Western Red Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, playboi19 said: User Actions Follow Ian MendesVerified account@ian_mendes Dale Tallon on Erik Gudbranson being an RFA: "He's not going anywhere. He is likely going to be the captain of our team some day." RETWEETS67 LIKES41 1:37 PM - 18 Mar 2014 67 retweets41 likes Reply Retweet 67 Like 41 More Heavy. looks like the stats geeks felt different. (Something many already knew) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Lasso Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 On July 12, 2016 at 8:39 PM, WHL rocks said: Yes, We already know Gudbransson's game. Larsson's game is still developing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted Lasso Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 @WHL rocks- For sure, bud, we ALL know what Gudbranson's ceiling is at 24, but Larsson at 23 is still a caterpillar waiting to develop. You may not be self aware enough to realize that the Oilers are now your favourite team (despite all the money you spent on the Canucks in the good years- lol, so self righteous ). Your intentional or unintentional trolling has derailed several conversations in Canucks Talk recently. I'm going to ignore you now - good luck finding your identity as a polygamous hockey fan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 On 12/07/2016 at 4:09 PM, Odd. said: yeah. There's more too it though Larsson, just like Gudbranson, is pretty good defensively, and has an offensive upside, and more of a two-way defender. Gudbranson isn't exactly going to produce you 20-30 points a season however that's not his job. His job is to defend, block shots, kill penalties, protecting our players and bringing in leadership, as well as toughness, things we don't have on our backend. When you think of a Larsson, I think of a Tanev, but Larsson brings you offense. And Larsson isn't some soft defender. And when you think of an eggplant, I think of a zucchini. Gudbranson will deter the dirty goals that so many teams were able to score on the Canucks from happening this year. As well, he will have a greater role here than he did in Florida, and with that will come an increase in point totals. While Larsson isn't a soft player, he's not exactly imposing either. As you said with your Tanev comparison, he's more likely to use his stick than his frame. And he's not considered a PP quarterback or shot machine. He's a decent above average defender, but not some offensive dynamo. Quote I'd say many view Larsson a better overall player than Guddy. Who exactly? Yost? Cullen? Chiarelli? Quote Larsson is just the type of defender you need. An all-around guy. Larsson brings you a bit of everything in every single category there is, and is excellent in a few, whereas Gudbranson is more of that guy who is excellent in pretty much all defensive categories, but lacks some of the things in the offensive categories. Hopefully you get what I mean by that last sentence. I can elaborate if you want No need for elaboration. I have a pretty good understanding of the game, but thanks for the offer. You know who Larsson sounds a lot like, by your estimation? Alexander Edler. An all around, big minute, somewhat physical, somewhat point producing, defenseman with poise. However one very salient point is missed in this discussion. Both players are going to new teams that employ different systems with different personnel. They were acquired in trades for certain skills that they possess, but with new partners/rosters/coaches come new possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 On 6/7/2016 at 7:00 PM, DontMessMe said: I mean if a GM offers me a 1st, i'd take it and run. Dont know why people think hes worth more. On 6/7/2016 at 8:04 PM, Boddy604 said: A top 10 pick, yes you take it and run. A 1st round pick doesn't mean a 1st line or top pairing guy though. Look at Etem, Jensen, Kassian, Hodgson, Sbisa, Shinkaruk, Gaunce, Baertschi just to name a few from recent memory who've been through the organization. Are ANY of those guys more valuable than Hansen? Hansen is a 29 year old on a steal of a contract. A draft pick that helps the Canucks in 3-5 years isn't really where Benning would look for value out of a high value guy like Hansen. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Something just occurred to me that I haven't seen talked about. A year ago McCann was a kid who was going to go back and play junior...but then he miraculously didn't. I know everyone hates the term Asset Management, but apply it to this situation just to humour me. Let's pretend our GM had made the conventional move, sent McCann back to junior and he likely would have scored at an amazing rate. He would have been a very promising prospect, but he wouldn't have had near the value that he currently has. Point is, GMJB injected a tonne of value into our team by making that surprising move at the start of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, nzan said: Something just occurred to me that I haven't seen talked about. A year ago McCann was a kid who was going to go back and play junior...but then