[Discussion] Erik Gudbranson to FLA for 1st Round Pick

[komodo0921]

On 11/12/2017 at 11:16 AM, Rush17 said:

Who here would entertain the idea of trading Erik Gudbranson back to FLA for their 1st round pick (with top 5 trade protection for FLA).  Florida is currently dead last in their division and are struggling horribly on defense.  We obviously lost some value on McCann and 2nd for Gudbranson.  But if FLA is to finish in the 5-10 range which is conceivable with their slow start.  Would the value of McCann and a 2nd in Gudbranson be worth moving for that price tag?  It would free of us possibly losing him in free agency and it would reunite Gudbranson to his former team.

 

Share your thoughts?  If the pick was a top 5 pick and differed to 2019 what type of condition should be added?  An extra 3rd in 2019 for the time delay?  Tell me what you think!

First of all, I don't think, with this draft class, Florida is going to be interested in moving their pick if they continue to flop and end up in the top five. Any of those picks are going to have to be obscenely over-payed for with the top two or three being virtually untouchable. 

 

Gudbranson's value is tough to determine. He is a physical presence opposition is always aware of and is great in front of our net, but, the fact that he is still at zero points is what makes him so debatable. If he were at 8 or 9 points, I don't think his name would be coming up in these posts.

 

For me, it's all about price-tag. Unfortunately, he's a player, who's intangibles, are his negotiating strength and, are the hardest to place a value on. How important is he to our blueline?  Is he a catalyst behind the scenes? and; Are those intangibles replaceable? We know his importance on the ice but, it is my opinion, that, without the full picture, it's hard to place value on him from a fan's perspective. What I see on the ice is replaceable but his off ice behavior and influence could be just as important to a young defensive core coming into it's own. I see us being back in playoff contention two to three years from now. Guddy will be twenty-eight and in his prime. His value to this team will only increase and may be a traded asset we come to miss. This must be considered.

 

On the other hand, there is no denying the market for him and it may be considered foolish to not take advantage of it if the offers are substantial. Regardless, of other team's opinions of his value, we would be losing a big piece of our blueline and I'd be looking for overpayment from any potential suitors. Any negotiations on return would be with, full, knowledge of his contract expectations and my comfort level and confidence in re-signing him. I would also be selective of teams I negotiate with (without tipping my hand, of course). I would be looking at those that are on the fringe of the playoffs, say, eighth to tenth, depending on point spread; Those that need success and are desperate to make adjustments and may be willing to overpay. I would also be looking to do it sooner than later, looking at a late January trade rather than letting it go until deadline day. This gives us more teams to negotiate with as most sellers wait for the tdl.

 

East teams: Rangers, Islanders, Flyers, Red Wings and Canadians

West teams: Flames, Ducks, Wild and Avalanche.

 

No matter which team it is, I want their first round pick and won't consider any deal without it. My goal is to secure as many lottery picks as I can to up our odds of getting into the top three at the draft. These teams are in the hunt but are far from guaranteed to solidify a spot.

 

I stated in another thread that I see this team finishing 18th to 21st in the league and I'm standing by it. Adding a second top fifteen pick would be ideal in this draft.

 

 

[kanucks25]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

These please, and back it up with actual scoring chances not just weak shots. 

 

 

There is no such thing as "weak shots" from the home-plate area. Goals are mostly scored from the high-danger areas, and Gudbranson gives up a crap-load of shots from high-danger areas, relative to the rest of the team and the rest of the league.

 

To suggest that Gudbranson only gives up "weak shots" in the dangerous areas is frankly absurd. There is no evidence to support this, only wishful thinking. Anybody who watches hockey on a regular basis knows that majority of the dangerous scoring chances occur in and around the slot.

[Canucklehead73]

Guddy is UFA. His value is pretty low especially for Florida 

[JM_]

27 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

There is no such thing as "weak shots" from the home-plate area. Goals are mostly scored from the high-danger areas, and Gudbranson gives up a crap-load of shots from high-danger areas, relative to the rest of the team and the rest of the league.

 

To suggest that Gudbranson only gives up "weak shots" in the dangerous areas is frankly absurd. There is no evidence to support this, only wishful thinking. Anybody who watches hockey on a regular basis knows that majority of the dangerous scoring chances occur in and around the slot.

um, no. Of course there are weak chances close in. Can you provide a little more evidence than "crap load"?

[kanucks25]

27 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

um, no. Of course there are weak chances close in. Can you provide a little more evidence than "crap load"?

When are close-in shots ever "weak"? The closer to the net and the closer to the middle of the ice (slot), the better the scoring opportunity. When is that ever not the case? The only thing I can think of is if the player fans on the shot but that can happen from any area of the ice and isn't anymore common in the slot.

