[Speculation/Rumor] Canucks on the twins future and Gudbranson

[Provost]

55 minutes ago, Silky mitts said:

I said if toughness is the sole reason they are looking at signing him . You can get it for cheaper. If they view him as a top 4 dman then hopefully they get the dollars right cause 4 mill and up on your bottom pairing isn’t how to manage your cap

I got what you were saying.  What is the difference worth for a bottom pairing guy who isn't tough and a bottom pairing guy who is.

Gudbranson so far in his stay here, he is a bottom pairing guy on a healthy roster who is capable of playing on a 2nd pairing when injuries happen and has had to.  He is certainly not a 2nd pairing guy who is capable of playing in the top pairing when injuries happen.

How much of a premium do you pay for the extra he gives which is some physicality?

I don't think you regret up to $4 million on a 3-4 year term for him since the salary cap is going up and there is inflation of all salaries.  Anything north of $4 million and you are looking at serious risk of paying a guy for 40-50 games a year of health AND who can't bring the physical element because he is nursing injuries when he is in the lineup.

[Nancouver]

13 minutes ago, Provost said:

I got what you were saying.  What is the difference worth for a bottom pairing guy who isn't tough and a bottom pairing guy who is.

Gudbranson so far in his stay here, he is a bottom pairing guy on a healthy roster who is capable of playing on a 2nd pairing when injuries happen and has had to.  He is certainly not a 2nd pairing guy who is capable of playing in the top pairing when injuries happen.

How much of a premium do you pay for the extra he gives which is some physicality?

I don't think you regret up to $4 million on a 3-4 year term for him since the salary cap is going up and there is inflation of all salaries.  Anything north of $4 million and you are looking at serious risk of paying a guy for 40-50 games a year of health AND who can't bring the physical element because he is nursing injuries when he is in the lineup.

Except Gudbranson isn’t a bottom pairing d. Since coming to Vancouver he’s averaging 19 minutes a game and in florida he was getting even more ice time I believe. He consistently gets undervalued on these boards, when you take his size into consideration he’s actually quite agile and can move the puck relatively well. He will shine in the playoffs when the team is ready.

[Where'd Luongo?]

12 hours ago, 70seven said:

I dont think we'll see anything like that, unless Kane is a target.

 

Im sort of on the Kane bandwagon, as the Canucks should be sitting fairly comfortable within the cap for a good number of years here.  Even with Boesers extension..

 

All the talk for push back...  People don't like Kanes attitude, but it's a big part of what he brings on the ice in the for of chippiness, and a dude that wont back down from anybody.  The Canucks would die for a presence like this in the top six.  I dont believe in Virtanen becoming a top 6 player, and I think the franchise needs to move on from that dream.

 

This kind of player should be a huge target for them, but I dont think they should give up youth to make it happen....  Just hope that whomever acquires him is okay with letting him go to free agency, where I do think Vancouver will be significant players on Kane.

Plus, Kane plays the style that Virtanen needs to learn if he wants to be successful. Like it or not, he would be a good mentor for Virt.

[rekker]

13 minutes ago, Nancouver said:

Except Gudbranson isn’t a bottom pairing d. Since coming to Vancouver he’s averaging 19 minutes a game and in florida he was getting even more ice time I believe. He consistently gets undervalued on these boards, when you take his size into consideration he’s actually quite agile and can move the puck relatively well. He will shine in the playoffs when the team is ready.

Yip. 4 x 4 seems fair for both sides.

[Nancouver]

25 minutes ago, rekker said:

Yip. 4 x 4 seems fair for both sides.

Ya 4x4 is what I’ve been thinking as well.

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

Toughness that can actually contribute 5 on 5 and PK?  Guddy can actually play, so he’s going to get dollars and term from someone, if not us.  

I think people are dreaming if they believe they are going to get term and under 4 million.

 

I think there are a couple possibilities, before the option of dealing him would have to come into play.

 

Gud and Benning follow up last year's handshake / agreement to give it a year for both sides to reassess market value after having an opportunity to get his footing here.

