All Gudbranson is is potential. Right now Tanev is the better player. He's playing top 4 minutes on the Canucks and is a career plus player. Gudbranson has not lived up to potential so far. Every hockey analyst will tell you this. Does Gudbranson have potential to be better than Tanev in a few years? Sure. Does that mean you should trade someone who has proven he can play consistently for someone who has potential to be better? I'm not so sure.
People are often blinded by the fact that Gudbranson was drafted 3rd overall and automatically assume he must be better than someone who went undrafted. So, I understand why you think Gudbranson is better even though he has not shown it on the ice
You pay for potential. The kid just turned 21. There is not a single analyst who believes that Gudbranson is a letdown thus far, his career hasn't even started.
I'm not blinded by anything, I've watched both of them play plenty. Tanev has been defensively consistent and at this point is more defensively consistent than Gudbranson, but at over two years younger (which is a huge gap at that age) Gudbranson is better offensively, will learn the defensive game, has more size, makes huge hits and brings energy. Tanev is consistent, great. Gudbranson has the potential to be a franchise D-man.
Let's put it this way; would you trade Willie Mitchell for Gudbranson? How about even Mitchell at the peak of his career for Gudbranson today? I'm assuming you would, and if you wouldn't then there's really no point in continuing this conversation because you're delusional. Tanev's career ceiling is a poor man's Willie Mitchell, and his type of game is easily replaceable. Gudbranson's game is not.