C Frederik Gauthier (2013, 21st, TOR)

[Geese_Howard*]

Will never amount to anything. **** Nonuts

 

[Nash]

Lirl.

Wasn't on board with Gauthier before the draft (wanted Morrissey, Rychel, or Mantha), was and am indifferent to the pick now. But I would like to propose a question to all of you opportunistic sht-takers: how do you draft a two-way top 6 centre, a Krejci, a Bergeron, a Couture, especially outside the top 15, without drafting someone with his knocks and hoping he develops into one? Magic? There are no perfect prospects in the 20s, everyone has warts. Sometimes they break that mold and you've got Claude Guroux. Sometimes not.

Never liked the Biggs pick. Showed no offensive talent prior to his draft or afterwards. Gauthier was at least a PPG his draft year.

I would suggest that the issue isn't how do you draft a two way centre. It's what should you draft in the first round.

You draft skill first and foremost. Never draft a defensive defenseman in the first round and never draft a defensive forward or two way specialist in the first round unless the elite skill offensively is there too. And more than anything, never draft for positional need.

I would have taken plenty of other guys. Petan would have been a good pick in that spot.

 

[ottawah]

You're right... Leafs management does an excellent job of scouting and drafting. One of their strong suits, no doubt. Just look at all that talent they've developed...

Their track record and Gauthier's underwhelming play certainly tilts the meter towards him not being what they thought he would be. I'm assuming they projected him as a top 6 center when they drafted him, because why else would they have taken him in the 1st round? Or maybe they think drafting a bottom 6 center in the 1st is using their 1st round pick wisely?

I'm not sure what people may expect, but getting any producing player at Gauthiers draft position is a success.

That said, I thought there were a lot of players with decent upside on the board and Gauthier was not one of them. He was drafted for size at his position and little other reason.

 

[member 147413]

I would suggest that the issue isn't how do you draft a two way centre. It's what should you draft in the first round.

You draft skill first and foremost. Never draft a defensive defenseman in the first round and never draft a defensive forward or two way specialist in the first round unless the elite skill offensively is there too. And more than anything, never draft for positional need.

I would have taken plenty of other guys. Petan would have been a good pick in that spot.

Nonis, sign this guy up, he has a scouting method no one has ever thought of.

 

[Xoggz22]

I would suggest that the issue isn't how do you draft a two way centre. It's what should you draft in the first round.

You draft skill first and foremost. Never draft a defensive defenseman in the first round and never draft a defensive forward or two way specialist in the first round unless the elite skill offensively is there too. And more than anything, never draft for positional need.

I would have taken plenty of other guys. Petan would have been a good pick in that spot.

I agree. Just look at Edmonton for a great example of this philosophy.... oh wait.... My bad.

There are so many factors that go into evaluating a 17 or 18 year old at draft time and I believe most GM's would focus on taking the BPA in the top 1/2 of round 1 regardless of position. It's defining BPA that is subjective. Some GM's place higher value on character, 2-way play, IQ, etc. There are success and failure stories from all over the draft. Saying you never draft this or that is ludicrous. And throwing around the word "elite" is silly too. Not many players in any draft year have "elite" qualities. And if they do they aren't dropping beyond the top few picks.

Back to my original statement. Edmonton may have a great nucleus but they need the defensive defensemen, defensive forwards and grit/glue guys to push their team forward. If they get those pieces we may see a change. Until now their only focus appears to be skill and thus far I wouldn't say it's working.

 

[Brew]

The people who call Gauthier a bust clearly don't understand the development of hockey players if you consider an 18 year old a bust, especially one year after he was drafted.


HF mindset at its finest here.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

I would suggest that the issue isn't how do you draft a two way centre. It's what should you draft in the first round.

You draft skill first and foremost. Never draft a defensive defenseman in the first round and never draft a defensive forward or two way specialist in the first round unless the elite skill offensively is there too. And more than anything, never draft for positional need.

I would have taken plenty of other guys. Petan would have been a good pick in that spot.

I disagree. My qualms with Gauthier have nothing to do with his gametype, a stud two-way guy with the 21st pick is a successful pick.

 

[Sundinisagod]

You're right... Leafs management does an excellent job of scouting and drafting. One of their strong suits, no doubt. Just look at all that talent they've developed...

Their track record and Gauthier's underwhelming play certainly tilts the meter towards him not being what they thought he would be. I'm assuming they projected him as a top 6 center when they drafted him, because why else would they have taken him in the 1st round? Or maybe they think drafting a bottom 6 center in the 1st is using their 1st round pick wisely?