That obviously hasn't happened as Gudbranson deals with wrist and back issues - understandable, given the type of game - and role/minutes - he plays.

So it's possible they hit the reset button and opt for another 1 year deal - so they can both revisit it with a better sample to determine the longer term future.

People may assume Gudbranson wouldn't go for that but there are a few reasons he might - he might like it here, that may have been the substance of last year's agreement, and it might actually serve him in the longer run.   He may command 5x5 or whatever this summer. maybe more on the open market this year, but there's also the possibility he commands 6 million next summer if he returns healthy and hits his stride....

 

I think people might be too optimistic believing they are going to get term at 4 million.  A healthy Gudbranson is worth 4 million in the present - that is what a second pairing D will cost you, and Gudbranson is certainly that, save the fact he's a shutdown defenseman, meaning he won't be padding any minutes on the powerplay (so where a two way top 4 eats another 2 or 3 mintues on the powerplay, Gudbranson does not, plays hard minutes and comes in closer to 19) -  he hasn't been healthy, so he hasn't been maximizing his minutes in his two years here.

 

Gudbranson is not unlike Bieksa imo.  The team was simply better with Juice in the lineup - no real question about it - the results  and the eye test were clear - in spite of the fact he wasn't perfect.  He wasn't any more of an analytics darling, certainly not in his later years here, but oversimplified and cherry picked corsi don't really indicate their effectiveness.   Bieksa may not be gifted with the best lateral movement out there either, but he's hard to play against, he's pretty mobile A to B, north to south and he is a backbone type of presence, who could handle hard minutes, tough as nails, and was the first person to answer the bell when people took liberties with his team-mates.  He suffered his share of injury misfortune, but he also was always in the line of fire.  On top of that, he rightly inspired fear in guys at the prospect of dropping gloves with him - few people in the league, if any, are more dangerous than a wound up Kevin Bieksa.  Precisely the same can be said about Gudbranson.  You need to pay for that in today's NHL - which is why lowballing a guy like Dorsett was not appropriate, nor would a lowball to Gudbranson be.  These are not limited application/minute depth players - they are shutdown guys with a serious edge.  Juice arguably had more upside in his prime, whereas Gudbranson has that punishing presence (and size/20 extra lbs) that makes forwards reticent to go into the corners with him, or get near his goaltender.

 

I think the best case scenario is 4 to 5 years in the range of 4.5 million.  Alternatively, if one of the sides isn't comfortable with that, perhaps a reset of this year's term - which gives both parties another year to adjust and assess market value, with Erik having an opportunity to build his value.  From the team's perspective, I'd hope for the former option and take the 'risk' that he's worth it - I have a solid amount of confidence that he'd more than live up to those terms.

 

 

[Alflives]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

I think people are dreaming if they believe they are going to get term and under 4 million.

 

I think there are a couple possibilities, before the option of dealing him would have to come into play.

 

Gud and Benning follow up last year's handshake / agreement to give it a year for both sides to reassess market value after having an opportunity to get his footing here.

That obviously hasn't happened as Gudbranson deals with wrist and back issues - understandable, given the type of game - and role/minutes - he plays.

So it's possible they hit the reset button and opt for another 1 year deal - so they can both revisit it with a better sample to determine the longer term future.

People may assume Gudbranson wouldn't go for that but there are a few reasons he might - he might like it here, that may have been the substance of last year's agreement, and it might actually serve him in the longer run.   He may command 5x5 or whatever this summer. maybe more on the open market this year, but there's also the possibility he commands 6 million next summer if he returns healthy and hits his stride....

 

I think people might be too optimistic believing they are going to get term at 4 million.  A healthy Gudbranson is worth 4 million in the present - that is what a second pairing D will cost you, and Gudbranson is certainly that, save the fact he's a shutdown defenseman, meaning he won't be padding any minutes on the powerplay (so where a two way top 4 eats another 2 or 3 mintues on the powerplay, Gudbranson does not, plays hard minutes and comes in closer to 19) -  he hasn't been healthy, so he hasn't been maximizing his minutes in his two years here.

