Matt_T83 Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 For anyone that missed this article that came out just before Christmas, JD Burke posted a nice analysis of the Gudbranson situation on the Canucks Army website.Link: http://canucksarmy.com/2016/12/22/should-the-canucks-extend-erik-gudbranson-s-contract He points out that Gudbranson rejected a 4-year, 16M deal the Panther's offered him just before being traded to the Canucks. He suggests that Gudbranson will be demanding 5M+ per year, on a long term deal. However, JD's analytics also suggest that Gudbranson is underperforming for the 3.5-5M/year range. Given how stubborn Benning is, and the price he paid to acquire Gudbranson, I am genuinely worried that we will shell out 4.5-5M per year, for 5-6 years, to extend Guddy. If the analytics are right, we could be stuck with a 5M/year 3rd pairing defenseman for years to come. Now, some people may say we are rebuilding and it doesn't matter, but rebuilding teams NEED cap space. Why? One of the best things you can do as a rebuilding team is have cap space to take bad contracts. You can negotiate deals with contending teams to trade a decent player (say Hansen) in exchange for prospects/picks, and take a bad contract in return. Taking that bad contract can garner an extra late round pick or a better prospect. But if you have no cap space, you can't do that. The dilemma: Do we re-sign him and just give him what he wants? Or do we take him to arbitration? At arbitration we could get him at 3.5M/year, but probably only for 2-3 years. If we put him in that spot, he will certainly hate us and leave the team ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.