I do think we drafted him to be a 3rd line center. I'm pretty sure our director of player development (or something along those lines) was quoted as projecting him as a 3rd line NHL center. Personally, I think it was a reactionary pick to the meltdown against Boston in game 7...Gauthier projects to be the type of player we need in the last minutes of a game to protect a lead.

Personally, I'm kinda lukewarm on the pick. On draft day, we had a strong feeling the Leafs would be taking him if he was there, none of the higher ranked players slid down to us so I was fine with the pick. I thought his points were promising for his rookie season, that this season would build upon that...I won't deny that I'm concerned about the points regression, he best pick up the pace in the 2nd half. I think he gets by on size and smarts a bit too much in the Q, I'd like to see him play with a bit more snarl. If he can do that, he can be a high end 3C which I'm fine with for a 21st overall.

 

[Nash]

I agree. Just look at Edmonton for a great example of this philosophy.... oh wait.... My bad.

There are so many factors that go into evaluating a 17 or 18 year old at draft time and I believe most GM's would focus on taking the BPA in the top 1/2 of round 1 regardless of position. It's defining BPA that is subjective. Some GM's place higher value on character, 2-way play, IQ, etc. There are success and failure stories from all over the draft. Saying you never draft this or that is ludicrous. And throwing around the word "elite" is silly too. Not many players in any draft year have "elite" qualities. And if they do they aren't dropping beyond the top few picks.

Back to my original statement. Edmonton may have a great nucleus but they need the defensive defensemen, defensive forwards and grit/glue guys to push their team forward. If they get those pieces we may see a change. Until now their only focus appears to be skill and thus far I wouldn't say it's working.

There is nothing wrong with EDM's first round selections. How could they not be taking the BPA, as you suggest, when they are 1st overall picks?

Their draft issues are more centered on who they have picked beyond the first round. And their lack of two way forwards and any type of quality NHL nucleus is on management and who they sign or let go. That 80's Oilers dynasty management group is a joke.

 

[Nash]

I disagree. My qualms with Gauthier have nothing to do with his gametype, a stud two-way guy with the 21st pick is a successful pick.

Except he isn't a stud two-way guy.

 

[pooleboy]

Except he isn't a stud two-way guy.

thanks for your input van fan, however, he was the best two-way center in the draft probably... so by that criteria alone he is a stud two-way guy.

 

[pooleboy]

Martin Hanzal is his upside.

Brian Boyle he should at least become.

David Steckel if he underachieves.

i agree with this.

 

[Mit Yarrum]

Bust name. Frederik Gauthier. Come on. More like Gauthibust.

Same with Ekbust.

 

[Cap'n Flavour]

Steckel has 400 NHL games to his credit. Gauthier's floor could be as low as career AHLer. Nothing against him personally, just look at the bottom 10-15 picks of the first round in any entry draft and you'll find a number of players who never even made it to 100 games in the NHL. From 2008, take Anton Gustafsson, Greg Nemisz, Daultan Leveille; Logan McMillan, Angelo Esposito, Patrick White from 2007, etc.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

thanks for your input van fan, however, he was the best two-way center in the draft probably... so by that criteria alone he is a stud two-way guy.

Except that Nate MacKinnon guy... or Barkov for that matter. But describing Gauthier as a "two-way centre" at this point is basically just saying that (in the Q, mind you) his defense apparently makes up for his notable lack of offensive acumen. The word "stud" doesn't describe Gauthier to me at all, regardless.

 

[Stringer Bell]

The people who call Gauthier a bust clearly don't understand the development of hockey players if you consider an 18 year old a bust, especially one year after he was drafted.


HF mindset at its finest here.

How often do people question if a player might be a bust, then others like you come into state that it is too early, and then that player actually not become a bust? Not often.

More often than not when enough people question if a player might be a bust, that player actually becomes a bust.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

Except he isn't a stud two-way guy.

Here's the question you posed:

I would suggest that the issue isn't how do you draft a two way centre. It's what should you draft in the first round.

Toronto picked him because they thought he was a two-way centre, and two-way centres can provide both offense and defense. He was noted for his defensive play while providing close to a point per game last season, hardly numbers to sneeze at.

Whether he works out or not (and I myself was never a fan of his) is irrelevant, if Toronto believes he is/can be a two-way force for them then they are in the right to take such a player in the first round, they don't fall on trees. If he works out, then you'll have a better hockey team as a result. I don't think he will work out because he lacks the intensity that I seek in a two-way guy, not very tenacious in his approach, but I think we will probably agree on this.

