Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

oldnews

Members
  • Posts

    53,830
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    186

Everything posted by oldnews

  1. Yeah - it was pretty abrupt - but also sounds like an 11th hour deal at the deadline - other things did not happen - and as the story goes, the Pens presented this.... I'm not of the mind that this was necessarily a 'bad' hockey trade - I'm not down on Pearson, think he represents value, and think he could be a needed 20 goal guy here that brings some needed elements to the wing, but I just don't share the opinion that Gud was as generally represented - that his contract was immoveable - no one would want him - one of the NHL's worst etc - a fairly prevalent impression around here - am not surprised a contender did, or were willing to move a guy like Pearson to acquire him and that he looks relatively better in that mix.
  2. not ignoring you but made other posts specifically about this. "We'll know when we know" I suppose.
  3. I don't know and can't assess how NHL ready he'll be - but I have a fair amount of respect for those in the Canucks org who do, so I'll be looking forward to seeing what he looks like when in the lineup. For me - I might not wait until next year - and perhaps this was part of their intent to move a Tanev, Gud, Eddie at the deadline. I think presently may be as good a time as any to give him some NHL minutes - ir he appears close to ready. Stecher is playing 28 minutes a night. Tanev is out for the season. Biega was over 25 minutes last night. No disrespect to Luke Schenn, but I'm not that curious about what he will look like in the Canucks lineup. Results don't matter. ? Woo right into the lineup? Who knows?
  4. He might be my favorite pick in Benning's tenure. And don't take that the wrong way - it's impossible not to love the Pettersson pick - but relatively, that was a 5th overall. And of course, Boeser was a steal at 23, Demko, Gaudette, Hughes, (and my guess, Madden), etc. But when it comes to at the time - when the player is selected - straight perceived value at their draft position at the time they were picked - Woo might be my favorite, particularly with how it lined/lines up with organz need.
  5. You fundamentally miss the point - while prattling a lot and avoiding any actual statistics, btw. 'Gudbranson's numbers are objectively horrible - but I'm unable to look at or engage with them' blah blah. This happens repeatedly around here. Sbisa is the worst D in the league. Bonino is a mediocre third line center. Edler makes everyone, and his team overall, worse. Gudbranson is blah blah. I'm no particular fan of Gudbranson - any more so than the Canucks team and roster as a whole. He happened - like Sbisa, Bonino, etc - to shoulder a significantly undue amount of shallow criticism, 'scapegoating', prejudgement,etc around here. Calling that out with, imo more substantiated counterpoints - is over-reacted to around here, and rarely substantiated - rarely are the actual 'analytics' engaged with. I'm entirely open to the possbility of Gudbranson not turning out as we hoped - certainly thus far I'd hoped for better results - but that doesn't represent my point in either event. I've listened to years of people sandbagging players here - and usually/often based on really weak impressions, bias, 'eye-tests', 'analytics'... I tend to counterpoint when I see that crap. Where Gudbranson is concerned, it's not surprising at all the fluctuation in his statistics here, or the uptick in a Pittsburgh context. "Advanced stats" clearly have their limits - with some utility - but this is where I fundamentally disagree with corsi-gazing and any other form of reductive, oversimplified prejudgement. What I've never claimed is the Gudbranson "is great" - or likewise about Sbisa, Bonino, etc, etc. I'm not in the practice of undervaluing or underselling the players on this team, however. I'd have liked to see more of Gud, particularly with the right partner and once this team is better - healthier, more developed, deeper. Any sample in the current context needs to be taken with a grain of salt and a lot more context/factors - than gazing at a particular metric.
  6. The ironing is delicious. Sorry you don't get the basic point - and are unwilling to look at the evidence that may or may not substantiate/qualify your claim (if you'd know what to look at ). That's all I asked you - whereas the rest - of what you posted - is a waste of time unfortunately - posturing.
  7. You make some good points until you reach this hero-chart stuff - which I'd be interested to see you qualify/substantiate.
