[Rumour] Dale Tallon (Florida) still interested in Gudbranson {from The Province Provies}

[D-Money]

12 hours ago, messier's_elbow said:

1040 is a complete wankstain of a station now. Sekeres and his minions  were talking about trading Gudbranson for a 3rd rounder. 

Halford & Brough are the best of Vancouver sports radio, by a landslide.

 

But can do without the rest of them, especially Sekerass.

[coryberg]

20 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Its up to Guddy though. I suspect he'll get a very good offer from Ottawa at free agency so we may not have any choice in it. 

Ottawa is going to have to shed cap for karlsson, duchene and stone by the end of next season. They wont be opening the vault for the UFA market this summer.

[Tower102]

15 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

seems like a goofy rule to me, why not sign extensions at any time? 

Similar type of logic that you can't sign an extension till you have one year left on a multiple year deal. Not sure exactly why it is, but it makes sense that you can't sign an extension directly after signing the original. 

[Rush17]

23 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

Size, strength, hits hard, clears the net, clears the zone, moves well, plays solid, willing and can mix it up with anyone, has leadership skills, and if a couple of the 3-4 posts/crossbars he's hit so far this year had gone in I suspect there'd be less criticism.  He's a rare commodity, one that is hard to get.

 

6 x $4.5mil

or

8 x $4.0mil

 

That takes him through his prime, to 31/33.  We need him, so lock him up.

If he's in the 4 to 4.5 range. Maybe i can stomach that.  But if he asks anything north of 4.5 he needs to be moved. I'd rather see him at 4 mill personally.

[Rush17]

21 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said:

The second you trade a 6'5" young, mobile, tough, "good in the room" Dman who saw his former team's defensive play cratered after he left ..... you are frantically trying to figure out how to find one for your team.

 

Players like Guddy are not easy to find.   Take it from a Panthers fan, you don't know what you have with this guy fully until you don't have him anymore.  

Trade Him :D Do It Do It Now!!! Get To The CHoppeRRR!!!!!!!

[DrJockitch]

20 hours ago, shiznak said:

With a player like Gudbranson (a shutdown specialist), you have to be caution of giving him a long term deal with a big payday. We've seen in the past that these kind of contracts are buyout candidate, cap strapped or not. 

 

I'd be competent in give Gudbranson 5M, if Benning is willing to move Tanev for scoring help at the TDL. 

 

IMO, anything over 4.5M (long term), would be an overpayment.

That is just batsh!t crazy.  Moving Tanev, one of the best shutdown D in the league to keep Gudbranson for a shut down role.  He is tough but he is not a shutdown specialist.  Don't confuse low scoring with shutdown specialist.  There is nothing that backs him up as a shutdown guy, not stats, not the eye test, not the trust of the coach.

Fans love their tough guys, getting in fights and delivering big hits after the play has moved up the ice is what he dose.  People see the hits and are willing to ignore that the puck battle was lost and the puck is still in the zone.  A tough guy who can play decent minutes has value but not 5M, not even 4M.

I am not a hater here, I actually like him, but think people are just overvaluing him because he is big and throws hits and are ignoring how often he is behind the play or just plain out skated.  He is a terrible puck mover and doesn't even really try, he uses his D partner to get the puck out.  In today's NHL mobility and puck moving are much more valuable and tying up 5 mil in this guy is just way to much.  With an appropriate partner that is a solid puck mover he is a serviceable bottom pairing guy that can do spot duty moving up.

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

That is just batsh!t crazy.  Moving Tanev, one of the best shutdown D in the league to keep Gudbranson for a shut down role.  He is tough but he is not a shutdown specialist.  Don't confuse low scoring with shutdown specialist.  There is nothing that backs him up as a shutdown guy, not stats, not the eye test, not the trust of the coach.

Fans love their tough guys, getting in fights and delivering big hits after the play has moved up the ice is what he dose.  People see the hits and are willing to ignore that the puck battle was lost and the puck is still in the zone.  A tough guy who can play decent minutes has value but not 5M, not even 4M.

I am not a hater here, I actually like him, but think people are just overvaluing him because he is big and throws hits and are ignoring how often he is behind the play or just plain out skated.  He is a terrible puck mover and doesn't even really try, he uses his D partner to get the puck out.  In today's NHL mobility and puck moving are much more valuable and tying up 5 mil in this guy is just way to much.  With an appropriate partner that is a solid puck mover he is a serviceable bottom pairing guy that can do spot duty moving up.

