Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

Analytics were right about Gudbranson

Matt_T83

By Matt_T83
in Canucks Talk

Recommended Posts

LaBamba Canucks First-Line

LaBamba

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

McCann hasn't proven anything yet. 1 G 1 A and not earning much ice time in FLA.

 

Who cares? I said if we were giving him up we should have spent him on something we actually need. How does his performance right now effect his value last May? His play right now is irrelevant. 

 

I also find it extremely amusing when I see people say stuff like don't write off Gudbranson he is only 24. Then turn around and write McCann off. Very peculiar, but amusing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'NucK™ Canucks Regular

'NucK™

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

He isn't bad, he isn't great 

He just doesn't complement anyone. 

 

I don't see consistency in nasty. 

He can't hit the net.

he is just another regular defensman that this franchise seems to be absolutely full of. 

 

If we were going to submit McCann and a 2nd. Couldn't we spend it on something.... I don't know, exciting, dynamic, creative or even slightly amusing. There is nothing he has done so far this year that Trymakin hasn't done just as good, if not better. 

I agree with your post but after some thought, the truth is that McCann and a 2nd is not much.. 

 

We got what we paid for. and the positive is that there is still room for improvement in Guddy

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintPatrick33 Canucks Regular

SaintPatrick33

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Willie's got this team running their assess off with his so-called defence first system. No one has time for snarl, other than Tryamkin but that's only because he's such a big mofo he can hurt guys with standard checks. 

 

Yea but a D-first system should suit Gud well since he cannot play an up-tempo puck moving style. He is -9, and maybe most of that is hutton, but then that is why he is paired with a liability like Hutton. He should be covering much better, but it is still early. By summertime we can evaluate how he fits into this team. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JamesB Canucks Second-Line

JamesB

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Matt_T83 said:

 

I hope so. However, analytics aren't bad at forecasting player development either... I'd say his ceiling is pretty low. My guess is we'd be lucky if he turns into a 2nd pairing defenseman. 

 

20 minutes ago, DSVII said:

He's a decent player, and I don't mind him on our team. The problem isn't so much his play for me, it's that we shouldn't have had to pay a premium for him knowing Florida's cap situation and his upcoming RFA status. Or barring that, we could have just kept Hamhuis as he did a much better job of sheltering Hutton than Guds is.

 

It says a lot that Florida was the one that contacted Benning to initiate the trade. They knew their audience well.

 

The OP is a bit harsh but I have to give credit for saying what quite a few people must be thinking. I saw several of the analytics-based articles the criticized the trade, as happened with the Sutter trade as well -- two rounds of Benning vs. analytics.

 

Guddy and Sutter are not bad players, but Benning gave up too much to get them and over-estimated their ability. He only got one year of Sutter in the trade and then overpaid to re-sign him. Chances are he does the same thing with Gudbranson.

 

And what bothered me all along was that all we did was replace Hammer with Guddy and we could have kept Hammer without giving up assets and at a bargain salary. And he is a probably a better player than Guddy. Yes Gudbranson plays a physical game and is bigger and stronger, but Hammer is much better with the puck.

 

Gudbranson is of course still pretty young and he could improve. But, at age 24 the odds are that he is not far from his ceiling. Yes, defencemen are more often late bloomers than forwards, but you can't count on Gudbranson being a late bloomer. Most guys only improve marginally after about age 24 and that has to be the expectation for Gudbranson. So I see him as a decent #4 D-man on a decent team. Still useful, but the Canucks gave up too much to get him and are likely to overpay to re-sign him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LaBamba Canucks First-Line

LaBamba

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 'NucK™ said:

I was about to +1 your post but after some thought, the truth is that McCann and a 2nd is not much.. 

 

We got what we paid for

 

Which isn't much. 