  8. The problem with this conclusion is that it is based on one metric this season = Last year Gudbranson's goal metrics were.... 1.5 for / 2.0 on ice goals against per 60 - with 26 Canucks having a higher on ice goals against. That is a single goal metric - essentially it's plus/minus gazing (with the per 60's spelled out). In isolation it's really not any more sophistocated than traditional, relatively unanalytical assumptions made based on mere plus/minus. And additionally, Gudbranson's shot metrics/corsi were relatively comparable through those two seasons - and not particularly unflattering (perhaps that's why you excluded them in that post...when attempting to make the claim that that one-season goal metric indicated the understandability of moving him). I think that assessment might be significantly off-base - it seemed to me that they were looking fairly intently at moving Edler, Tanev or Gudbranson - I doubt that any of it boils down to simplisitc single-season goal metrics. Hits have been a consistent part of Gudbranson's game = not terribly relevent. The underlying truth however, is also for whatever reasons - that his ice-time did diminish recently - for whatever reasons...whether that's the intent to see what other players can do as this team clearly taps out of the playoff races, whether it's Green losing trust/belief in Gudbranson, whether it was the intent to move on from one or a few veteran defenseman, or whether it's also a stealth tank in a year the team hosts the draft towards the tail end of their rething....who knows - we'd have to have a fly on the wall in the management and coaching meetings to really know. Why does that particular (goal metric) statistic fluctuate so much? A range of reasons, but clearly, the player(s) whose task is primarily to attempt to deal with the loss of entire shutdown units - with all of Edler, Tanev, Sutter and Beagle out at times this year, all at once in some instances - are going to take significant hits to particularly their goals against metrics. Sutter's goal metrics have a comparable significant swing from one season to the next - what it doesn't really tell you is much about Sutter (again, it's plus/minus 'analytics'). Guys like Granlund are in similar situations - 'earn' similar treatments/outcomes when Sutter/Beagle types are out and they become principal shutdown guys (while the rest of the units are trickle-down depleted/shallow). The bottom line, however, is that the attempt to draw a simplified conclusion - ie the player is the 'worst in the NHL' or whatever - or isolating this year's results and asssuming it is 'systems' - doesn't really look at it as an integrated matter. That is why it's a horrible idea to small-sample sandbag these players - as we do not only with Gud, but with players like Beagle, Sutter, etc. It's also the reason it would have been a bad idea to give up prematurely on a goaltender like Markstrom because he appeared average the past few years. The thing about what Gudbranson is doing in Pittsburgh - it can't simply be attributed to better 'systems' - of course there is a much more experienced forward group there, and years and years of established chemistry - Stanley Cups - to a certain extent their role in exits (the areas the Canucks are considered to struggle) is the back of their hand at this point - whereas the Canucks feature a revolving door of rookies, injury replacements, new (and injured) veterans, and in general, a state of relatively constant flux that is extremely challenging for a coach, particularly when half his blueline is likewise in that state. Pittsburgh needs mere tweaks. In any event - the folks around here that sandbagged Gudbranson endlessly might want to look at the fact that his performance in Pittsburgh may be small sample, but don't expect it to drop off as dramatically as their assumptions/ego may hope. First - he's not playing the minutes he is simply as a result of injuries to Pittsburgh blueliners = that claim has been made and it's not only false, but would only make his objective outcomes there relatively more impressive. Pitts' #2, 3, 4 - DuMoulin, Schultz, Johnson - are all in their lineup with Gudbranson eating more minutes than them. In any event, I think the principal difference is actually personnel - while none of the factors - pairings, lines, goaltending, depth, experience, deployment/role (zone starts, quality of competition), systems, health, etc should be excluded. In other words - the attempt to hang judgements on a single player - like "Gudbranson is horrible" - is as much a fool's game as then subsequently attempting to likewise oversimplify it and hang it on Green or his 'system'. These are all essentially unit/team metrics in the end. In the odd cases where particular players consistently stand out, there might be a case to be made, but that wasn't really the case - and it's something we might actually want to look at ourselves at - ie why do we incessantly dwell on players like Sbisa or Gudbranson - while we give small sample metric passes to other players that don't fit our whipping-boy criteria (not going to name anyone, but there are equally easy targets if people are il-disposed that way).
  9. Yeah - Pearson does bring some more physicality to the wing - and 14 hits thus far in 7 games - something the forward group needs. And if Baertschi is as questionable with his concussions as it seems - there's definitely the need for another guy that could score 20 goals.