We like him for all the reasons you suggest, plus he’s GOOD LOOKING!  

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, Tower102 said:

Similar type of logic that you can't sign an extension till you have one year left on a multiple year deal. Not sure exactly why it is, but it makes sense that you can't sign an extension directly after signing the original. 

I think it may be some kind cap circumvention prevention? Otherwise you could sign a 1 year deal for big money and then immediately sign a 2nd deal (extension) for far less money to avoid the higher cap hit in the 2nd year. I suppose this can still be done but teams/players would be less to likely to swing handshake deals like this when the term of the handshake is stretched out over 6 months vs a few days/weeks.

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

That is just batsh!t crazy.  Moving Tanev, one of the best shutdown D in the league to keep Gudbranson for a shut down role.  He is tough but he is not a shutdown specialist.  Don't confuse low scoring with shutdown specialist.  There is nothing that backs him up as a shutdown guy, not stats, not the eye test, not the trust of the coach.

Fans love their tough guys, getting in fights and delivering big hits after the play has moved up the ice is what he dose.  People see the hits and are willing to ignore that the puck battle was lost and the puck is still in the zone.  A tough guy who can play decent minutes has value but not 5M, not even 4M.

I am not a hater here, I actually like him, but think people are just overvaluing him because he is big and throws hits and are ignoring how often he is behind the play or just plain out skated.  He is a terrible puck mover and doesn't even really try, he uses his D partner to get the puck out.  In today's NHL mobility and puck moving are much more valuable and tying up 5 mil in this guy is just way to much.  With an appropriate partner that is a solid puck mover he is a serviceable bottom pairing guy that can do spot duty moving up.

Well said. I believe he was on the ice for 3 of Anaheim's PP goals last night and looked especially brutal on the 3-1 goal. Also, the part about him being a terrible puck mover is true. People seem to think he's a mobile skater but that's like saying Pedan is a mobile just because he won the fastest skater competition. Sure, Gudbranson can skate fairly fast for a big man but it just doesn't translate into game situations for him. You aren't going to see Gudbranson skating the puck up the ice or skating the puck out of trouble like you do with Tanev, Hutton and Stetcher. Yes, he's a leader. Yes, he can fight/hit when he wants to and there's something to be said about having his presence in the lineup. But he also has some pretty big weaknesses and there's no way that the positives outweigh the negatives to the tune of $5M annually.

[messier's_elbow]

19 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

At no point did Sekeres suggest trading Gudbranson for a 3rd round pick. 

One of his minions did...

[TheHitman]

Would be cool if we got a first round pick or Borgstrom back for him.

[VIC_CITY]

1 hour ago, messier's_elbow said:

One of his minions did...

Sekeres doesn't have any minions. He had 2 co-hosts. One being Blake Price, who he shares the show with, the other being Lawrence Gilman, who is a guest co-host once a week.

 

I heard the segment, they said Vanek would likely be in the 3rd round pick ball park but the market for a soon to be UFA dman like Gudbranson is far less predictable. They said usually there's a pick attached and whether or not that pick is a 2nd rounder or whatever it is, depends on the market that year and whether or not a bidding war ensues. At no point did anyone suggest his value was a 3rd round pick or that we should trade him for a 3rd round pick. 

 

I know 1040 is pretty unpopular on these boards but there's gotta be a better way for you to get a few +'s than that.

[Provost]

If he isn’t planning on re-signing it is possible a 3rd round pick is what a rental commands.

At best you are looking at a late 2nd rounder from a team leading in the standings.

If we get a couple of third round picks for Vanek and Gudbranson at the deadline (assuming we are on the outside of the playoffs looking in)... that is pretty decent.

[NewbieCanuckFan]

10 hours ago, coryberg said:

Ottawa is going to have to shed cap for karlsson, duchene and stone by the end of next season. They wont be opening the vault for the UFA market this summer.

Open up the Canadian Tire money vault?

 

Be thankfull we have an owner willing to spend the big bucks.

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, Provost said:

If he isn’t planning on re-signing it is possible a 3rd round pick is what a rental commands.

At best you are looking at a late 2nd rounder from a team leading in the standings.

If we get a couple of third round picks for Vanek and Gudbranson at the deadline (assuming we are on the outside of the playoffs looking in)... that is pretty decent.

In a world where renting roman polak cost two 2nd round picks?

 

You are grossly underestimating his value.

[messier's_elbow]

7 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Sekeres doesn't have any minions. He had 2 co-hosts. One being Blake Price, who he shares the show with, the other being Lawrence Gilman, who is a guest co-host once a week.

