Alflives Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 27 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: You mean like tanev and Edler? Will Gudbranson's coming contract mean one of Tanev or Edler get traded to create Cap room? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJDDawg Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 31 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: You mean like tanev and Edler? Not really, as they're our top pairing. Signing someone who at best is your 4th dman who provides zero offence is another story. Giving Guddy that money and term means that on defense, other dominos will have to fall (see Alf's post). And if one of them does get traded, who's the other first pairing dman? Certainly not Guddy. While that dollar amount and term isn't obnoxious relative to other dmen on the team and around the league, what Guddy provides for that amount and term isn't the best value imo. Yes he's young, but I don't believe he'll bring much more than what we've already seen from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, MJDDawg said: Not really, as they're our top pairing. Signing someone who at best is your 4th dman who provides zero offence is another story. Giving Guddy that money and term means that on defense, other dominos will have to fall (see Alf's post). And if one of them does get traded, who's the other first pairing dman? Certainly not Guddy. While that dollar amount and term isn't obnoxious relative to other dmen on the team and around the league, what Guddy provides for that amount and term isn't the best value imo. Yes he's young, but I don't believe he'll bring much more than what we've already seen from him. I guess that's the difference. you think hes our 4th best defensman. I think he's 3rd maybe 2nd. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 16 minutes ago, MJDDawg said: Not really, as they're our top pairing. Signing someone who at best is your 4th dman who provides zero offence is another story. Giving Guddy that money and term means that on defense, other dominos will have to fall (see Alf's post). And if one of them does get traded, who's the other first pairing dman? Certainly not Guddy. While that dollar amount and term isn't obnoxious relative to other dmen on the team and around the league, what Guddy provides for that amount and term isn't the best value imo. Yes he's young, but I don't believe he'll bring much more than what we've already seen from him. I remember years ago the Detroit GM saying they save the bigger dollar contracts to D who produce offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boudrias Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 hours ago, Gooseberries said: I guess that's the difference. you think hes our 4th best defensman. I think he's 3rd maybe 2nd. Since Gudbranson has become the most recent sacrificial lamb I guess we can move on from Hutton. IMHO opinion since Gudbranson has arrived the Canuck d-core has started to develop a physical nature that is improving the whole roster. Sbisa has started the season well but now that Tryamkin is a regular this pairing has really helped. What many fans are missing is how the inability to score impacts the play of the d-core. They cannot be as aggressive either offensively or physically. This young group will evolve through the season and writing off anyone of them is very premature. I totally agree with your assessment of a #3 and maybe a #2. If you look at this group who is the leader? To me it is Gudbranson and it is possible it might become Tryamkin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Alflives said: I remember years ago the Detroit GM saying they save the bigger dollar contracts to D who produce offence. And? $5M is not a 'bigger dollar' contract in today's NHL. When Gudbranson starts demanding/we're paying him $7-8M +, come talk to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 minute ago, J.R. said: And? $5M is not a 'bigger dollar' contract in today's NHL. When Gudbranson starts demanding/we're paying him $7-8M +, come talk to me. I like Gudbranson, and believe he is worth 5 x 6. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 25 minutes ago, Alflives said: I like Gudbranson, and believe he is worth 5 x 6. Fellow RFA Hampus Lindholm just signed for $5.25 mil x 6 years, and he far, FAR superior to EG. Lindholm has scored 2.8 times more points per game than Gudbranson. And his underlying numbers indicate that despite not having the physical presence of Eric, Hampus is actually more effective defensively as well. No offense to Gudbranson, but he hasn't proved he's worth much more than the 3.5 he's currently making. Spending 5 on him long-term isn't the best use of cap space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
73 Percent Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 Just now, D-Money said: Fellow RFA Hampus Lindholm just signed for $5.25 mil x 6 years, and he far, FAR superior to EG. Lindholm has scored 2.8 times more points per game than Gudbranson. And his underlying numbers indicate that despite not having the physical presence of Eric, Hampus is actually more effective defensively as well. No offense to Gudbranson, but he hasn't proved he's worth much more than the 3.5 he's currently making. Spending 5 on him long-term isn't the best use of cap space. But he's worth 5m to us. I fully expect us to pay it and frankly I'm totally fine with that. You give 1 comparable at a rediculous cheap contract. it's like comparing gudbranson to Keith because keith makes 5.5 Here are all the defensman from 5.6 to 4.5 Goligoski Bouwmeester Jones Krug Wideman Streit Spurgeron Bogosian Edler Dekeyser McDonald Greene Reilly Pronger Methot Vatanen Martin Faulk Kronwall McDonagh Brodie Garrison