I simply disagree with the notion that you should not draft two-way guys in the first round if you think there's offensive potential, which Toronto saw in him.

 

[GlassesJacketShirt]

thanks for your input van fan, however, he was the best two-way center in the draft probably... so by that criteria alone he is a stud two-way guy.

As the other guy said......no, Barkov is a better two-way player, so was Horvat and Lazar.

 

[Aceboogie]

I agree. Just look at Edmonton for a great example of this philosophy.... oh wait.... My bad.

There are so many factors that go into evaluating a 17 or 18 year old at draft time and I believe most GM's would focus on taking the BPA in the top 1/2 of round 1 regardless of position. It's defining BPA that is subjective. Some GM's place higher value on character, 2-way play, IQ, etc. There are success and failure stories from all over the draft. Saying you never draft this or that is ludicrous. And throwing around the word "elite" is silly too. Not many players in any draft year have "elite" qualities. And if they do they aren't dropping beyond the top few picks.

Back to my original statement. Edmonton may have a great nucleus but they need the defensive defensemen, defensive forwards and grit/glue guys to push their team forward. If they get those pieces we may see a change. Until now their only focus appears to be skill and thus far I wouldn't say it's working.

If anything, Edmonton proves the point the guy was stating.

They picked Eberle (skill) over Cuma (Defensive D) and Nemisz (size). They also used later picks to draft D, and know have some of the best D prospects in the league (top 5)

Defensive specialist picked in the first round are normally busts. But this is not to be confused with 2 way players that score at great rates in Junior.

These type of players (2 way, size) can be picked in the later rounds. For instance, Jujhar Khaira (6'3, 200) was picked in the 3rd round of the 2012 draft and is currently outscoring Gauthier. Gauthier might be a better prospect, but players that have similar upside can be picked in later rounds. Guys like Poirer, Petan, Shinkaruk etc cant.

 

[Aceboogie]

Except that Nate MacKinnon guy... or Barkov for that matter. But describing Gauthier as a "two-way centre" at this point is basically just saying that (in the Q, mind you) his defense apparently makes up for his notable lack of offensive acumen. The word "stud" doesn't describe Gauthier to me at all, regardless.

Or Monahan, that guy is pretty good too. Or Lindholm, Lazar, Horvat

 

[Sonofamitch]

Drafting a third line center in the first round of a deep draft. Lol

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Drafting a third line center in the first round of a deep draft. Lol

Basically this.

 

[sniper81]

If anything, Edmonton proves the point the guy was stating.

They picked Eberle (skill) over Cuma (Defensive D) and Nemisz (size). They also used later picks to draft D, and know have some of the best D prospects in the league (top 5)

Defensive specialist picked in the first round are normally busts. But this is not to be confused with 2 way players that score at great rates in Junior.

These type of players (2 way, size) can be picked in the later rounds. For instance, Jujhar Khaira (6'3, 200) was picked in the 3rd round of the 2012 draft and is currently outscoring Gauthier. Gauthier might be a better prospect, but players that have similar upside can be picked in later rounds. Guys like Poirer, Petan, Shinkaruk etc cant.

not to harp on your post but Nemisz was a size and skill pick. Cuma was also a skilled D man who had tons of injury problems. Its the luck of the draft

 

[Sundinisagod]

Drafting a third line center in the first round of a deep draft. Lol

That's what the Leafs did according to Nonis, Morrison, and director of player development Jim Hughes...taken from this article Aug 2, 2013:



AB: Frederik Gauthier has been projected as a third line center by Dave Nonis after the draft and Dave Morrison when we talked to him earlier in the week. Do you agree with that projection? His numbers, for a first-year rookie who battled a broken jaw, were actually pretty good.

JH: I do agree with it. Let’s see where his offensive skill sets take him, but when you’re talking about an NHL playoff team, Gauthier is probably in the three spot. If you’re talking about a non-playoff team, Gauthier is in the two spot. To be realistic, if you’ve got Gauthier in the three spot, you most probably have a pretty good hockey team. With that big physical size that can get up and down the rink, he plays 200 feet and he’s got a good skill set. If you put him in a two spot, he’s biting off more than he can chew. If you keep him in the three spot, it’s probably a good spot for him. We’ll let him go do his thing and in three years or three and a half years from now I think we’ll have something special there.


full article: http://mapleleafshotstove.com/2013/...fs-director-of-player-development-jim-hughes/

 

[MBauer]

thanks for your input van fan, however, he was the best two-way center in the draft probably... so by that criteria alone he is a stud two-way guy.

Not even close.