 

Gudbranson is not unlike Bieksa imo.  The team was simply better with Juice in the lineup - no real question about it - the results  and the eye test were clear - in spite of the fact he wasn't perfect.  He wasn't any more of an analytics darling, certainly not in his later years here, but oversimplified and cherry picked corsi don't really indicate their effectiveness.   Bieksa may not be gifted with the best lateral movement out there either, but he's hard to play against, he's pretty mobile A to B, north to south and he is a backbone type of presence, who could handle hard minutes, tough as nails, and was the first person to answer the bell when people took liberties with his team-mates.  He suffered his share of injury misfortune, but he also was always in the line of fire.  On top of that, he rightly inspired fear in guys at the prospect of dropping gloves with him - few people in the league, if any, are more dangerous than a wound up Kevin Bieksa.  Precisely the same can be said about Gudbranson.  You need to pay for that in today's NHL - which is why lowballing a guy like Dorsett was not appropriate, nor would a lowball to Gudbranson be.  These are not limited application/minute depth players - they are shutdown guys with a serious edge.

 

I think the best case scenario is 4 to 5 years in the range of 4.5 million.  Alternatively, if one of the sides isn't comfortable with that, perhaps a reset of this year's term - which gives both parties another year to adjust and assess market value, with Erik having an opportunity to build his value.  From the team's perspective, I'd hope for the former option and take the 'risk' that he's worth it - I have a solid amount of confidence that he'd more than live up to those terms.

 

 

Excellent, and well thought out post, ON.  Appreciate it, thanks. 

[wildcam]

I have wanted Chris Stewart for many years...This guy is 30 years old 6'2, 235 lbs can play from 2nd line to 4th line so he can play hockey..This guy would be perfect and is a UFA this summer...

This guy would add the toughness we need,  making 1 million this year..

 

Chris Stewart

[oldnews]

19 minutes ago, wildcam said:

I have wanted Chris Stewart for many years...This guy is 30 years old 6'2, 235 lbs can play from 2nd line to 4th line so he can play hockey..This guy would be perfect and is a UFA this summer...

This guy would add the toughness we need,  making 1 million this year..

 

Chris Stewart

Chris Stewart has been one of the worst players in the NHL without the puck for years and years - and it's not a secret.

 

And he's not getting any better.

 

Last year - 60.4% offensive zone starts, 40.5% corsi.  (If people have a problem with Gudbranson's misread 'possession' numbers, try those on for size).  21 pts in that context is only going to earn you 1 million, if you're fortunate enough to re-sign.

 

He's a 10 minute a game forward - that is today's definition of the 6 minute 12th man of the past - except with Sedin levels of ozone starts.....

 

But most importantly, he's not a defenseman, he's not a RHD, he's not shutting anyone down, he's not clearing the front of our net, no one will be avoiding the hard areas because Chris Stewart is defending them.

 

And having a tough forward in your bottom six does not preclude needing a Gudbranson in any event - so you can make a case to add a Stewart, but it isn't really a case against EG.

[wildcam]

39 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Chris Stewart has been one of the worst players in the NHL without the puck for years and years - and it's not a secret.

 

And he's not getting any better.

 

Last year - 60.4% offensive zone starts, 40.5% corsi.  (If people have a problem with Gudbranson's misread 'possession' numbers, try those on for size).  21 pts in that context is only going to earn you 1 million, if you're fortunate enough to re-sign.

 

He's a 10 minute a game forward - that is today's definition of the 6 minute 12th man of the past - except with Sedin levels of ozone starts.....

 

But most importantly, he's not a defenseman, he's not a RHD, he's not shutting anyone down, he's not clearing the front of our net, no one will be avoiding the hard areas because Chris Stewart is defending them.

 

And having a tough forward in your bottom six does not preclude needing a Gudbranson in any event - so you can make a case to add a Stewart, but it isn't really a case against EG.

You don't make sense with anything??????

Never said he is a top forward  and you are one of those people that like those kind of stupid stats??

You need guys that can play the game and add toughness that can take a regular shift...

