surplus value from those players collectively.

In my opinion, the Canucks paid around free agent market value to that group collectively when ignoring Ballard.

And once Ballard is factored in, well, it's not pretty.

Avatar
#72 JCDavies
September 03 2013, 01:31PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"Considering the salary cap at the time the Canucks were paying each of these players, I don't see the surplus value from those players collectively."

Speculation, prove this with actual numbers.

Avatar
#73 JCDavies
September 03 2013, 01:32PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"Where is the surplus value provided on those contracts?"

Speculation, prove this with actual numbers.

Avatar
#74 JCDavies
September 03 2013, 01:33PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
NM00 wrote:

The post was about 2008-2010.

And I did mention Ballard, Alberts, Bernier and KConn (who was later traded for Roy).

With Ballard, Alberts & Bernier, each player's market value fell/plateaued after being acquired by Vancouver.

That should give you a pretty good idea about how much surplus value the Canucks received in these transactions.

As I said, "draft picks were also used to acquire Steve Bernier (2nd & 3rd) and Andrew Alberts (3rd).

I’d suggest spending $4.5 million for two years of Bernier and around $1.5 million on 1.2 years of Andrew Alberts was at (or above) the free agent market price and, as such, should not have required draft picks.

But perhaps that is debatable."

Just look up the dollars the Canucks paid to Bernier & Alberts.

Where is the surplus value provided on those contracts?

Fangraphs has numerous articles on the price of free agent wins.

Teams shouldn't be giving up assets to acquire players that aren't providing (financial) value above that which can be found in free agency.

And the Ballard trade doesn't need to be explained to anyone aside from the wilfully ignorant, does it?

The Canucks would have been better off trading Grabner and their 2010 1st rounder for a 7th round pick.

If you want, for whatever reason, to exclude any return the Canucks received for the draft picks mentioned above, that is your choice. You have yet to explain why you haven’t adjusted you expected value formula to account for that decision.

There was no mention of Alberts, Ballard or Bernier in post #38 or the many other times I have seen your “weighting system” or why you didn't include some measure of their value (positive or negative).

“Suggestions” and perfunctory statements such as: “There is a big limitation, though, in that this does not account for traded draft picks” (“big limitation” is a heck of an understatement here, by the way) shouldn't give you license to use whatever misleading numbers you like. The burden isn't on the reader to determine if your numbers have any value; it’s on you as the author.

Avatar
#75 NM00
September 03 2013, 02:00PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

"If you want, for whatever reason, to exclude any return the Canucks received for the draft picks mentioned above, that is your choice. You have yet to explain why you haven’t adjusted you expected value formula to account for that decision."

Because it's easy to use as a starting point in a discussion.

Footnoting traded 1st rounders should give you an indication of this.

And, again, aside from wilful ignorance, I don't see a reason to believe the Canucks struggling to get games from draft selections, relative to other teams that have picked later in the draft, relates to the rate at which they yield draft picks in trade.

People can determine the validity of this on their own.

People can look at the games received from draft selections by Anaheim, New York, Boston, New Jersey, Chicago, Montreal, Washington, San Jose, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia & Detroit and compare it to Vancouver.

Avatar
#76 NM00
September 03 2013, 02:11PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

1. Cody Hodgson was selected 10th overall in 2008. At 139 NHL games, he is currently 22nd in games played amongst the 2008 draft class.

2. Yann Sauve was selected 41st overall in 2008. At 5 NHL games, he is currently tied for 79th in games played amongst the 2008 draft class.

3. Jordan Schroeder was selected 22nd overall in 2009. At 31 NHL games, he is currently 43rd in games played amongst the 2009 draft class.

4. Anton Rodin was selected 53rd overall in 2009. 77 draftees from this class have played NHL games at this point. But that group does not include Rodin.

The above, which was part of the original post, considers draft position relative to games played amongst one's draft class.

Nobody else has played NHL games from the 2008-2010 class.

If you want to shift the discussion strictly to draft selections from the 2008-2010 drafts...

Avatar
#77 JCDavies
September 03 2013, 03:37PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"If you want to shift the discussion strictly to draft selections from the 2008-2010 drafts..."

I can't speak for you or anybody else but my comments were always directed at this wonderful piece of work:

"2008 - 2012 has been weighted at 35/28/20/12/5:

1. NYI (0) 2. WPG (-4) 3. TOR (-14) 4. EDM (-1) 5. CBJ (-11) 6. FLA (-9) 7. LAK (+5) 8. TBL (+5) 9. STL (-11) 10. COL (+6) 11. PHO (-3) 12. OTT (+3) 13. MIN (-9) 14. BUF (+6) 15. NAS (+5) 16. CAR (-3) 17. CAL (-8) 18. DAL (-8) 19. ANA (+7) 20. NYR (+13) 21. VAN (-6) 22. BOS (+1) 23. NJD (+5) 24. CHI (0) 25. MTL (-3) 26. WAS (+15) 27. SJ (+4) 28. PIT (-1) 29. PHI (+16) 30. DET (0) "

"Footnoting traded 1st rounders should give you an indication of this.

