Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum-specific Rules
Forum Closure

(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson

Bo53Horvat

By Bo53Horvat
in Trades, Rumours, Signings

Recommended Posts

ohmy Abbotsford Star

ohmy

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

You do realize that guys like Hutton and MDZ were given those extra minutes when Tanev, Edler and Stetcher were injured, right? Not Gudbranson.

 

Right, and if Derek Dorsett wasn't missing all this time from sitting in the penalty box and getting injured, he'd be a 30-40 goal scorer. Am I doing this right?

 

You mean the game that he single-handedly lost for us because of undisciplined play? Sorry, forgot to manipulate the stats there. I'll do better next time.

 

I really don't care how he was deployed in Florida. He's played 51 games as a Canuck and he's not trending upwards, which isn't exactly what you want to see out of a soon to be UFA. Stetcher was our best defenseman last year but he's playing just under 16 minutes this year. Is he a 2nd pairing defenseman too? Is everyone a 2nd pairing defenseman?
 

Sutter passes the eye test, is our best faceoff man, our best PKer and averages about 30 points a year. I don't see the comparison.

 

MDZ is capable of playing 25 minutes a night. Does that make him a 1st pairing defenseman? There are 4 defensemen on our roster that are averaging 3.5 to 4.5 minutes a game more than Gudbranson. Some of those minutes are spent on the PP. Just for arguments sake, let's take a few minutes away from those guys. Now everyone's about even. Are you saying Gudbranson plays harder minutes than the rest of them?

I can't take you seriously when you have the most over rated fighter as your image.  Then you bring up Dorsett like he's a plug on a day like today? And yes you did because your comparing him to Guddy who YOU believe is a plug. That's offsides! Go home your wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIC_CITY Canucks Third-Line

VIC_CITY

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, ohmy said:

There's been various reports in print and reported by analysts on tv. Your a hockey guy and I'm sure you have done research so you must have seen some. I usually research before commenting. I'm also not looking for an exceptional return. If he wants to leave or wants more than 4.5 a season then that's his choice. But he is valued and your getting more than 2nd round pick for him. No disappointment there if he's not invested in our team. I think this is just an apples or oranges discussion based on how we want the team to look. I believe we are a team that's getting younger and need some meat and potatoes as well the leadership he brings. To me he's Adam Mcquaid +

There hasn't been any actual rumours other than Florida being interested. The rest was pure speculation.

 

I agree that we'll probably get more than a 2nd round pick for him but you have to remember that we gave up a very early 2nd round pick (33rd overall I believe) and a prospect that was recently drafted in the 1st round. Don't expect a return like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

You do realize that guys like Hutton and MDZ were given those extra minutes when Tanev, Edler and Stetcher were injured, right? Not Gudbranson.

 

Right, and if Derek Dorsett wasn't missing all this time from sitting in the penalty box and getting injured, he'd be a 30-40 goal scorer. Am I doing this right?

 

You mean the game that he single-handedly lost for us because of undisciplined play? Sorry, forgot to manipulate the stats there. I'll do better next time.

 

I really don't care how he was deployed in Florida. He's played 51 games as a Canuck and he's not trending upwards, which isn't exactly what you want to see out of a soon to be UFA. Stetcher was our best defenseman last year but he's playing just under 16 minutes this year. Is he a 2nd pairing defenseman too? Is everyone a 2nd pairing defenseman?
 

Sutter passes the eye test, is our best faceoff man, our best PKer and averages about 30 points a year. I don't see the comparison.

 

MDZ is capable of playing 25 minutes a night. Does that make him a 1st pairing defenseman? There are 4 defensemen on our roster that are averaging 3.5 to 4.5 minutes a game more than Gudbranson. Some of those minutes are spent on the PP. Just for arguments sake, let's take a few minutes away from those guys. Now everyone's about even. Are you saying Gudbranson plays harder minutes than the rest of them?

-As did Guddy the majority of those games.

 

-Nope. Did I claim Guddy would win the Norris if he had more TOI or something? Your statement , frankly doesn't even make sense. If Guddy wasn't in the box/injured/ejected, he'd have more ATOI. This isn't complicated. If guys like Hutton or MDZ fought/been injured, they'd have less. Math.

 

-Don't really care what your thoughts are on the hit in the BOS game. Point was that it obviously affects his ATOI negatively. Don't try to straw man it in to something else.

 

-Yup 51 games, 30 of which he was injured for. This thread isn't about Stecher.

 

-Guddy passes the eye test,. Plays high Dzone starts, PK's, high QOC etc while bringing physicality and deterrent all while putting up the team's 2nd highest PDO on the D. You might want to get your eyes checked.

 

-PK Subban played 4th most minutes on D last year. Does that make him a #4D? Gudbranson plays some of the harder minutes, yes. Hence the higher Dzone starts, PK TOI etc. Again, might want to see that optometrist. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIC_CITY Canucks Third-Line

VIC_CITY

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, ohmy said:

I can't take you seriously when you have the most over rated fighter as your image.  Then you bring up Dorsett like he's a plug on a day like today? And yes you did because your comparing him to Guddy who YOU believe is a plug. That's offsides! Go home your wrong.

lol don't be mad that Conor KO'd your boy in 13 seconds.