  10. that's what I thought. nothing but prattle and protest. No stats and no quotes lol. The usual, and predicable waste of time - when I'd given you the opportunity to make me sign off for a week if you could simply substantiate your absurd strawman with a quotations. And derp - I have entirely made the point numerous times - including in this thread - that playing in the context of a Stanley Cup roster makes a big difference (honestly, always a waste of time with you - and a series of whiffs and falsehoods because you notoriously ride the surface). As for my alleged "cherry pick" - I gave Gudransons corsi (shot metrics), his zone starts (deployment), his goal metrics, his special teams role, his D partner, and his ice time all together - call that a 'cherry pick' if you want, but you clearly don't understand the concept. A 'cherry pick' is dwelling on a singular - as people like yourself - who don't understand 'analytics' do when you dwell on a single metric like corsi out of context. Hey, continue to fill your boots with that stuff - if you're content to learn and teach yourself nothing. I think you folks from the Gudbranson sandbag crew should take a time out - and stop contributing delicious irony to this thread with your bizarre fixations - returning here to protest his positive performances in Pittsburgh......but, but they don't confirm our biases or commitment to the idea that he's among the worst, throwback defenseman in the NHL Yawn. Give it a rest.
  11. blah blah. its a cool story - but you're welcome to quote some actual stats/posts , if you're capable of engaging in even the most elementary of conversations or 'analyticz' My 'position' was never that those statistics are meaningless - my position is always that those statistics need to be kept in context - that cherry-picking one metric doesn't tell you much - and that even when integrated, 'advanced-stats' still have their limits. No one said Gudbranson was a 'great defenseman' here - again the usual pathetic straw that you need to resort to when you can't engage in context or actual conversations. Quote a post where I refer to Gudbranson as you have and I'll take a time-out from CDC for a week. Be my guest - fill your boots Try some context or substance. Got any?
  12. What nonsense wadr. You isolate one bouncing puck as evidence of a subpar night? Cool story. How about the objective outcomes: Granlund had 28% ozone starts, 60% corsi and lead all forwards in ice time last night - second only to Edler overall. He played a pretty strictly shutdown role, gave up nothing, was +1 and yet here we are dwelling on a meaningless incident where he failed to force a pass to a line-mate. It reminds me of the GDT where people were whinging because he couldn't force a pass to Motte for an empty-net hat-trick goal. People's priorities get messed up when they incident gaze like this - every player makes these kinds of 'mistakes' every night and can easily be comparably cherry-picked. Motte whiffed on an empty net goal on a beautiful steal and feed from Beagle in the closing minutes - does that mean Motte also had a 'subpar' night?
  13. I wouldn't say that - it's comparable to what he did for the Panthers in the playoffs. And Gud didn't simply play with a puck-mover in florida (Campbell) - he actually spent more time paired with Mitchell. his partner is a 22 year old - Marcus Pettersson - who's a solid enough young two-way D - but clearly not what you expected.
  14. well blind belief is a pretty weak mechanism to rely on, so there's that.
  15. Gudbranson has been plain outstanding thus far in Pitt. 2.9 on ice goals for per 60 1.0 goals against = +1.9 per 60 and +5 overall, in hard, shutdown minutes. 20 hits in 7 games. A leading penalty killer for them.... Don't like having let go of him, enjoy watching the guy killing it - and think it may wind up one of the odd moments of weakness for this management group - but it's a done deal and something the team needs to move on from (hopefully can shore up the blueline -and some toughness, in the summer). At least it looks like they may be gaining some value in draft position....? Also kind of odd that both McCann and Gud (a deal that I thought was decent enough for both sides) were both dealt at the deadline - I wouldn't have agreed to either of those moves (Pitt sure is sitting pretty after the deadline though).
  16. Really? Who was matched up against Washington's top line? I don't think you watched the game or know what you're talking about here. Gudbranson lead the Penguins with 22:43 of ice time. He lead the Penguins with 11 defensive zone starts.(2 ozone) = 15.4% ozone starts. He had the best corsi / shot differential on the Penguins at 51.1%. He was an even 0, with a pair of hits and 3 blocked shots. I actually watched that game - and bothered to look at the outcomes. Evidently you did neither.
  17. No - I did know precisely what you were talking about: the part of the story you are whiffing on is the fact that Vegas did not approach to make that deal - you don't really know that they were willing to pay to move (they showed interest in response)- and that in the absence of them making the offer and giving you the leverage, your only resort is to offer to trade down. Much ado about nothing - if Benning had not initiated that, there'd be literally nothing to talk about - and moreover, that Vegas had earmarked their pick to Glass - and Benning knew it - attests to him knowing more than you give him credit for. In the end he got Pettersson, so the peripheral issue of whether he also extracted an extra pick out of that one is superfluous imo.
