Looking back at the Gudbranson trade

[riffraff]

Just now, oldnews said:

https://www.thescore.com/news/1033368

Right.  I was confused by lslamorada...

[Beary Sweet]

I'm liking the deal. McCann had a underwhelming year here after the good training camp and produced just 18 points. Good for a rookie but we needed to give him up for a need and Guddy perfectly fits that. He's a defensive beast, plays physical, big, physical crease battler player. One of the best deals Benning has made. 

[ReggieBush]

5 hours ago, guntrix said:

We completely mishandled McCann and he still notched 9 goals and 9 assists with limited ice time. He's now buried in a bottom six role in Florida. 

 

I know stats don't fly here when they don't flatter our players but Guddy underwhelms in most categories. His deficiencies were covered with his defensively sound line mate in Mitchell though. Unfortunately for Hutton, he was paired up with a defender who's only strong attribute is clearing the crease.

 

Didn't like the trade then and don't like it now. If it means an overvalued contract extension, I'd prefer for us to cut our losses and not sign him.

I don't know. When Guddy is playing well, he is incredibly valuable. He seems like a player that elevates his game in the big games. I like that

[messier's_elbow]

5 hours ago, riffraff said:

Imo it's too early to right the guy off.

 

he was coveted by his coach and team mates.  He's young and he fills a need that the Canucks have had for years.

 

im pretty confident he will be re signed in a sensible deal based on his need to prove.

He's gonna want 5 million a year. Willing to pay that? 

[jovocop55]

canucks need Gudbranson.. hes their only big guys on the team... this team is too small

[flickyoursedin]

i was sad when the trade happened because with our 2nd rounder believe it or not I wanted the Canucks to take Jonathan Dahlen. Funny how things work out.

[cuporbust]

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

I remember when Travis Yost referred to Adam Larsson as a guy that 'doesn't even move the needle' LOL.

Hmmm.  Wonder what the Oilers would have to say about that 'analysis' after the impact he had on that team last year?

I was actually just about to post this. Lol. Ur posts have been absolutely bang on IMO. Really nothing to add to them. I loved this trade then , and I still love the trade now. 

[Baggins]

5 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

He's gonna want 5 million a year. Willing to pay that? 

How about we see how he plays next season first.

[Burnt Gravy]

I don't like Gudbranson for this team. He just isn't really a fit. However, if we compare the assets we exchanged today, the deal is actually in our favour. I would imagine Gudbranson has more value today then McCann and a 2nd. It's hard to really value the 2nd we lost because we have no idea who Jim would have drafted but the raw value of what we sent the other way is less than the value of the return. I don't think Gudbranson is a fit on our team but we increased the overall value of our team as it stands now so even the biggest critics of Gudbranson like myself can't argue the raw, black and white bottom line. As of today we have the upper hand. Today. 

[alfstonker]

6 hours ago, Beary Sweet said:

I'm liking the deal. McCann had a underwhelming year here after the good training camp and produced just 18 points. Good for a rookie but we needed to give him up for a need and Guddy perfectly fits that. He's a defensive beast, plays physical, big, physical crease battler player. One of the best deals Benning has made. 

Well on that basis we should have kept McCann and traded them Virtanen who only produced 13 points. Actually I preferred McCann, I thought he showed more fight and determination.

Unlike Oldnews, I think standing 6'-1" and 198lbs will not handicap him as he plays a fiery game and the extra weight will help him compete at centre, his best position imo.

 

I have no real opinion on Gudy other than I like how he stands up for his team mates. I don't think there was a big enough sample size to judge how much he will contribute to the team with his game when being completely fit.

 

I just wished we had given up someone other than McCann.

 

 

[D-Money]

7 hours ago, guntrix said:

Yeah, that's what I get for taking your word for it. Next time, I'm gonna have to cross-check every stat you pull out to avoid risking more inaccurate posts. 

 

Again, your 29.33% offensive zone starts and 50% corsi is a lame attempt at generalizing his performance throughout the whole series. As previously pointed out, his performance drastically decreases the more he's relied on. Both his 30 minute games, for example, were disastrous. 

 

Context. You fail at it.

 

So what do you suggest we use? The eye test? He's failed at that too.

 

But hey, he clears the crease and he sticks up for his teammates. I also hear he tells the funniest jokes.

Although I would not put myself in the camp of those who are happy with the results of the Gudbranson trade, this statement is exhibit A of how analytics are often misused.

 

Games 5 and 6 were both double overtime games that the Islanders won 2-1. Everybody played more minutes. Gudbranson was deployed in a shutdown role, and the opposing team needed more than 120 minutes of hockey to get their 2nd goal in each game. How can that be labelled as a failure? (The only argument of substance is whether giving those minutes to someone with more offensive ability might have led to Florida not needing even more time to get a 2nd goal themselves.)

 

As has been pointed out with more in-depth analysis, whether it's deployment or personal, Gudbranson's game has been built around suppressing shot quality, not shots in general. If a big, agile defensive D-man is giving you nothing up the middle of the ice, and blocking your passing lanes, all you have left is a weak, low-percentage perimeter shot. In fact, most D-men will gladly let you have that shot all day. You taking that shot is a success for them, as there is a good chance you're just giving up possession with it. And yet, simple analytics measures the shot the same as a quality one in the slot, and asserts that the shot is a failure of the defense.