 

I didn't say or imply anything about Derek Dorsett, other than you don't get to manipulate the numbers. They are what they are.

 

I never said Gudbranson is a plug. I think he's a 3rd pairing defenseman that struggles in a lot of areas of his game but is where he is because of his physicality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VIC_CITY Canucks Third-Line

VIC_CITY

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, coryberg said:

56.8% defensive zone starts confirm that (Stetch is at 37.6%). Surely you overlooked this by mistake :picard:

What does Stetcher have to do with this? I was comparing to Gudbranson to Tanev, Edler, MDZ and Hutton. Any other irrelevant points that you'd like to make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

What does Stetcher have to do with this? I was comparing to Gudbranson to Tanev, Edler, MDZ and Hutton. Any other irrelevant points that you'd like to make?

Tanev & Gudbranson = 1 and 2 on Dzone starts for Dmen at 57.5% and 56.8% so far this season.

 

https://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/VAN/2018.html

 

Only other D above 50% is Hutton (51.5%).

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

And you have to ask yourself...Is Guddy starting more in the defensive zone because he's a stud defensively or because he's absolutely atrocious offensively? Hmmmm...<_<

Are you serious...?

 

How about you ask his past few NHL coaches who have all used him in that role because he excels at it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldnews Canucks Hall-of-Famer

oldnews

Posted
Posted
53 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

And you have to ask yourself...Is Guddy starting more in the defensive zone because he's a stud defensively or because he's absolutely atrocious offensively? Hmmmm...<_<

LOL.  thanks for the laugh - your player evaluations might be off, but your sense of humour....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
aGENT Canucks Hall-of-Famer

aGENT

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, oldnews said:

LOL.  thanks for the laugh - your player evaluations might be off, but your sense of humour....

 

2 hours ago, aGENT said:

It's baffling to me how so many people can be so blatantly obtuse about usage, zone starts, QOC etc affecting things like corsi.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
guntrix Canucks Regular

guntrix

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Do you invest a lot of time thinking about players who didn't quite pan out in the first round?

You still didn't address the hype, which is no surprise. Try answering.

Okay, you're going to have to explain why draft hype is so important to a player seven years removed from his draft year. If this isn't reaching, idk what is.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

And these "redrafts" happen how often?

See previous answer.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Again, you deflect instead of answering. Rumours are talking points all the time. In fact, check out the title of the thread...

A talking point isn't a valid point. Only in a CDC utopia are draft hype and rumours fair game when making points. 

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Ah....I see. The blame game. Gillis f'ed up. He had Torres, Kesler, Bieksa, Burrows, Hamhuis, and more. Plenty of these players were physical, yet they lacked the sheer size to match on Chara, Lucic, Boychuk, and McQuaid.

So give Gud 4.5 because he has size? I think I chose the wrong profession.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Sometimes size matters.

Who?

mmm idk. Maybe Gallant will sign for a league minimum. Wouldn't take much to get Boll from the Ducks. Or maybe McLeod from Nash. If what you want i physicality and enforcing, those guys can do that too.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

 

63607140351821235291962319_SASSS.jpg

 

*Cringe* and you complain about dad humour.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Erik Gudbranson is a great, physical, stay at home defenseman. His leadership, size, and physicality are extremely effective in both clearing the crease of opposing forwards, and making extremely effective first passes.

If you tried reaching more you'd break your arm.

 

6 hours ago, PhillipBlunt said:

The mighty Canucks? Are you constantly in an embittered state of loathing? I guess your deep-seated issues go far beyond just your blind Gudbranson hate.

Now that is some solid sleuthing, Holmes.

Any team that has the reputation for not pushing back after being manhandled will attract unwanted attention. It's not Canuck-centric at all. Merely smart gamesmanship, but sure, turn it into another opportunity to throw a jab at the team. Maybe slap some Fenwick charts in there too.

You call it loathing, I call it realism. People need to get over the fact that we're not the 2011 Canucks anymore. Superior teams don't need to massively prepare for a rebuilding bubble team. As much as it hurts one's pride, it is what it is. 

 

And you're misinterpreting my dialogue towards Gud. I've said before that I"m more than willing to sign him for a contract reflective of what he actually brings as an enforcer. You sign him for 4.5 and it becomes another Kris Russell contract. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
guntrix Canucks Regular

guntrix

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, aGENT said:

Given that we basically have three 2nd pairs, yeah, he is. 3rd pair D don't play 18+ minutes. 

His only saving grace is that Green likes to rotate his defensive pairs, as he does his offensive lines. 

 

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

You seem to be a fan of winning the cup (duh). Gallant played him the most minutes of any of their D in the playoffs (which Gudbranson' s game is made for BTW). Does that make him a #1D? Nope. But it does pretty clearly indicate he's no 5/6.

Did they win the cup? They finished first in the Atlantic only to lose in 6 games in the first round. Clearly, something went wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...