Lindholm Take a long look at that list Let's assume gudbranson gets signed within this range. so we add him too. Now let's organise this list from better to worst (obviously opinionated) Faulk Lindholm Jones Reilly Bouwmeester Krug Brodie Vatanen Bogosian Mcdonagh Goligoski Edler Streit Kronwall Martin Greene Wideman Dekeyser Spurgeron Garrison McDonald Methot Pronger Question is where do you slot gudbranson. I put him just before or after Goligoski. so right in the middle. I'm sure alot of people would making 5me a fair contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 28 minutes ago, Gooseberries said: But he's worth 5m to us. I fully expect us to pay it and frankly I'm totally fine with that. You give 1 comparable at a rediculous cheap contract. it's like comparing gudbranson to Keith because keith makes 5.5 Here are all the defensman from 5.6 to 4.5 Goligoski Bouwmeester Jones Krug Wideman Streit Spurgeron Bogosian Edler Dekeyser McDonald Greene Reilly Pronger Methot Vatanen Martin Faulk Kronwall McDonagh Brodie Garrison Lindholm Take a long look at that list Let's assume gudbranson gets signed within this range. so we add him too. Now let's organise this list from better to worst (obviously opinionated) Faulk Lindholm Jones Reilly Bouwmeester Krug Brodie Vatanen Bogosian Mcdonagh Goligoski Edler Streit Kronwall Martin Greene Wideman Dekeyser Spurgeron Garrison McDonald Methot Pronger Question is where do you slot gudbranson. I put him just before or after Goligoski. so right in the middle. I'm sure alot of people would making 5me a fair contract. As long as you bump Bogosian down a bit But yah somewhere in there. I think the bigger question is how much term he wants, and if he actually wants to be here. He's not an offer sheet risk so I think something will get done but he may also want to be moved depending on how he sees the prime of his career going. I can see Jimbo wanting Guddy as a Bieksa-type leader of the D group, so I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 25 mil over 5 years being offered. I don't think he's getting that anywhere else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gooseberries said: But he's worth 5m to us. I fully expect us to pay it and frankly I'm totally fine with that. You give 1 comparable at a rediculous cheap contract. it's like comparing gudbranson to Keith because keith makes 5.5 Here are all the defensman from 5.6 to 4.5 Goligoski Bouwmeester Jones Krug Wideman Streit Spurgeron Bogosian Edler Dekeyser McDonald Greene Reilly Pronger Methot Vatanen Martin Faulk Kronwall McDonagh Brodie Garrison Lindholm Take a long look at that list Let's assume gudbranson gets signed within this range. so we add him too. Now let's organise this list from better to worst (obviously opinionated) Faulk Lindholm Jones Reilly Bouwmeester Krug Brodie Vatanen Bogosian Mcdonagh Goligoski Edler Streit Kronwall Martin Greene Wideman Dekeyser Spurgeron Garrison McDonald Methot Pronger Question is where do you slot gudbranson. I put him just before or after Goligoski. so right in the middle. I'm sure alot of people would making 5me a fair contract. Almost all of those guys were UFAs. These are the recent long-term RFA D-man signings: Barrie - $5.5 x 4 years Jones - $5.4 x 6 years Ristolainen - $5.4 x 6 years Lindholm - $5.25 x 6 years Krug - $5.25 x 4 years Vatanen - $4.875 x 4 years Where do you put Gudbranson on this list? Most would say the bottom of it, with an exclamation point. And his arbitration numbers certainly aren't going to put him anywhere near the $5 mil range either. So why should we give it to him? Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't give Gudbranson as much as Tanev. I'd say 3 years, 4.25 per. He hasn't earned more, and he has no leverage to demand more either. Edited November 23, 2016 by D-Money 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, D-Money said: Almost all of those guys were UFAs. These are the recent long-term RFA D-man signings: Barrie - $5.5 x 4 years Jones - $5.4 x 6 years Ristolainen - $5.4 x 6 years Lindholm - $5.25 x 6 years Krug - $5.25 x 4 years Vatanen - $4.875 x 4 years Where do you put Gudbranson on this list? Most would say the bottom of it, with an exclamation point. And his arbitration numbers certainly aren't going to put him anywhere near the $5 mil range either. So why should we give it to him? Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't give Gudbranson as much as Tanev. I'd say 3 years, 4.25 per. He hasn't earned more, and he has no leverage to demand more either. I do agree he should not trend to the middle of that group. I also agree that we should not over adjust to UFA signings. But Gudbranson's, I believe, trump card, is a 1 year arbitration deal. Which might / should end south of these RFA here. But then he is UFA the year after? So he does hold some leverage. And a 6'5" 220lb skating big man coming into his prime is more attractive than Tanev was when he signed his current deal. I think we may see a deal just over $5 mill, and long term to help sell all to Gudbranson and the market. If we lock him, say 7 years, till he's 32 and through his prime? I'm fine with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyndall2 Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 I haven't been overly impressed by his play so far. The way they talked about him coming in you thought he was going to be someone who made forwards play for trying to blow by him or hang around in front of the net. Hasn't happened yet! But like most of the Canucks they all seem to be late bloomers this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 1 hour ago, D-Money said: Almost all of those guys were UFAs. These are the recent long-term RFA D-man signings: Barrie - $5.5 x 4 years Jones - $5.4 x 6 years