 

And here is the crap-load. (hint: red = bad)

 

On 11/10/2017 at 3:43 PM, kanucks25 said:

[luckylager]

If Guddy gets traded, who's going to crack skulls? Really, we don't have a single player other than Guddy that's an effective deterrent or creates a "safe work environment". Dorset doesn't totally count. Love the dude, but he doesn't seem to cause fear.

 

The physical aspect of the game is totally lost on analytics dorks, probably because they never played, or if they did, just turtled at the first sign of trouble.

 

For those that don't know- getting punched hurts. The hurt goes up exponentially with the punchers size. I wonder if there's a multi coloured chart for that fact?

[Warhippy]

57 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

When are close-in shots ever "weak"? The closer to the net and the closer to the middle of the ice (slot), the better the scoring opportunity. When is that ever not the case? The only thing I can think of is if the player fans on the shot but that can happen from any area of the ice and isn't anymore common in the slot.

 

And here is the crap-load. (hint: red = bad)

 

You know the funny thing about stats and analytics is every now and again they guy they are being applied to literally leans in and knocks the teeth out of those analytics in a bone crushing crease clearing way that leaves those numbers picking their stats up off the ice 

 

Some times, just SOME times those numbers and those stats do not tell the whole story at all.

 

Just saying.  With 4 other players on the ice at all times, with nobody like Gudbranson on our roster, and seeing where we are now vs last year without him.

 

Maybe those precious red and blue dots don't tell the whole story.

 

But then what do I know right.  I'm no Chayka

[JM_]

3 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

When are close-in shots ever "weak"? The closer to the net and the closer to the middle of the ice (slot), the better the scoring opportunity. When is that ever not the case? The only thing I can think of is if the player fans on the shot but that can happen from any area of the ice and isn't anymore common in the slot.

 

And here is the crap-load. (hint: red = bad)

 

when the goalie isn't screened. when its in the chest. when it gets deflected. Or when it simply isn't a quality shot and even an AHL goalie doesn't sweat it. It happens about 10x per any given game. 

 

So lets take those charts for a moment. Funny, I can't tell what the match-ups were. Oh well moving on, how many were actually real scoring chances? hmm... ok then how about how many turned into goals? probably not many given Guddy is a +1. 

 

I guess if you can show me a direct correlation between "+0.4 excess shots per hour" and actual goals or wins or how thats maybe OK given the physical benefits of a player like Guddy we can have a real conversation. 

 

And here's another interesting take on this: as a team we are #5 in fewest shots against. So clearly something is working right most nights with how the D core is currently put together. 

 

This is the problem with so-called "advanced" stats, it simply doesn't take the strategy of the D group into account. Its the same kind of thinking that devalues Tanev around the league. 

 

 

 

 

[kanucks25]

 

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

You know the funny thing about stats and analytics is every now and again they guy they are being applied to literally leans in and knocks the teeth out of those analytics in a bone crushing crease clearing way that leaves those numbers picking their stats up off the ice 

Great. Another "you stat nerds don't understand how sports work like us jocks" post. How original.

 

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Some times, just SOME times those numbers and those stats do not tell the whole story at all.

Never, not once, did I say that stats tell the whole story, so let's not go down the strawman road, it's lazy.

 

What I did say is that Gudbranson shows (visually, when you watch him play) that he struggles to transition the puck and play defense consistently in general, not even against hard match-ups. The statistics clearly back that up, but obviously there is some "intangible" factor that makes Gudbranson great that we can't see on the ice or on the stat sheet... lol.

 

4 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Just saying.  With 4 other players on the ice at all times, with nobody like Gudbranson on our roster, and seeing where we are now vs last year without him.

What? We're bad when he's in the lineup and we're bad when he's out of the lineup because we're a bad team as a whole and he's a depth player that doesn't have much of an impact. The defensive D-man that actually significantly affects our results is Tanev, and we've seen it these past two games and every other time he's been injured in the past.

[kanucks25]

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

when the goalie isn't screened. when its in the chest. when it gets deflected. Or when it simply isn't a quality shot and even an AHL goalie doesn't sweat it. It happens about 10x per any given game. 

Uh... can't tell if you're being obtuse on purpose. A flubbed shot or a fanned shot or whatever can occur all over the ice, it can happen in the dangerous areas and from way outside. Are you suggesting that low quality shots occur more in the high-danger areas? I assume not, because that would be absurd. The chances of someone fanning on a shot or shooting into a goalie's chest are pretty much the same from anywhere, and I would argue chest shots are less likely to occur from close in because it's easier to aim shots from closer in.

 

As for screens, you don't need them when you're shooting from the slot. At high-danger distances, goalies don't have the time to react to shots because they are coming in faster than they would from the point or from the corners.

 

TDLR: no amount of mental gymnastics you attempt change the fact that, on average, the closer the shooter is to the net and to the middle, the better the scoring chance. And, when Gudbranson is on the ice, we give up a lot more of these than when he's on the bench.

