The Gudbranson dilemma

[darkpoet]

6 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

I'm going to go way out on a limb and say it was his wrist. You know, the one he had surgery on?

Yeah that gets mentioned, but then he says he's "just now getting back on the bike" etc... you only need one hand to hold you on a bike... indicates he'll be seeing the specialist in "another month to see where he's at" 

Maybe it's just the way he came off but it sounded like it was more than his wrist.

[HerrDrFunk]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Good call, Herr!

Thanks! They weren't just blowing smoke up my butt when I started calling myself Dr. Funk after all.

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, darkpoet said:

Yeah that gets mentioned, but then he says he's "just not getting back on the bike" etc... you only need one hand to hold you on a bike... indicates he'll be seeing the specialist in "another month to see where he's at" 

Maybe it's just the way he came off but it sounded like it was more than his wrist.

Gluteus?

[Nuxfanabroad]

Yet it still amounts to an excuse(as bargaining begins anew).

 

No one knows how he would have performed otherwise.

 

No one knows if it may affect him going forward. Wrists can be trouble..seem to recall Souray having a career cut short(?).

 

Bridge the gap, in this case seems smart.

[darkpoet]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Gluteus?

That was Salo

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, darkpoet said:

That was Salo

Gluetus not gonad.

[aGENT]

7 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

If his sub par play is due to some lingering injury none of us knew about and he comes back healthy and strong playing the way he should be, i'll glad eat all my words here.

 

1 hour ago, J.R. said:

 

Not to mention coming to a new team, new coaches, new systems, new opponents, new conference, more travel and being injured for at least part of his paltry sample size of 30 games, while saddled to a sophomore slumping partner and a mediocre team missing it's two best D for a large chunk of those paltry 30 games...all at the geriatric age of 24.

 

Yeah, no room for improvement there.

 

INB4 the: 'But poorly done, editorialized and biased analtyiczzz!!! '

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Green Building said:

 

Well that's the tricky thing with NHL contracts these days, especially defenceman. I'd be pissed if we moved Gudbranson before we see who he really is on the ice. I know it's been mentioned, but Christ, he's 24. Sometimes it doesn't matter that you've been playing in the NHL since age 18, and hell, maybe he shouldn't have been, but how mature you are as a player. Look how happy people were with Hutton last season and now he's a trade chip. It's fine, but players have up and down years and judging Gudbranson on this season, one that he'd been injured for a decent part of, is unfair. 

 

Sign him. If he $&!#s the bed, oh well. If he doesn't, then we have a solid Willie Mitchell type defenceman who we haven't had since... Willie Mitchell.

 

It's worth the risk.

 

Perhaps if you spent more energy reading/learning and less spouting nonsense, this would be less of a surprise.

[darkpoet]

2 minutes ago, J.R. said:

 

 

 

Perhaps if you spent more energy reading/learning and less spouting nonsense, this would be less of a surprise.

"a decent part of ?" (implying "significant")

GreenBuilding was alluding to his injury mid December. He's played 30 of 40 games this year. 

He mentions in his own words "it's been lingering" whatever "it" is. Very well just his wrist, but I find it odd that hes been "sitting around doing nothing" for 3 weeks and is just now getting back on a stationary bike. Because of one bad wrist. I'd think the trainers/doctors would have you maintaining some level of fitness if at all possible. 

So maybe take your own advice when you tell other people to spend more time comprehending things

[Warhippy]

1 hour ago, darkpoet said:

You're making my point for me

All of those guys PROVED they were worth it or were otherwise trending way up. they were rewarded for that. 

Sometimes, you see guys who are almost paid retroactively (as in Burrows) and others who management see as "sure things" (as in possibly Horvat) and will pay them based on a surety of their calculations and assumptions

If Benning sees Guddy as one of these guys then power to him, and lets hope he's not wrong because every mistake in that regard at this stage means the rebuild takes even longer. I get there's always risk involved but come on guys.... $5+M?   REALLY?


 

I feel stupid for having read your comments 

 

Do a quick check around the league.  Look how many teams have basically an entire defensive core under contract for less than $5 million almost to a player 

 

Then get back to us.  If you cannot figure out how or why this is relevant do not respond.  Do not think about it.

 

Just see yourself out of this thread because it's kind of important to know these things.

[kloubek]

Personally, given his stats, I would not be comfortable with Benning handing out a long term, high number contract.  But I believe given what he rejected in Florida, that's exactly what he is looking for.

 

I had mentioned as soon as we acquired Gudbranson that I was worried about what his demands would be.  My only hope is Benning convinces him that he hasn't played to his full potential yet, and to get him to agree to a bridge of 2 years at 4 million per.  If he pans out like he seems to believe he will himself, then he will clearly be due for a huge pay raise after that point.

[Jam126]

Gud is a crease-clearing D-man that can skate well and brings a lot of intangibles that other players on our team do not have. He hasn't been performing up to expectations but he had to play top-pairing minutes with Hutton who currently is in a sophomore slump, and recently maybe his wrist had an effect. On the plus side in terms of contracts, his performance has not been what people expected so I guess management can use this season for him as a short-term deal for about 2-3 years with about the same amount he's currently getting paid for.

[darkpoet]

30 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

I feel stupid for having read your comments 

 

Do a quick check around the league.  Look how many teams have basically an entire defensive core under contract for less than $5 million almost to a player 

 

Then get back to us.  If you cannot figure out how or why this is relevant do not respond.  Do not think about it.

 

Just see yourself out of this thread because it's kind of important to know these things.