Ristolainen - $5.4 x 6 years Lindholm - $5.25 x 6 years Krug - $5.25 x 4 years Vatanen - $4.875 x 4 years Where do you put Gudbranson on this list? Most would say the bottom of it, with an exclamation point. And his arbitration numbers certainly aren't going to put him anywhere near the $5 mil range either. So why should we give it to him? Based on what we've seen so far, I wouldn't give Gudbranson as much as Tanev. I'd say 3 years, 4.25 per. He hasn't earned more, and he has no leverage to demand more either. I'm really curious as to what they would award him in arbitration based on his current play... He's certainly at the bottom of that list. Can an arbitrator offer him less than what he currently makes? Or will we have to qualify him at his current salary or more? In an ideal world, he turns his play around and earns a 5 x 5 deal but so far he's no where near that. I think 3 x 3.75 would be fair. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 14 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said: I do agree he should not trend to the middle of that group. I also agree that we should not over adjust to UFA signings. But Gudbranson's, I believe, trump card, is a 1 year arbitration deal. Which might / should end south of these RFA here. But then he is UFA the year after? So he does hold some leverage. And a 6'5" 220lb skating big man coming into his prime is more attractive than Tanev was when he signed his current deal. I think we may see a deal just over $5 mill, and long term to help sell all to Gudbranson and the market. If we lock him, say 7 years, till he's 32 and through his prime? I'm fine with that. The absolute most I'd give him is Tanev's deal - 4.45 mil x 5 years. I think offering that would be both a sign of good faith by management, and EG accepting it as a sign of being a team player. I doubt an arbitrator would give him more than the 3.5 he makes now. And with the trend to favour puck-moving D-men with more offensive skills, I don't think teams will be lining up in FA to sign him for 5+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 8 minutes ago, D-Money said: The absolute most I'd give him is Tanev's deal - 4.45 mil x 5 years. I think offering that would be both a sign of good faith by management, and EG accepting it as a sign of being a team player. I doubt an arbitrator would give him more than the 3.5 he makes now. And with the trend to favour puck-moving D-men with more offensive skills, I don't think teams will be lining up in FA to sign him for 5+. I think he'll get more. But there is some very respectable logic in your reasoning. Mine is that Tanev signed with 3 years remaining to UFA eligibility. Gubranson is only taking one year off the board. And the general inflation of contracts. I'm still projecting $5.1, $5.2 mill. We can track it? Gentleman's bet for a Coke if I ever visit Calgary again...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Money Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 23 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said: I think he'll get more. But there is some very respectable logic in your reasoning. Mine is that Tanev signed with 3 years remaining to UFA eligibility. Gubranson is only taking one year off the board. And the general inflation of contracts. I'm still projecting $5.1, $5.2 mill. We can track it? Gentleman's bet for a Coke if I ever visit Calgary again...? Oh, I'm not saying what the current management group would do...I have no doubt they'll overpay to lock him up. I just think that rather than locking up $5 mil+ on Gudbranson, we may be better served flipping him for a young center prospect and a pick, then filling his spot for the same money or less in free agency... ...wait, this sounds strangely familiar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 2 minutes ago, D-Money said: Oh, I'm not saying what the current management group would do...I have no doubt they'll overpay to lock him up. I just think that rather than locking up $5 mil+ on Gudbranson, we may be better served flipping him for a young center prospect and a pick, then filling his spot for the same money or less in free agency... ...wait, this sounds strangely familiar... Draisatl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted November 23, 2016 Share Posted November 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, D-Money said: Oh, I'm not saying what the current management group would do...I have no doubt they'll overpay to lock him up. I just think that rather than locking up $5 mil+ on Gudbranson, we may be better served flipping him for a young center prospect and a pick, then filling his spot for the same money or less in free agency... ...wait, this sounds strangely familiar... I'd rather keep Gudbranson. Fits our age group and brings desirable traits to this team moving forward. I don't think he'll be getting 5M+. If we should trade any defenseman it should be Tanev since he'd get a lot more. A lot might be an understatement actually, a $&!# ton I should say. His NTC kicks in next season so this season is the best time to trade him. We'd get a lot more than a young C prospect and a pick that's for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 12 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said: I'd rather keep Gudbranson. Fits our age group and brings desirable traits to this team moving forward. I don't think he'll be getting 5M+. If we should trade any defenseman it should be Tanev since he'd get a lot more. A lot might be an understatement actually, a $&!# ton I should say. His NTC kicks in next season so this season is the best time to trade him. We'd get a lot more than a young C prospect and a pick that's for sure. Same question: Draisatl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now