 

I heard the segment, they said Vanek would likely be in the 3rd round pick ball park but the market for a soon to be UFA dman like Gudbranson is far less predictable. They said usually there's a pick attached and whether or not that pick is a 2nd rounder or whatever it is, depends on the market that year and whether or not a bidding war ensues. At no point did anyone suggest his value was a 3rd round pick or that we should trade him for a 3rd round pick. 

 

I know 1040 is pretty unpopular on these boards but there's gotta be a better way for you to get a few +'s than that.

Actually buddy it was a Gilman segment where this was brought up. I'm not making things up for pluses, but thanks for coming out. 

[kanucks25]

13 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

Well said. I believe he was on the ice for 3 of Anaheim's PP goals last night and looked especially brutal on the 3-1 goal. Also, the part about him being a terrible puck mover is true. People seem to think he's a mobile skater but that's like saying Pedan is a mobile just because he won the fastest skater competition. Sure, Gudbranson can skate fairly fast for a big man but it just doesn't translate into game situations for him. You aren't going to see Gudbranson skating the puck up the ice or skating the puck out of trouble like you do with Tanev, Hutton and Stetcher. Yes, he's a leader. Yes, he can fight/hit when he wants to and there's something to be said about having his presence in the lineup. But he also has some pretty big weaknesses and there's no way that the positives outweigh the negatives to the tune of $5M annually.

Spot on. Intangibles, toughness, character, etc. are important but not it's simply not a good idea to pay a premium for it if "good hockey" isn't included in the package. Good players with character? You can almost write them a blank cheque because there are very few of them out there and they are extremely valuable. However players like Gudbranson are common, it's not hard to find guys that can fight and tread water in a depth role.

 

The impasse between the two sides is borne from the age/potential argument. Those pro-Gudbranson groups still considers him "young and developing" even though he's soon to turn 26 and has been pretty much the same player for his entire NHLer career (he's a veteran now, not a prospect, get over the draft position because it means absolutely nothing right now). I personally find the notion of a 26 year-old that has over 350 NHL games under his belt who clearly is limited when it comes to the natural ability side of the game can improve enough to warrant a 4.5 or 5M long-term asinine, but people here really seem to like their meat and potatoes, so what're you gonna do... There were also people who defended the Eriksson signing even though it could not have been any clearer that is an absolutely atrocious mistake from day 1, I see the same thing happening here.

 

 

[BabychStache]

What about a Gudbranson for Kane deal? Both expiring, both unlikely to sign with current teams. 

[Brobidus]

6 minutes ago, BabychStache said:

What about a Gudbranson for Kane deal? Both expiring, both unlikely to sign with current teams. 

If there was no other way to gain assets then yes. 
If we wanted Kane though, there's a good chance we can resign him in FA. Buffalo has a bit of a cap problem I've heard and may not be able to resign him, so Guddy might not be a good target for them either. 

The title of the thread is that Dale Tallon may still want him back. I'd prefer Petrovic or even a 2nd/3rd rounder for him to Kane. 

[DrJockitch]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Spot on. Intangibles, toughness, character, etc. are important but not it's simply not a good idea to pay a premium for it if "good hockey" isn't included in the package. Good players with character? You can almost write them a blank cheque because there are very few of them out there and they are extremely valuable. However players like Gudbranson are common, it's not hard to find guys that can fight and tread water in a depth role.

 

The impasse between the two sides is borne from the age/potential argument. Those pro-Gudbranson groups still considers him "young and developing" even though he's soon to turn 26 and has been pretty much the same player for his entire NHLer career (he's a veteran now, not a prospect, get over the draft position because it means absolutely nothing right now). I personally find the notion of a 26 year-old that has over 350 NHL games under his belt who clearly is limited when it comes to the natural ability side of the game can improve enough to warrant a 4.5 or 5M long-term asinine, but people here really seem to like their meat and potatoes, so what're you gonna do... There were also people who defended the Eriksson signing even though it could not have been any clearer that is an absolutely atrocious mistake from day 1, I see the same thing happening here.

 

 

The Eriksson deal is another great reason to not sign this guy to big money.  You can handle one bad contract but having large amounts of cap tied up in this guy and Eriksson (a 5-6 D and a depth forward) will be really problematic if we start seeing some of our young guys blossom.  When Brock needs an extension after next year and we have 10-11 million tied up in these two it is going to get very challenging especially if some of the other guys work out.