(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson

[Me_]

1 minute ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

Just reading over the comments from Botch's tweet. Write in vote for # 44 takes it in a landslide win lol.

 

But ask oldnews, coryberg and agent and they'll tell you Guddy should be in there over all of them. Quite the little fan club they've got going on. Guddy would be so proud!

 

 

I too agree that they should all be in there. Give the ice time to that which works, and keep seven Ds. It'll save wear and tear. It is also not a matter of if but when a D goes down. It's the Canucks.

[VIC_CITY]

6 minutes ago, Me_ said:

I too agree that they should all be in there. Give the ice time to that which works, and keep seven Ds. It'll save wear and tear. It is also not a matter of if but when a D goes down. It's the Canucks.

True but you've got to think Juolevi will be ready to step in next year and you can't have him make the club as the 7th defenseman. I think it's just a matter of time before Gudbranson is traded personally. 

[TheRocket18]

Bidding war at trade deadline?

[oldnews]

18 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

Just reading over the comments from Botch's tweet. Write in vote for # 44 takes it in a landslide win lol.

 

But ask oldnews, coryberg and agent and they'll tell you Guddy should be in there over all of them. Quite the little fan club they've got going on. Guddy would be so proud!

 

 

What are you babbling about?

Why am I not surprised that you're a Botchford fan club guy?

 

Some Botchford followers think Gudbranson should sit?  Well, that solves that.  What better place to find hockey genius than in the comments at the bottom of a B-otch tweet?  Have fun there.

 

 

[Gaudette Celly]

25 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

But ask oldnews, coryberg and agent and they'll tell you Guddy should be in there over all of them. Quite the little fan club they've got going on. Guddy would be so proud!

Big surprise, coming from Botchford acolytes that listen to him whinge on Gudbranson on a daily basis, and believe that he actually has any credibility let alone hockey knowledge.

[The Lock]

7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

So you don't think that if Guddy walks for nothing that it would be a failure?  Thought that was just common sense in which everyone would agree on. I guess not though.

Why would I think that if Guddy walks he'd be a failure? When you make a trade you are acquiring a player for a period of time, whether it be 1 year or 2 years or the rest of their career. If Guddy walks then it wasn't meant to be, but definately not a failure.

 

People seem to want our GM to trade the Hamhuis' before they walk, but that's not always going to happen. Should Tampa Bay have been scolded for not resigning Brad Richards? Should every team just keep all of their players and get scolded for letting a player go and not trading them away first?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the trade happened and made sense at the time. I liked the trade and I still will have liked the trade if Guddy walked. It's about what happened at the time of the trade and whether it made sense for us or not at that time, WITHOUT hindsight. That being said, even taking into consideration Guddy's performance (I feel he has a solid presense on the ice for the most part), if Guddy walked, I still can't see it being a failure. Then again, I don't even see Tryamkin as a failure.

 

Going back to your business talk, if an employee leaves for another job, do you see the boss in dire straits? Do you see the investors scolding the boss and calling him a "failure" for losing an employee or do you see the boss merely hiring a new employee while the world keeps turning? If we were worried about being failures, we might as well just not make any transactions, always pick the next best pick on the drafting ranks, never give our prospects a chance for fear of them losing confidence, etc. This is why the use of the term "failure" really is a horrible word in my opinion and completely takes any argument out of context.

 

Basically, failure's a strong word that is often used to over-exaggerate a scenario. Maybe unfortunate would be a better word?

[ForsbergTheGreat]

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

Why would I think that if Guddy walks he'd be a failure? When you make a trade you are acquiring a player for a period of time, whether it be 1 year or 2 years or the rest of their career. If Guddy walks then it wasn't meant to be, but definately not a failure.

 

Can anything be considered a failure in your mind? The reason it would be a failure because it’s the job of the gm to improve the team. Right now he has options. He can either resign him or he can trade him. Both solutions allow us to retain an asset. Letting a player walk after giving up a lot for them would be a step back. 

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

People seem to want our GM to trade the Hamhuis' before they walk, but that's not always going to happen. Should Tampa Bay have been scolded for not resigning Brad Richards? Should every team just keep all of their players and get scolded for letting a player go and not trading them away first?

 

Hammer had a ntc which prevented us from doing it. We sure did try to though. There is context to letting players walk for nothing. Trade restrictions, player value, market, and team short term aspirations all come into play. We have the perfect scenerio that allows us to make a move if needed.  