Its called playing hockey with grit????? Stewart can skate and play a important role he is not a goon that your making him out to be??? Have you seen him play hockey?? Don't think so?

 

Canucks need more toughness then one player like Gudbranson....

You nee team toughness which has been lacking on this team even during cup run..

So if you don't have team toughness you need a few players that can skate and add grit and toughness for young players coming along??

Did you watch the game when predator player washed fact of three canucks and nobody did anything?

Did you see hit on Boeser no retaliation? We have lots of young players coming up Juolevi, Pettersson, Boeser, Goldobin..

 

So we must have a Stewart and Gudbranson and we will still need a few more...

[riffraff]

3 minutes ago, wildcam said:

You don't make sense with anything??????

Never said he is a top forward  and you are one of those people that like those kind of stupid stats??

You need guys that can play the game and add toughness that can take a regular shift...

Its called playing hockey with grit????? Stewart can skate and play a important role he is not a goon that your making him out to be??? Have you seen him play hockey?? Don't think so?

 

Canucks need more toughness then one player like Gudbranson....

You nee team toughness which has been lacking on this team even during cup run..

So if you don't have team toughness you need a few players that can skate and add grit and toughness for young players coming along??

Did you watch the game when predator player washed fact of three canucks and nobody did anything?

Did you see hit on Boeser no retaliation? We have lots of young players coming up Juolevi, Pettersson, Boeser, Goldobin..

 

So we must have a Stewart and Gudbranson and we will still need a few more...

A few more would mean: not qualified to play in the NHL.

 

a team needs tough guys who can play hockey and not be a risk to lose with.

[wildcam]

2 minutes ago, riffraff said:

A few more would mean: not qualified to play in the NHL.

 

a team needs tough guys who can play hockey and not be a risk to lose with.

Not talking about goons??? That is why these players are hard to find??? Maybe Gaudett will add grit ?

Stewart can play on 4th line and not hurt the team, has 8 goals in 44 games avg 11:00  -1 would take that anytime?

[wildcam]

We need more then Gudbranson????? Teams have fun with Vancouver as there very soft..

Maybe some of the young prospect will workout? They have a few coming soon, Gaudett, Lind, Gadjovich and they play with grit and have talent so hope they add this big missing ingredient..

[oldnews]

11 minutes ago, wildcam said:

You don't make sense with anything??????

Never said he is a top forward  and you are one of those people that like those kind of stupid stats??

You need guys that can play the game and add toughness that can take a regular shift...

Its called playing hockey with grit????? Stewart can skate and play a important role he is not a goon that your making him out to be??? Have you seen him play hockey?? Don't think so?

 

Canucks need more toughness then one player like Gudbranson....

You nee team toughness which has been lacking on this team even during cup run..

So if you don't have team toughness you need a few players that can skate and add grit and toughness for young players coming along??

Did you watch the game when predator player washed fact of three canucks and nobody did anything?

Did you see hit on Boeser no retaliation? We have lots of young players coming up Juolevi, Pettersson, Boeser, Goldobin..

 

So we must have a Stewart and Gudbranson and we will still need a few more...

I'm not making him out to be a goon - at all.  Not what I said,

 

What I tried to say is that he's a fairly poor defensive forward - like really poor.   So you need to find him minutes that are more suited to players that are going to produce in them.

 

At least with the Sedins you're getting 50 points.....you're not getting the toughness, but I think that needs to come from a player that can handle harder minutes.

 

Stewart's production has been ok at times - with pretty favourable minutes throughout his career - but the aggregate of his upside and his downside is not very good.  I think you lose what you gain with Stewart, and then some.

 

I think the team needs to go a different direction - with guys that can play, be effective defensively and provide toughness.  I'd probably be more optimistic that MacEwen would have a positive impact than Stewart.  Drafted Gadjovich for these reasons.  In the shorter term, it's not an easy fix. 

 

But Reaves is a UFA in July.

I'd probably opt to give up an asset to bring back someone like ZackK than sign Stewart.