  18. What? Did you expect? Benning had one option - to offer Vegas to move up. There is no way around indicating a willingness to move down in those circumstances - as if you could somehow find an end around there. The other option is to initiaite nothing and get - equally - nothing done. Irrational complaint really - and yes, I think Benning holds his cards closely to his chest where drafts are concerned and I think it's both the appropriate and strategically wise thing to do - otherwise I appreciate his candidness when it otherwise does not matter.
  19. that is the one time of year you should actually not listen to a word Benning says - he runs misdirection leading into most drafts and rarely tips his hand. and that account above isn't entirely accurate as even leading into that draft he also pumped Chychrun's tires as having the toolbox to be a potential 1D and did not telegraph taking a forward or defenseman. I think it's the time of year when he cashes in on his reputation as a straight shooter - taking the opportunity to give some misleading indicators.
  20. I think personally I'd rather split the difference and sign a couple players at half the cap and half the term. I'd probably take a Brock Nelson and Anton Stralman over either of them, and leave more flexibility at the conclusion of 3-5 yrs....(If Nelson could be signed at a mid range term like that). Was hoping we'd poach him before he took his game to another level, but at this point it'd be as a UFA, so no assets cost. Like his size, speed, two way game / versatility and work ethic - as welll as the fact he's producing what he is while at 43% ozone starts - think he could make a good fit and not break the bank.
  21. Virtanen is a RW but he's also played and seems relatively comfortable at LW - so that may be an option. I realize you didn't say throw max at Panarin - as other posters have - and I agree he could be a good fit if they move Boeser to the Horvat line with the right playmaking winger (and right opposing winger for EP/Panarin) - I'd just be concerned about how much it would take to sign him, and for how long.... with the kind of young talent the team will have to pay as well. I wou'dn't argue with them either if they did manage to sign him - it aint easy to acquire that kind of talent without assets cost - they may just have to move someone else in course - but it aint a finished product. My other concern would be whether they're ready for this kind of move, but it's also the kind of move that makes you more ready, so tough call really.
  22. I dunno peaches - I'm a bit skeptical here. The problem for me is - a Panarin EP Boeser line.....where is the forecheck, the net front presence, the actual 'grit'? And who truly supports an undersized EP in his own zone, down low, etc? You say that Panarin is a "physical" winger - but has he ever separated someone from the puck? That's hard to do when you throw 10 hits in a season. I respect what you're implying in a sense - that he battles for pucks, isn't a cautious guy that avoids some hard areas - but that comes with limits when you're 168 lbs. But forget the makeup of the line (which I think needs a powerforward type - or Boeser moved to Horvat's line..) Thowing the kind of maximum term and cap at Panarin could cause some real problems and cap inflexibility in the not distant future - and would take him into the 35 yr old range. Most of us would love to have a player like Panarin, but I think it's somewhat premature and maybe not the best fit for this franchise. I'd be inclined to target a more mid-range player that brings a bit more heaviness and versatility (ie Brock Nelson) - one that wouldn't cost high end cap or term - and continue on course with building the future core through drafting and development. In the end, I think the skilled, primary scoring roles are best filled from within and in the process you get those ELC, RFA years.... If the team is going to be truly successful in a few years, imo that will come on the backs of players like EP, Horvat, Boeser, Gaudette, Hughes, Juolevi, etc - and if that does not turn out to be the case, adding big fish like Panarin up front might get in the way? They have already assembled a handful of guys that are going to be costly - committing max x max to Panarin - or even Karlson (who could get in Hughes way) aren't necessarily no-brainers imo - I'd actually be hesitant to do either despite what they bring in the present.
  23. The Hockey Writers, unfortunately, is extremely hit-and-miss - with some very inexperienced, novice writers who manage to publish with them - which doesn't make all the information useless, it's just that a lot of it needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
  24. Some of those sources obviously much 'better' than others (ie Bob vs the Pronmans, smarmies ) - but aside from the big, recognizable names, personally I consider Hockey Prospect (.com) to be a pretty solid source.
×
×
  • Create New...