I like how you seem to think you're speaking for everyone here when in fact there are likely as many people here or more who agree with what I'm saying. A few vocal miscreants do not a consensus make, lol

Your opinion carries no more or less weight than mine, or anyone else's here. If you don't like or agree with what I have to say fine. You can choose to leave as well

[darkpoet]

6 minutes ago, Jam126 said:

Gud is a crease-clearing D-man that can skate well and brings a lot of intangibles that other players on our team do not have. He hasn't been performing up to expectations but he had to play top-pairing minutes with Hutton who currently is in a sophomore slump, and recently maybe his wrist had an effect. On the plus side in terms of contracts, his performance has not been what people expected so I guess management can use this season for him as a short-term deal for about 2-3 years with about the same amount he's currently getting paid for.

I'm hoping common sense prevails and this is exactly what happens.

With the talk of possibly re-signing Miller (and Burrows?) there may not be this huge cap relief people are looking forward to. Even if they do re sign at less $.

We're not in a position to be throwing huge amounts of $ towards players who haven't proven they're worth it - yet. 

[Gaudette Celly]

Don't think we can go short-term as I believe he's only a year from UFA status.  Lock him up with term, then costs are fixed.  He's not going to have a lot of leverage the way his season's gone, but at 24 he still has plenty of upside.

[darkpoet]

13 minutes ago, Hutton Wink said:

Don't think we can go short-term as I believe he's only a year from UFA status.  Lock him up with term, then costs are fixed.  He's not going to have a lot of leverage the way his season's gone, but at 24 he still has plenty of upside.

At what cost?

Nothing is certain, and less so when you have a kid who hasn't shown top pairing potential in his first 6 years.

We paid a 30 year old Eriksson as a "sure thing" to light a fire under the Sedins and that blew up in their face. He may find his way eventually, and is looking a bit better recently, but it very much looks like the Sedin experiment is over. 

I'm not opposed to keeping him but please for the love of all things Holy, don't give him a blank check,

[Warhippy]

27 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

I like how you seem to think you're speaking for everyone here when in fact there are likely as many people here or more who agree with what I'm saying. A few vocal miscreants do not a consensus make, lol

Your opinion carries no more or less weight than mine, or anyone else's here. If you don't like or agree with what I have to say fine. You can choose to leave as well

Yet you didn't look did you.  Like at all

 

Instead you somehow made an attempt to drag everyone else in here with you in some sad attempt to engender those slim few who agree with you to your ridiculous and sad point of view.

 

Again, go look around the league.  Tell me which if any of the other 29 teams have an ENTIRE cast of D men from #1 to #8 under or around the $5 million mark

 

Go, look hurry.  Maybe your buddies will be waiting here for you, since you seem to need the attention

[Warhippy]

3 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

At what cost?

Nothing is certain, and less so when you have a kid who hasn't shown top pairing potential in his first 6 years.

We paid a 30 year old Eriksson as a "sure thing" to light a fire under the Sedins and that blew up in their face. He may find his way eventually, and is looking a bit better recently, but it very much looks like the Sedin experiment is over. 

I'm not opposed to keeping him but please for the love of all things Holy, don't give him a blank check,

See this is why people are questioning your intelligence.

 

He makes $3.5 NOW

 

Even via arbitration he might get comparable.  On the open market or via a resgining he'll make roughly $4.5 million to $5 million

 

A whopping $1 million to $1.5 million increase.

 

What is YOUR definition of blank check, hurry go check and give me an answer before the sky you so fear falls down on you

[darkpoet]

5 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

See this is why people are questioning your intelligence.

 

He makes $3.5 NOW

 

Even via arbitration he might get comparable.  On the open market or via a resgining he'll make roughly $4.5 million to $5 million

 

A whopping $1 million to $1.5 million increase.

 

What is YOUR definition of blank check, hurry go check and give me an answer before the sky you so fear falls down on you

The only people "questioning my intelligence" are you and a couple of your buddies.

Like I said, hardly a consensus. 

I don't give a rip what he might make anywhere else. I'm saying making a guy the highest paid Dman on your team for no other reason than "he'd make it somewhere else" is a stupid reason to give him that much money.

There are other players on our defence who are - currently - better players. Now if you believe for some reason, he's going to surpass them and suddenly start contributing something resembling offence or otherwise driving offensive play - or turn into a defensive stalwart akin to Tanev, sure go right ahead. Pay him $5M. 
Be sure though.

I'm not. I just don't see it.
My opinion. It's a fart in the wind, just like yours. lol

 

[Gaudette Celly]

18 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

At what cost?

Nothing is certain, and less so when you have a kid who hasn't shown top pairing potential in his first 6 years.
 

 

Has anyone indicated that he should be paid as such, let alone his play on the ice?  Benning has not called him top-pairing either, but a top-4 defenceman.

 

4 minutes ago, darkpoet said:

I don't give a rip what he might make anywhere else. I'm saying making a guy the highest paid Dman on your team for no other reason than "he'd make it somewhere else" is a stupid reason to give him that much money.
 

 

How about the realities of the market?  How exactly do you think negotiations take place?  Think about it from the player and agent's point of view -- how do they establish value?  It's about finding comparables.

[stawns]

1 hour ago, darkpoet said:

I'm hoping common sense prevails and this is exactly what happens.

With the talk of possibly re-signing Miller (and Burrows?) there may not be this huge cap relief people are looking forward to. Even if they do re sign at less $.

We're not in a position to be throwing huge amounts of $ towards players who haven't proven they're worth it - yet. 

I suspect that common sense will prevail, as it usually does.  However, one thing is certain, he's going to get one of the money or the term he is asking for.  That's where he is at in his career and JB, rightfully, isn't going to risk losing him.