 

[guntrix]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

I think people are dreaming if they believe they are going to get term and under 4 million.

 

I think there are a couple possibilities, before the option of dealing him would have to come into play.

 

Gud and Benning follow up last year's handshake / agreement to give it a year for both sides to reassess market value after having an opportunity to get his footing here.

That obviously hasn't happened as Gudbranson deals with wrist and back issues - understandable, given the type of game - and role/minutes - he plays.

So it's possible they hit the reset button and opt for another 1 year deal - so they can both revisit it with a better sample to determine the longer term future.

People may assume Gudbranson wouldn't go for that but there are a few reasons he might - he might like it here, that may have been the substance of last year's agreement, and it might actually serve him in the longer run.   He may command 5x5 or whatever this summer. maybe more on the open market this year, but there's also the possibility he commands 6 million next summer if he returns healthy and hits his stride....

 

I think people might be too optimistic believing they are going to get term at 4 million.  A healthy Gudbranson is worth 4 million in the present - that is what a second pairing D will cost you, and Gudbranson is certainly that, save the fact he's a shutdown defenseman, meaning he won't be padding any minutes on the powerplay (so where a two way top 4 eats another 2 or 3 mintues on the powerplay, Gudbranson does not, plays hard minutes and comes in closer to 19) -  he hasn't been healthy, so he hasn't been maximizing his minutes in his two years here.

 

Gudbranson is not unlike Bieksa imo.  The team was simply better with Juice in the lineup - no real question about it - the results  and the eye test were clear - in spite of the fact he wasn't perfect.  He wasn't any more of an analytics darling, certainly not in his later years here, but oversimplified and cherry picked corsi don't really indicate their effectiveness.   Bieksa may not be gifted with the best lateral movement out there either, but he's hard to play against, he's pretty mobile A to B, north to south and he is a backbone type of presence, who could handle hard minutes, tough as nails, and was the first person to answer the bell when people took liberties with his team-mates.  He suffered his share of injury misfortune, but he also was always in the line of fire.  On top of that, he rightly inspired fear in guys at the prospect of dropping gloves with him - few people in the league, if any, are more dangerous than a wound up Kevin Bieksa.  Precisely the same can be said about Gudbranson.  You need to pay for that in today's NHL - which is why lowballing a guy like Dorsett was not appropriate, nor would a lowball to Gudbranson be.  These are not limited application/minute depth players - they are shutdown guys with a serious edge.  Juice arguably had more upside in his prime, whereas Gudbranson has that punishing presence (and size/20 extra lbs) that makes forwards reticent to go into the corners with him, or get near his goaltender.

 

I think the best case scenario is 4 to 5 years in the range of 4.5 million.  Alternatively, if one of the sides isn't comfortable with that, perhaps a reset of this year's term - which gives both parties another year to adjust and assess market value, with Erik having an opportunity to build his value.  From the team's perspective, I'd hope for the former option and take the 'risk' that he's worth it - I have a solid amount of confidence that he'd more than live up to those terms.

 

 

Is there anything to back this up? I remember I did a little research on my end a little while back and found absolutely no correlation between the team playing playing better with or without Gudbranson being healthy.

 

For example, the Canucks have conceded 4+ goals in an atrocious 21 of 50 games this season, or 42% of total games. Gudbranson played in 12 of those games while only playing in 32 games this season. No correlation. The same goes if you look at GA, etc, there's nothing to suggest that the team plays better with Erik in the lineup... unless you're referring solely to the eye test, which I would argue is pretty irrelevant if the results don't back it up. In fact, the results seem to indicate that the team plays slightly better with a healthy Horvat or a healthy Tanev in the lineup. So no, he doesn't have the Bieksa effect, at least not judging by the last couple years he's played here.

 

The sad reality is that the Canucks have been one of the worst defensive teams this season, having conceded more goals than everyone but the Senators, Sabres, Islanders and Coyotes. Heck, if it weren't for our good defensive start in the month of October, we'd probably be battling it out with the Islanders for worst defensive team in the league. Of course, this is partially down to our goaltending but the fact of the matter is that our defence has been anything but outstanding, with or without Gudbranson. 

