Analytics were right about Gudbranson

[Baggins]

7 hours ago, Matt_T83 said:

I never liked this trade from the moment I saw it. We gave up a legit top scoring prospect in McCann

 

 

 

 

 

[Byrix]

I don't think he is in the right situation to thrive. Again, I think that's on WD(fire that guy).
If they can pair him with Tyamkin when Tanev comes back, I think there'd something there.
Edler        | Stecher

Hutton     | Tanev

Tryamkin  | Gudbranson

[smokes]

They need to get him off the Hutton pairing and put him with Tryamkin. Hutton doesn't work and Guddy and Tryamkin can give a booming shot on both sides.

[Lafayettecrossbar]

I don't think Benning should've come right out and said that they'll pair Gudbranson with Hutton. It makes a young sophomore like Hutton prepare for one thing when there's a ton of variables that can happen. Unnecessary pressure. 

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

There's an old hockey adage.

 

"You can't score from the penalty box."

 

You can't defend from a penalty box either. He's not brought in to drop the gloves. Like Bieksa he'd drop the gloves when warranted, but it's not his job. 

[MJDDawg]

7 hours ago, JamesB said:

 

 

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. 

 

Good post James.

 

In this context, what'll he be worth at the end of the year when he's an RFA? The Panthers didn't trade him because he's making $3.5 Million. They traded him because they decided that he's probably reached his ceiling as a d-man and that he wouldn't be worth the $5 Million per on a long term deal. They might be right.

 

I'd also add that trading Guddy to the Canucks for a young first rounder and two picks is the kind of deal the Canucks could never do. With this team, as we've seen over and over, it always seems like there's this need to either sign a player long term or let them get to free agency (or RFA in this case).

 

This is good asset management on Florida's part and it's what good drafting and player development allows you to do.

 

 

[Rocksterh8]

7 hours ago, Matt_T83 said:

I never liked this trade from the moment I saw it. We gave up a legit top scoring prospect in McCann for a defenseman who has proven himself to be average at best. I don't care if he was a third overall pick -- none of that matters. This article hit the nail on the head months ago when the trade went down:

 

http://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/putting-the-erik-gudbranson-trade-in-context-1.2266986

 

Gudbranson is now a team low -9. He can't score, and as the article says he 'bleeds shots against'. This was an awful trade and Florida doesn't miss him one bit. He's nothing more than a third pairing defenseman, one that we paid a premium for. 

 

I'd much rather our team take the direction of the Arizona Coyotes and hire a young analytics guru as our GM. Benning is way too oldschool and out of touch with modern hockey operations.

 

Have you seen McCann's stats this year? I'm happy with Guddy, he is what every teams needs on the back end.

[Neko]

I don't see anything wrong with Gud, he isn't even in his glory years yet so calm down.

 

He wasn't a mistake, the mistake I think would be trading him for Kane, we'll regret that 100%.

[IbanezRG]

7 hours 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.

 

 

We don't want Hutton to be sheltered though, we want him to get better.

[ItsMillerTime]

Legit goal scoring prospect? McCann has 1 goal.

[grumpworsley]

First it was : Wow Alex Edler is a beast

Then it was: Trade the bum

Then it was: Ben Hutton just what we need a dynamic fearless young D

Then it was: Trade the bum

Then it was: Gudbranson He is huge and young just what we need on the back end

Now its like: Trade the bum

and so on and so on

I know i missed a few in between but I just wanted to point out the pattern

[drsofthands]

hes not aggressive enough on the rushes, he doesn't cause any neutral zone turnovers, hes not good at clearing the puck. He really is poor defensively in the most fundamental areas. Hopefully he will improve. Play him with tanev, he'll show him how it's done.

[SaintPatrick33]

9 minutes ago, grumpworsley said:

First it was : Wow Alex Edler is a beast

Then it was: Trade the bum

Then it was: Ben Hutton just what we need a dynamic fearless young D

Then it was: Trade the bum

Then it was: Gudbranson He is huge and young just what we need on the back end

Now its like: Trade the bum

and so on and so on

I know i missed a few in between but I just wanted to point out the pattern

 

Nobody on these boards said trade Hutton, what are you trying to stir up? Nobody said Gudbranson should be traded yet?

 

Heck look that the proposals section, rarely will you find these two players in props, even if most are laughable at best. 

 

Tanev and Edler are a different story, maybe edit your post to reflect this. Thanks. 

[LaBamba]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just want to confirm. You ARE writing off a 20 year old? 

I'm going to assume you don't watch a lot of Panther games and this judgment is based on box scores. 

 

If you're writing McCann off by watching box scores then what would you call Virtanen? 

[SaintPatrick33]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Come on Baggins, you know McCann is a 4 year prospect, why laugh now? He has all the tools to make it, instead he has the luck of being put on the 4th line at 8 min a game in the NHL? 

 

If he was on the Nucks you would be sticking up for him, but since he is on FLA I guess not? 

[grumpworsley]

5 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

 

Nobody on these boards said trade Hutton, what are you trying to stir up? Nobody said Gudbranson should be traded yet?

 

Heck look that the proposals section, rarely will you find these two players in props, even if most are laughable at best. 

 

Tanev and Edler are a different story, maybe edit your post to reflect this. Thanks. 

Seriously you need to read a little more The third comment in someone said trade him haha.

[Positive Canuck]

Bambi Gudbranson plays way smaller than his 6'5 frame .

[LaBamba]

20 minutes ago, ItsMillerTime said:

Legit goal scoring prospect? McCann has 1 goal.

 

Neck and neck with Virtanen. 

 

Double standard anyone? 

[SaintPatrick33]

1 minute ago, grumpworsley said:

Seriously you need to read a little more The third comment in someone said trade him haha.

 

Read more of what exactly? I did not refer to this thread, rather the trade proposals section. Please help me help you in your reference Mr. Grump

 

Either way you are off base in thinking "most" fans want to trade Hutton or Gud. Most want Tanev or Ed traded because they would actually bring value, unlike Hutt or Gud at this point. 

[grumpworsley]

1 minute ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

 

Read more of what exactly? I did not refer to this thread, rather the trade proposals section. Please help me help you in your reference Mr. Grump

 

Either way you are off base in thinking "most" fans want to trade Hutton or Gud. Most want Tanev or Ed traded because they would actually bring value, unlike Hutt or Gud at this point. 

Need I say more