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So lets take those charts for a moment. Funny, I can't tell what the match-ups were

Anybody who watches Canucks games knows that Tanev and whoever is his partner at the time is used as our hard match-up pair, so again you seem to be acting obtuse to avoid being proven wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

how about how many turned into goals? probably not many given Guddy is a +1.

Gudbranson is the beneficiary of above average goaltending when he's on the ice, despite the additional scoring chances he allows relative to the rest of the team. These things tend to even out over the course of the year (larger sample size), like how Ovechkin isn't on pace for 250 goals like he was after the first few games.

 

3 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

This is the problem with so-called "advanced" stats, it simply doesn't take the strategy of the D group into account. Its the same kind of thinking that devalues Tanev around the league. 

Actually Tanev is quite highly valued around the league because when people watch him, they see a player who excels defensively and has the natural hockey IQ and skills to transition the puck efficiently both through passing and skating. Gudbranson does not possess these qualities and that is why he has so many detractors.

 

And Gudbranson has performed the same, both visually and statistically, on two different teams with several different coaching staffs and "systems". This isn't a coincidence. He is a depth player now, he has been for his 350+ games in the NHL and he will continue to be one in the future. Yes, he has "intangible" value, especially for a team that seems to lack the toughness and leadership he brings, but that's not worth keeping if it's going to take another Eriksson-esque disastrous contract.

[JM_]

7 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Uh... can't tell if you're being obtuse on purpose. A flubbed shot or a fanned shot or whatever can occur all over the ice, it can happen in the dangerous areas and from way outside. Are you suggesting that low quality shots occur more in the high-danger areas? I assume not, because that would be absurd. The chances of someone fanning on a shot or shooting into a goalie's chest are pretty much the same from anywhere, and I would argue chest shots are less likely to occur from close in because it's easier to aim shots from closer in.

 

As for screens, you don't need them when you're shooting from the slot. At high-danger distances, goalies don't have the time to react to shots because they are coming in faster than they would from the point or from the corners.

 

TDLR: no amount of mental gymnastics you attempt change the fact that, on average, the closer the shooter is to the net and to the middle, the better the scoring chance. And, when Gudbranson is on the ice, we give up a lot more of these than when he's on the bench.

Anybody who watches Canucks games knows that Tanev and whoever is his partner at the time is used as our hard match-up pair, so again you seem to be acting obtuse to avoid being proven wrong.

 

Gudbranson is the beneficiary of above average goaltending when he's on the ice, despite the additional scoring chances he allows relative to the rest of the team. These things tend to even out over the course of the year (larger sample size), like how Ovechkin isn't on pace for 250 goals like he was after the first few games.

 

Actually Tanev is quite highly valued around the league because when people watch him, they see a player who excels defensively and has the natural hockey IQ and skills to transition the puck efficiently both through passing and skating. Gudbranson does not possess these qualities and that is why he has so many detractors.

 

And Gudbranson has performed the same, both visually and statistically, on two different teams with several different coaching staffs and "systems". This isn't a coincidence. He is a depth player now, he has been for his 350+ games in the NHL and he will continue to be one in the future. Yes, he has "intangible" value, especially for a team that seems to lack the toughness and leadership he brings, but that's not worth keeping if it's going to take another Eriksson-esque disastrous contract.

you seem to like the word obtuse. You're very dialled in on proving your idea about Guddy and ignoring the entire picture. The shots you're complaining about haven't hurt the team most nights, go back again and look at the team shots against, we've very good this year. So you want to throw away Guddy for what, one-half less shot per game? thats nuts. 

 

people in hockey are split on the Guddy "eye test" btw. 

 

What I find really funny ( I won't be arrogant and say "obtuse") is the complete disregard for what Guddy's team mates say, his coaches and most management other than the stats-darlings. 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

8 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Great. Another "you stat nerds don't understand how sports work like us jocks" post. How original.

 

Never, not once, did I say that stats tell the whole story, so let's not go down the strawman road, it's lazy.

 

What I did say is that Gudbranson shows (visually, when you watch him play) that he struggles to transition the puck and play defense consistently in general, not even against hard match-ups. The statistics clearly back that up, but obviously there is some "intangible" factor that makes Gudbranson great that we can't see on the ice or on the stat sheet... lol.

 

What? We're bad when he's in the lineup and we're bad when he's out of the lineup because we're a bad team as a whole and he's a depth player that doesn't have much of an impact. The defensive D-man that actually significantly affects our results is Tanev, and we've seen it these past two games and every other time he's been injured in the past.

Sorry are your feelings hurt there or something?

 

Nowhere did I say stats don't matter and nowhere did I say anything about stats nerds so let's not go down that strawman road, it's lazy.