 

4 hours ago, Nancouver said:

Except Gudbranson isn’t a bottom pairing d. Since coming to Vancouver he’s averaging 19 minutes a game and in florida he was getting even more ice time I believe. He consistently gets undervalued on these boards, when you take his size into consideration he’s actually quite agile and can move the puck relatively well. He will shine in the playoffs when the team is ready.

Except that's more an indication of our defence than it is of Gudbranson. It's always easier to just look at minutes played instead of looking into context, but surely you won't see the anti-"analyticz" crowd point this one out.

[oldnews]

26 minutes ago, guntrix said:

I remember I did a little research on my end a little while back and found absolutely no correlation between the team playing playing better with or without Gudbranson being healthy.

 

For example, the Canucks have conceded 4+ goals in an atrocious 21 of 50 games this season, or 42% of total games. Gudbranson played in 12 of those games while only playing in 32 games this season. No correlation.

So, the team gave up 4 goals in a lower percentage of games that Gudbranson played - 37.5% - than overall (42).

 

And you think this random metric - 4 goal games - over a very small sample - tells you something significant - or nothing?

 

Sorry if your point isn't obvious to me.

 

Likewise - the claim that his minutes are a reflection of the rest of the defense. 

Regardless, the problems defensively have had more to do with the loss of the team's two top 6 and two top defensive centers than the blueline.

 

You haven't provided a counterpoint at all. 

 

 

 

Here's something to chew on.

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2018.html

 

On-ice goals against per 60 minutes at even strength.

 

Gudbranson 1.8.

 

The best on the blueline.   Better than Tanev, at 2.5.

 

 

 

 

[fivethej]

What happened to them trading Gudbranson? Why are they trying to re-sign him now?

[Provost]

4 hours ago, Nancouver said:

Except Gudbranson isn’t a bottom pairing d. Since coming to Vancouver he’s averaging 19 minutes a game and in florida he was getting even more ice time I believe. He consistently gets undervalued on these boards, when you take his size into consideration he’s actually quite agile and can move the puck relatively well. He will shine in the playoffs when the team is ready.

Lots of 3rd pairing guys average 19 minutes a game.  This year he is 17:44 per game

 

It is because of exactly what I was saying with covering for injuries and playing up the depth chart when needed.  He is a 3rd pairing guy who can temporarily move up as needed... and we have had a lot of guys who have been hurt during his tenure.

 

Two 16 Minute games and then one 25 Minute game when covering an inured Tanev = 19 Minute average.

 

Add in some OT games and the average gets higher.

 

 

[guntrix]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

So, the team gave up 4 goals in a lower percentage of games that Gudbranson played - 37.5% - than overall (42).

 

And you think this random metric - 4 goal games - over a very small sample - tells you something significant - or nothing?

 

Sorry if your point isn't obvious to me.

 

Likewise with your pointless claims that his minutes are a reflection of the rest of the defense.

 

You haven't provided a counterpoint at all. 

 

 

 

Here's something to chew on.

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2018.html

 

On-ice goals against per 60 minutes at even strength.

 

Gudbranson 1.8.

 

The best on the blueline.   Better than Tanev, at 2.5.

 

 

4 goal games with a player in the lineup - I have to hand it to you, that is one odd sideshow 'metric'.

 

 

Given the fact that we've played 50 games thus far, the 4.5% difference amounts to, what, a couple games? Again, no correlation. 

 

And the points/60 stat doesn't factor in difficulty and match ups. It's obvious that Tanev will have a higher pointsagainst/60 when he's on our top pairing. In other words, a cherry picked stat. 

 

I included the 4 goal game stat because it underlines our gaping problems in defence and goaltending; problems that we've been experiencing with or without Gudbranson in the line-up. If you can prove that this isn't true, I'm all ears. Until then, the onus of proof is on whoever makes the assertion. 

[oldnews]

12 hours ago, guntrix said:

Given the fact that we've played 50 games thus far, the 4.5% difference amounts to, what, a couple games? Again, no correlation. 