he miraculously didn't. I know everyone hates the term Asset Management, but apply it to this situation just to humour me. Let's pretend our GM had made the conventional move, sent McCann back to junior and he likely would have scored at an amazing rate. He would have been a very promising prospect, but he wouldn't have had near the value that he currently has. Point is, GMJB injected a tonne of value into our team by making that surprising move at the start of last season. McCann was ineffective for most the season being not ready for the NHL yet. One might say if he killed in junior his value could have been higher with this kind of speculation Doesn't matter. It wasn't a strategic move and if it works out then it's just dumb luck to not be applauded at worst and a decent trade at best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Monahan Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 36 minutes ago, TimberWolf said: McCann was ineffective for most the season being not ready for the NHL yet. One might say if he killed in junior his value could have been higher with this kind of speculation Doesn't matter. It wasn't a strategic move and if it works out then it's just dumb luck to not be applauded at worst and a decent trade at best A decent trade at best? How so? Is it the value given up or the asset acquired that you're lukewarm about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 46 minutes ago, TimberWolf said: McCann was ineffective for most the season being not ready for the NHL yet. One might say if he killed in junior his value could have been higher with this kind of speculation Doesn't matter. It wasn't a strategic move and if it works out then it's just dumb luck to not be applauded at worst and a decent trade at best He would have had to kill in an extreme fashion to not be subject to the disclaimer that he'd not proven anything except in junior. Still, I expect he would have done amazingly well, and I think he'll do amazingly well and have a stellar career. I'm a big fan and am sad to have lost him. It wasn't a strategic move from a 'play him then trade him' standpoint, but it was a strategic move to fast-forward his career/current value...thus allowing us to flip him for what I'll prophetically call a win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicklas Bo Hunter Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 5:04 AM, iinatcc said: Considering in NHL 16 after 5 seasons Gudbranson is an 84 overall and McCann is a 89 that makes it even scarier That said I hope NHL 16 is wrong it's not like they are the most accurate game I mean in NHL 16 GM Mode John Tavares is an 99 overall and there was one NHL game where Justin Schutlz was an 88. I do like the Gudbranson trade provided Vancouver can lock him up for 7 years at 4.8 million (He shouldn't be getting more than Seth Jones) since hockey analysts do seem to like him a lot. What nhl 16 are you playing? Gudbranson is always 88+ for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salacious Crumb Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 3 hours ago, nzan said: He would have had to kill in an extreme fashion to not be subject to the disclaimer that he'd not proven anything except in junior. Still, I expect he would have done amazingly well, and I think he'll do amazingly well and have a stellar career. I'm a big fan and am sad to have lost him. It wasn't a strategic move from a 'play him then trade him' standpoint, but it was a strategic move to fast-forward his career/current value...thus allowing us to flip him for what I'll prophetically call a win. Nice post. EG could have 5 fights, 20 pts, do some heavy lifting minutes wise, provide a deterence and leadership. Things all teams and especially ours can use. All the best to McCann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Putgolzin Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Salacious Crumb said: Nice post. EG could have 5 fights, 20 pts, do some heavy lifting minutes wise, provide a deterence and leadership. Things all teams and especially ours can use. All the best to McCann. True. i guess the larger point wasn't specifically about McCann...more about how I see management making the right moves and how they're already starting to have a ripple effect on moving towards having a great team again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 15 hours ago, Wild Sean Monahan said: A decent trade at best? How so? Is it the value given up or the asset acquired that you're lukewarm about? My point was either we gave up fair value (If McCann meets potential) or lucked out (If he busts). The fact still remains that McCann should have been sent back to jr. after his hot start hit a brick wall last season. Not doing so working out for us in the end isn't to be cheered for because it shouldn't let the team off the hook for poor development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KKnight Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 On 13/07/2016 at 1:04 AM, iinatcc said: Considering in NHL 16 after 5 seasons Gudbranson is an 84 overall and McCann is a 89 that makes