 

To be fair, I don't think we have the right guy to pair with him. You can see in the article how much success he had with a dynamic guy like Campbell. We just don't have those kinda guys. He is kinda like Garrison in the sense of not fitting in anywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuxfanabroad Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Nuxfanabroad

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

So far besides the Kassian fight, have not seen any of that snarl....maybe he needs more time with a new team and all, because his main attributes are toughness and crease clearing. Not enough shown thus far, because he does not really do anything else particularly well. Maybe he needs to play with a different D man, who knows, but so far none of our offseason moves are really paying off in terms of their skillsets. 

 

Yes he is still young, but his contract is coming up soon, how much would we pay? Given Lindholm took 5.5, I am thinking 4.25 for what Gud brings to the table. 

Lazy to type today, StPatty..but agreed. Let's sign him reasonably, & he'll get better after mid-20's, youthful foolishness.

 

This kinda' bloke's numbers magically improve when he's got a decent cast, that's worth gettin' bloody/ugly for.

 

Patience folks. Judge this mess in Feb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JM_ Canucks Hall-of-Famer

JM_

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

 

Who cares? I said if we were giving him up we should have spent him on something we actually need. How does his performance right now effect his value last May? His play right now is irrelevant. 

 

I also find it extremely amusing when I see people say stuff like don't write off Gudbranson he is onlt 24. Then turn around and write McCann off. Very peculiar, but amusing. 

 

Who cares? You apparently. You just said we should have got "more" for McCann. Based on what? Not his performance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintPatrick33 Canucks Regular

SaintPatrick33

Posted
Posted
Just now, Nuxfanabroad said:

Lazy to type today, StPatty..but agreed. Let's sign him reasonably, & he'll get better after mid-20's, youthful foolishness.

 

This kinda' bloke's numbers magically improve when he's got a decent cast, that's worth gettin' bloody/ugly for.

 

Patience folks. Judge this mess in Feb.

 

True, I mean I watched last years playoff series vs the Islanders and he was playing well, but Florida has much more talent up front, and their D core overall were well-balanced. Time will tell. After last year our D was quite soft, and we did not know what we had in Trymak, stetch etc

 

McCann was going to be at least a 4 year project anyways, although I think he turns into a decent player. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cripplereh Canucks Star

cripplereh

Posted
Posted

I's rather have him then what we had, a guy that eats minutes and hits plus like said has a good stick

 

He can't score but look at what we gave up who has how many goals??

 

We needed a decent D man that could take some of the pressure off the top pairing and guess what we got that

 

Our d is not the problem our coaching is

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LaBamba Canucks First-Line

LaBamba

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, S'all Good Man said:

 

Who cares? You apparently. You just said we should have got "more" for McCann. Based on what? Not his performance. 

 

Ok. Let's rewind to the trade in MAY. McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson. Please explain to me how his performance today has anything to do with this trade? 

 

What i was trying to explain to you was, if I am trading McCann And a 2nd in MAY. Maybe I should spend McCann and a 2nd on something with some offensive upside. 

 

Do do you understand what I am saying now? S'all good? Man?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JM_ Canucks Hall-of-Famer

JM_

Posted
Posted
Just now, LaBamba said:

 

Ok. Let's rewind to the trade in MAY. McCann and a 2nd for Gudbranson. Please explain to me how his performance today has anything to do with this trade? 

 

What i was trying to explain to you was, if I am trading McCann And a 2nd in MAY. Maybe I should spend McCann and a 2nd on something with some offensive upside. 

 

Do do you understand what I am saying now? S'all good? Man?

 

No tell me again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nuxfanabroad Canucks Hall-of-Famer

Nuxfanabroad

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

 

True, I mean I watched last years playoff series vs the Islanders and he was playing well, but Florida has much more talent up front, and their D core overall were well-balanced. Time will tell. After last year our D was quite soft, and we did not know what we had in Trymak, stetch etc

 

McCann was going to be at least a 4 year project anyways, although I think he turns into a decent player. 

& others have stated.all 6 - ya gotta measure the whole D-shebang(cos his grit frees up teammates to effortlessly chat the babes in smoky bars). This unites the team, increases babies produced/testosterone %,  & leads to Cup-dynastys.. sorry to get analytical :^)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...