[guntrix]

28 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Although I would not put myself in the camp of those who are happy with the results of the Gudbranson trade, this statement is exhibit A of how analytics are often misused.

 

Games 5 and 6 were both double overtime games that the Islanders won 2-1. Everybody played more minutes. Gudbranson was deployed in a shutdown role, and the opposing team needed more than 120 minutes of hockey to get their 2nd goal in each game. How can that be labelled as a failure? (The only argument of substance is whether giving those minutes to someone with more offensive ability might have led to Florida not needing even more time to get a 2nd goal themselves.)

 

As has been pointed out with more in-depth analysis, whether it's deployment or personal, Gudbranson's game has been built around suppressing shot quality, not shots in general. If a big, agile defensive D-man is giving you nothing up the middle of the ice, and blocking your passing lanes, all you have left is a weak, low-percentage perimeter shot. In fact, most D-men will gladly let you have that shot all day. You taking that shot is a success for them, as there is a good chance you're just giving up possession with it. And yet, simple analytics measures the shot the same as a quality one in the slot, and asserts that the shot is a failure of the defense.

While this is a good point, it also serves to note that Luongo stood on his head that game (6). He not only stopped 49 of 51 shots, he also had a few point blank saves. 

 

Shot quality was mixed for sure. Naturally, there were perimeter shots. However, there were also quite a few high-risk shots that Lungo had to bail his team out on. 

[CeeBee51]

13 minutes ago, guntrix said:

While this is a good point, it also serves to note that Luongo stood on his head that game (6). He not only stopped 49 of 51 shots, he also had a few point blank saves. 

 

Shot quality was mixed for sure. Naturally, there were perimeter shots. However, there were also quite a few high-risk shots that Lungo had to bail his team out on. 

You've got to know when to hold 'em Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away And know when to run

[riffraff]

7 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

He's gonna want 5 million a year. Willing to pay that? 

He may want 5 but I see 3.75-4.25 for 2 years happening.

[Boudrias]

1 minute ago, riffraff said:

He may want 5 but I see 3.75-4.25 for 2 years happening.

If he has a great season then Benning will pay him what the market suggests. I doubt you get top 4 d-men for less than $5 mil. What is more important IMO is the term. 

[riffraff]

1 minute ago, Boudrias said:

If he has a great season then Benning will pay him what the market suggests. I doubt you get top 4 d-men for less than $5 mil. What is more important IMO is the term. 

Of course.  Based on the if.  I should have clarified that is what I see value at based on what he's done to date.  

 

 

Edit

 

if he has a great season and earns the dough I'll be thrilled.

 

[Burnt Gravy]

38 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Of course.  Based on the if.  I should have clarified that is what I see value at based on what he's done to date.  

 

 

Edit

 

if he has a great season and earns the dough I'll be thrilled.

 

Even if he has a great Gudbranson style season, he still doesn't fit the most fundamental need to our teams success. Offence from the backend. That is why I don't see him as a fit on this team. If you look at our power play struggles, the Sedin/LE struggles, it all points to the back. I don't think the Sedins most productive years happened coincidentally with concurrent production of the back end. They need a creative piece on the back to feed their cycle. Anything that doesn't contribute to that is detrimental. We have defensive defenders in our system and on our team. He is a complementary piece to a PMD that we don't have. Cash him in and use those chips towards something that might help us in that area down the road. 

[riffraff]

16 minutes ago, Burnt Gravy said:

Even if he has a great Gudbranson style season, he still doesn't fit the most fundamental need to our teams success. Offence from the backend. That is why I don't see him as a fit on this team. If you look at our power play struggles, the Sedin/LE struggles, it all points to the back. I don't think the Sedins most productive years happened coincidentally with concurrent production of the back end. They need a creative piece on the back to feed their cycle. Anything that doesn't contribute to that is detrimental. We have defensive defenders in our system and on our team. He is a complementary piece to a PMD that we don't have. Cash him in and use those chips towards something that might help us in that area down the road. 

Please list who you think is a defensive dman and who is an offensive dman.

[Burnt Gravy]

12 minutes ago, riffraff said:

Please list who you think is a defensive dman and who is an offensive dman.

Every guy we have is either a defensive dman or something in between that can't shoot the puck. That's basically how I'd summarize every dman in our organization. 

[The_Rocket]

I think it's worth noting how McCann doesn't fit well in the organization. 

 

Obviously, centre depth is a good thing, but so is defensive depth. Why hold on to a top 6 centre man you currently don't have a top 6 spot for, and who may not develop into what you need, when you can flip him for an nhl ready, 24 year-old defencemen. Yeah losing the 2nd overall hurts but gudranson certainly fits this organization better than McCann. Unless you really think a horvat-Mccann 1-2 punch is what this org needs to be succesful (hint: it's not)

 

good for benning to trade McCann when is value was highest and it was clear he had no place on the future team