it even scarier That said I hope NHL 16 is wrong it's not like they are the most accurate game I mean in NHL 16 GM Mode John Tavares is an 99 overall and there was one NHL game where Justin Schutlz was an 88. I do like the Gudbranson trade provided Vancouver can lock him up for 7 years at 4.8 million (He shouldn't be getting more than Seth Jones) since hockey analysts do seem to like him a lot. Soooo now were judging players future devlopment on nhl 16?? Makes sense.... Gudbranson is gonna be a stud for us. Yes, most likely not a number 1 dman. Which shouldnt be expected by anybody. But, he is going to be a ball busting, pain in the ass to play against for many years to come. With a little improvement and a friendly contract, we walk away from this trade as winners hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinatcc Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 14 hours ago, Nicklas Bo Hunter said: What nhl 16 are you playing? Gudbranson is always 88+ for me. GM mode year 2019 to 2020. Then again o don't have McCann anymore either since I traded him to Edmonton for McDavid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 7 minutes ago, KKnight said: Soooo now were judging players future devlopment on nhl 16?? Makes sense.... Gudbranson is gonna be a stud for us. Yes, most likely not a number 1 dman. Which shouldnt be expected by anybody. But, he is going to be a ball busting, pain in the ass to play against for many years to come. With a little improvement and a friendly contract, we walk away from this trade as winners hands down. Sorry man but you just cannot judge a trade in a month and say we are winners hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gollumpus Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 1 hour ago, ice orca said: Sorry man but you just cannot judge a trade in a month and say we are winners hands down. It does appear that Vancouver currently has the edge in the "Who won the deal?" department, no? For immediate effect and for the next few years I expect Gudbranson > McCann for all the previously given reasons in this thread. I don't see that there is a debate here. To me it would be like someone saying that the food in front of you today doesn't taste as good as the food you will have in three or four years time. Even if that future food does turn out to be good, it doesn't do you much good right now. In (X) years time, maybe/probably McCann will become a good player for the Panthers, or for whichever team he is playing with at that time. I expect that at that time Gudbranson will continue to play at the level he has already achieved (which is > McCann), and I don't see why he might not have improved in certain aspects of his play. McCann (likely) becoming a good player (X) years in the future does not make this a bad trade for the Canucks, nor does it make it a win for Florida. regards, G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted July 16, 2016 Share Posted July 16, 2016 On 7/13/2016 at 10:05 PM, Kenny Powers said: @WHL rocks- For sure, bud, we ALL know what Gudbranson's ceiling is at 24, but Larsson at 23 is still a caterpillar waiting to develop. You may not be self aware enough to realize that the Oilers are now your favourite team (despite all the money you spent on the Canucks in the good years- lol, so self righteous ). Your intentional or unintentional trolling has derailed several conversations in Canucks Talk recently. I'm going to ignore you now - good luck finding your identity as a polygamous hockey fan! priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WHL rocks Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 Shots against with EG on ice in Red, without EG on ice in blue. Very clear EG helps keep the crease clear and shots to the outside. His team does face a lot of shots against when he's on the ice, he doesn't drive play but keep in mind he was paired with Willie Mitchell most of the time, that guy with the 8 ft. stick. Hopefully with a different partner EG will do better and play more in the neutral zone and offensive zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kragar Posted July 20, 2016 Share Posted July 20, 2016 47 minutes ago, WHL rocks said: Shots against with EG on ice in Red, without EG on ice in blue. Very clear EG helps keep the crease clear and shots to the outside. His team does face a lot of shots against when he's on the ice, he doesn't drive play but keep in mind he was paired with Willie Mitchell most of the time, that guy with the 8 ft. stick. Hopefully with a different partner EG will do better and play more in the neutral zone and offensive zone. Thanks for posting, as this is interesting. I'm curious if the higher shot totals he faces are less due to his play in neutral and offensive zones as opposed to average TOI and he and Willy playing shutdown roles. It is great seeing the increased likelihood of perimeter shooting. I'm excited to see what he can do for the team, and I hope he learned a lot from Willy, since I don't recall having someone that reliable since Willy was here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.