And, again, aside from wilful ignorance, I don't see a reason to believe the Canucks struggling to get games from draft selections, relative to other teams that have picked later in the draft, relates to the rate at which they yield draft picks in trade."

This is a weak excuse you use to allow you to post misleading numbers with little value.

It is also speculation.

Avatar
#78 NM00
September 03 2013, 06:56PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

If the intent was to "post misleading numbers with little value", what would be the rationale for footnoting trades involving 1st round picks to show what Vancouver has been doing compared to other low drafting teams?

Trying to find a logical explanation isn't the same as 'speculation'.

For example, as I suggest above, I don't believe there was surplus value (collectively) provided in the picks traded for Ballard, Higgins and the rest.

And I think if you look at the next contract each player signed, you'd get a sense of the surplus value (or lack thereof) each player provided Vancouver.

Of course, you'd also have to consider age and the salary cap among other things.

I'd suggest Ballard's contract with Minnesota was more reflective of what he did in Vancouver as opposed to his age and the declining salary cap.

But all three factors contributed to his paycut, in my opinion.

That's all "speculation", though.

The numerical proof you are asking for would still require you to make a logical connection.

If you are interested in determining whether or not traded picks is the reason the Canucks are 27th in man games from draft selections since 2008, go for it.

If you are interested in determining whether or not the traded picks have provided surplus value, again, go for it.

Skepticism is healthy.

Avatar
#79 JCDavies
September 04 2013, 01:11AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

"If you are interested in determining whether or not traded picks is the reason the Canucks are 27th in man games from draft selections since 2008, go for it.

If you are interested in determining whether or not the traded picks have provided surplus value, again, go for it."

I am not trying to prove or disprove any arguments relating to the Canucks' draft picks, that is just the way the discussion developed based on the forum. My arguments have always been directed at your definition of value and your expected value formula and the conclusions that you draw from them.

If this were a Capitals blog, I would argue that the +15 is likely unreasonably favorable and if it were a Blues blog, that the -11 isn't reliable and that it can't confidently be used to form conclusions. And so on...

Back in July, you began a similar post by writing: "How much value has Vancouver received from Mike Gillis' draft picks so far?" and then you used the exact same numbers posted above to show that the Canucks haven't kept pace with other teams.

While this may be true, as I have mentioned above, I have been questioning the ability to arrive at that conclusion, with any confidence, using the numbers you have posted above.

Avatar
#80 NM00
September 04 2013, 11:34AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

Yes and, once again, what would be the rationale for footnoting 1st round picks for low drafting teams if I were not aware that trading picks affects this?

If this were meant to be hard and fast (though I'd be very skeptical of anything allegedly "concrete" about drafts that began in 2008) as opposed to a discussion starter (i.e. are traded picks the reason the Canucks have been struggling so far to get man games from draft selections?), there would be another way to go about this.

For example, I could round up the 31 NHL games for Jordan Schroeder and make that the baseline for an NHL regular.

I could then set the criteria as "drafted and developed NHL regulars" and have the Canucks come in at 30th of 30 NHL teams.

I encourage you to look that up if you don't believe me.

And then people could determine how important it is to draft and develop NHL regulars, whether or not Schroeder legitmately qualifies as an NHL regular and to what degree the Canucks draft position is part of the story.

And then the discussion could shift to the draft selections the Canucks have had relative to other low drafting teams.

Other teams have had it worse than the Canucks, by the way. Again, I encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me.

And then the discussion would naturally shift to the general manager's trading record of picks, Grabner, Hodgson, KConn & whether or not value has been recouped in trade.

As I've said through out these two discussions, I don't see an argument for quality, recouped value through traded picks or that the Canucks have been yielding more/better picks than other contending teams as the explainer for their low man game total.

Again, skepticism is healthy. Look it up for yourself if you are curious.

If I may make a recommendation, look at the draft selections made by Anaheim, New York, Boston, New Jersey, Chicago, Montreal, Washington, San Jose, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia & Detroit and compare it to Vancouver.

And I'd also suggest you put a value on the work performed by Ballard et al to determine whether or not value was recouped in trade.

Make the determination for yourself.

Avatar
#81 JCDavies
September 04 2013, 12:47PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@NM00

There are actually some really good suggestions in there that are much more clear than what you have done up to this point.

Avatar
#82 NM00
September 04 2013, 01:14PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

@JCDavies

Well I've made every suggestion in post #80 prior to post #80...but it seems like enough of a consensus to end this pissing contest.

By the way

"Uh what?"

This could explain quite a bit, actually."

I found this hilarious fwiw

Avatar
#83 Sean
September 06 2013, 09:22AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

This choice was terrible. First game of the young guns game shows horvat is already closer to being in the NHL than gaunce. Heads should be shaking

Comments are closed for this article.