 

And the points/60 stat doesn't factor in difficulty and match ups. It's obvious that Tanev will have a higher pointsagainst/60 when he's on our top pairing. In other words, a cherry picked stat. 

 

I included the 4 goal game stat because it underlines our gaping problems in defence and goaltending; problems that we've been experiencing with or without Gudbranson in the line-up. If you can prove that this isn't true, I'm all ears. Until then, the onus of proof is on whoever makes the assertion. 

No point, let alone correlation.    A team metric - set at giving up 4 goals, of which there were 21 games - and you expect that Gudbranson should have reduced this number, in the 12 of those games he played, by more than 4.5%?   Sorry, your metric is meaningless, and a micro-sample,

 

I welcome you to attempt to factor in "difficulty and matchups" if you want, but it wouldn't change the fact that Gud is #2 RHD, while Tanev is #1RHD.   If you want to try to adjust Tanev's 2.5 on ice goals against per 60 based on quality of competition and zone starts, it still wouldn't qualify your claim that the team isn't any better defensively with Gudbranson in the lineup.  Ironically, his dificulty and matchups would only further evidence the point that he's #2 and not #3.

 

Edller Tanev

Del Zotto Gudbranson

Hutton Stecher

Pouliot Biega

 

That is how the blueline breaks down, when healthy.

 

It is actually the absence of players like Edler, Tanev and Gudbranson which has inflated the numbers of players like Hutton or Pouliot,  Stecher and Biega.

 

Gudbranson plays more minutes than Stecher regardless 

And when Gudbranson is healthy, it is Hutton (or Pouliot) or Biega that sit - with LHD sometimes stepping into minutes on the right side.  Hutton and/or Pouliot have had 1,2 3 D positions above them in the lineup open up at times this year - Gudbranson had Tanev minutes to fill that have not really influenced his ice time anywhere near as significantly.

 

The poster above hypothesizes about a non-existant field - the one in which Gudbranson plays 25 minute games in the absence of Tanev, to dip back to 16 minutes when Tanev is in the lineup.

Problem there being Gudbranson hasn't played a single 25 minute game, no 24 minute games either - 23 minutes only twice this year.  And likewise the perceived swing between doesn't exist - the bulk of Gudbranson's games being from 17 to 23 minutes. with a 1 minute night, and another 9 minute game - in which he left to injuries - skewing his ice time totals downward actually, while the spike to 25 due to Tanev absences is non-existant.  Gudbranson, when he's healthy and in the lineup - plays a clear and consistent shutdown role -  the #2 RHD shutdown role - in other words top 6 - with Tanev at 1RHD.   Nothing relative to going from 3 or 4LHD (ie press box), to moving up into top 6 minutes in the absensce of Edler, Tanev, and/or Gudbranson....

 

#3 RHD - Stecher - if you want to attempt to claim "difficulty and matchups" influence upon on-ice goals per 60, Stecher with 53% offensive zone starts and 2.5 on ice 5on5 g per 60 is both higher than Gudranson's 44% and 1,8  on ice even strength goals against.   One ice goals for is a narrow 1.8 to 1.6 margin - in other words, despite their deployment, the goal differential is a half goal a game in Gudbranson's favour over Stecher.

 

Not sure how to make that any more obvious, but Gudbranson plays the harder minutes, with the stronger goal for/against metrics.  Good luck explaining that away.

 

Both indications of the fact he's the top 4, not Stecher, that the team is better defensively with him on the ice (what you're denying in the first place) - and his time on ice also confirms it. 

 

Something else people like yourself don't seem to realize, is that Gudbranson makes life easier for Tanev, reduces the weight that Tanev has to carry additionally in the absence of Gudbranson.  You take Gudbranson out of the equation, and the wear and tear and heavy matchups only fall that much more to Tanev - as is the case if you take a Sutter, or Horvat out - the effect is clear - or both out of the lineup - and its multiplied.

Simply - the team is harder to play against - bettter defensively - with Gudbranson in the lineup.