 

Simply put, our record with Gudbranson in the line up is better than without.  That's inarguable at this point.  Fancy red and blue dots mean nothing to the overall picture.  When I watch him play I watch forwards shy away from him, I watch them go in to the corners a shade more hesitantly and the opposing net front presence is diminished.  Again inarguable facts when you watch him play.

 

But obviously there is some tangible blue and red dot following him around on the ice that mitigates all of that based on numbers....lol

 

Painting a picture of a value less Gudbranson is nothing more than hating on an asset because this forum needs a new whipping boy every week.  If he is available for trade he will command a solid return, if he is available for a new contract he will get his $4.5 million possibly $4.75 million.

 

Numbers don't tell the whole story and snide little insinuations don't make an argument credible

[JM_]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Sorry are your feelings hurt there or something?

 

Nowhere did I say stats don't matter and nowhere did I say anything about stats nerds so let's not go down that strawman road, it's lazy.

 

Simply put, our record with Gudbranson in the line up is better than without.  That's inarguable at this point.  Fancy red and blue dots mean nothing to the overall picture.  When I watch him play I watch forwards shy away from him, I watch them go in to the corners a shade more hesitantly and the opposing net front presence is diminished.  Again inarguable facts when you watch him play.

 

But obviously there is some tangible blue and red dot following him around on the ice that mitigates all of that based on numbers....lol

 

Painting a picture of a value less Gudbranson is nothing more than hating on an asset because this forum needs a new whipping boy every week.  If he is available for trade he will command a solid return, if he is available for a new contract he will get his $4.5 million possibly $4.75 million.

 

Numbers don't tell the whole story and snide little insinuations don't make an argument credible

is there a blue dot for this?

[qwijibo]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

is there a blue dot for this?

Fights are down significantly league wide.  The enforcer role in the NHL is a thing of the past.  The league has moved towards skill and speed.  Big and bruising isn't a big selling feature if you get turnstiled by the opposing teams forwards 

[JM_]

Just now, qwijibo said:

Fights are down significantly league wide.  The enforcer role in the NHL is a thing of the past.  The league has moved towards skill and speed.  Big and bruising isn't a big selling feature if you get turnstiled by the opposing teams forwards 

Guddy is the modern version of this. No one is saying he's Semenko. But if you think we don't need pushback and/or accountability, particularly in the playoffs, for weasels like Marchand, Lucic, Kardi, etc. you are very wrong imo. 

 

 

[qwijibo]

12 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Guddy is the modern version of this. No one is saying he's Semenko. But if you think we don't need pushback and/or accountability, particularly in the playoffs, for weasels like Marchand, Lucic, Kardi, etc. you are very wrong imo. 

 

 

Two of the three guys you mentioned are smaller guys.  You don't need a monster to keep those guys in line.  You just need someone to step up.  Anyone. 

[JM_]

17 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

Two of the three guys you mentioned are smaller guys.  You don't need a monster to keep those guys in line.  You just need someone to step up.  Anyone. 

easier said than done. Guddy is willing to do it. 

[qwijibo]

3 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

easier said than done. Guddy is willing to do it. 

My point is that the toughness factor is overplayed on here. There aren't any enforcers left in the league.  Being a good defender is far more important than being a big tough defender 

[JM_]

2 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

My point is that the toughness factor is overplayed on here. There aren't any enforcers left in the league.  Being a good defender is far more important than being a big tough defender 

I think there's room for both, looking at an entire top 6 group. 

[J.I.A.H.N]

When are close-in shots ever "weak"? The closer to the net and the closer to the middle of the ice (slot), the better the scoring opportunity. When is that ever not the case? The only thing I can think of is if the player fans on the shot but that can happen from any area of the ice and isn't anymore common in the slot.

 

And here is the crap-load. (hint: red = bad)

 

On ‎2017‎-‎11‎-‎10 at 3:43 PM, kanucks25 said:

Edited 16 hours ago by kanucks25

 

I find it hard to understand how these charts explain GUDS neutral plus minus,(which is exactly the same as Edlers and Stechers, or the clarity of vision, Gud provides the goalie on those shots, or the traffic allowed or not allowed in front of his crease to provide the proper vision for the goalie.....his side

 

Also....when you look closely at the 2 charts, you will notice that the slot area with Gud there is blue on his side, while it is pink when Gud in not there on his side.....both those areas are prime scoring areas......shots from the sides or further out are of lesser concern, if there is no traffic in front.

 

You should also note that with GUD there, the pressure is from the left side directly in the crease area........which begs me to ask, why? Is it his defensive partner that can not box out the opposing players as well as GUD.......so is it GUD or who he is regularly playing with?

 

I am more a eye test guy and plus minus anyways....but if I have these charts right, that right hand area of the slot, sure looks a lot safer with GUD there.......correct me if I am wrong....please