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

As far as I'm concerned, the trade happened and made sense at the time. I liked the trade and I still will have liked the trade if Guddy walked. It's about what happened at the time of the trade and whether it made sense for us or not at that time, WITHOUT hindsight.

 

The gm needs to be preemptive. He should have a pretty good idea already on what it will take for a guddy signing to happen. Him not being resigned or moved would just be poor management.

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

 

That being said, even taking into consideration Guddy's performance (I feel he has a solid presense on the ice for the most part), if Guddy walked, I still can't see it being a failure. Then again, I don't even see Tryamkin as a failure.

 

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

Going back to your business talk, if an employee leaves for another job, do you see the boss in dire straits? Do you see the investors scolding the boss and calling him a "failure" for losing an employee or do you see the boss merely hiring a new employee while the world keeps turning?

 

I don’t know what companies can trade their employees?  Stakeholders scold the boss if there investments don’t turn out. Too many bad investments and the find someone else too invest with. 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

If we were worried about being failures, we might as well just not make any transactions, always pick the next best pick on the drafting ranks, never give our prospects a chance for fear of them losing confidence, etc. This is why the use of the term "failure" really is a horrible word in my opinion and completely takes any argument out of context.

 

No it’s about managing risks. Again should milbury not be scolded for dipietro. What about his luongo trade? Or signing yashin?  I mean why why do we ever see gms fired. Aren’t they simply taking risks to make there team better?  Tell me why do you think Gillis was fired?

 

 

4 hours ago, The Lock said:

Basically, failure's a strong word that is often used to over-exaggerate a scenario. Maybe unfortunate would be a better word?

I think failure is a perfect world. Im ok calling moves like drafting boeser and pettersson, goldi and Dahlen trades successes. Then calling moves that don’t turn out should be fair game to be labeled failures. 

[Rob_Zepp]

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

Just reading over the comments from Botch's tweet. Write in vote for # 44 takes it in a landslide win lol.

 

But ask oldnews, coryberg and agent and they'll tell you Guddy should be in there over all of them. Quite the little fan club they've got going on. Guddy would be so proud!

 

 

Oh look, CDC's answer to questions that a poster cannot refute with facts

 

A twitter post and twitter based comments.

 

Good stuff

[PhillipBlunt]

12 hours ago, aGENT said:

Pretty sure i get it just fine. You have a pathological obsession, you feel the need to share, of low level 'failures' some of us have either moved on from/understand the context of. All while ignoring the forest for all the trees. 

 

What a bunch of of deluded, hypocritical hooey. 

 

Have fun with the tail chasing, not really interested in joining you.  Here's a pic of Zooey Deschanel. She's real purrty imo.

 

[PhillipBlunt]

12 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

You need serious help, what part of what I said was hypocritical hooey, you're the one that stated GM's take risk and we should accept that sometimes it will fail, i added some context to it.  Funny how it's acceptable to talk about other teams low level failures yet not a word can be said about our own team.  It always comes to that with blind supporters, as soon as someone has an opposing view, it's an immediate trigger..  Sad really, you're loosing out on a decent hockey discussion, maybe there needs to be a support safe place thread for you.. A place where nothing negative about Canucks gets said and only people with opinions that line up with the team....

How does one loose out on a hockey discussion?

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

How does one loose out on a hockey discussion?

Never mind that he put the caveat of 'decent' in there giving him and his ilk far too much credit 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

44 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

How does one loose out on a hockey discussion?

By simply only wanting to talk about canucks positives and how great the everything is, you put blinders on from having any real discussion.  

 

I just simply brought up the topic of how this guddy situation “could” become a fail and yet that was too much negative for JR to handle to have an adult discussion on. Apparently “potential” failure discussion can’t exist on this board. 

[PhillipBlunt]

2 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

By simply only wanting to talk about canucks positives and how great the everything is, you put blinders on from having any real discussion.  

 

I just simply brought up the topic of how this guddy situation “could” become a fail and yet that was too much negative for JR to handle to have an adult discussion on. Apparently “potential” failure discussion can’t exist on this board. 

I was being a grammar Nazi.

 

Anyschways. I'm a proponent of re-signing Gudbranson, if he's willing obviously. If Erik is not interested, Benning will most likely trade him to make sure he gets something in return for the blueliner.

 

I highly doubt that Benning would let Gudbranson play out his contract and willfully let him walk at the end of the season. Seeing as how there are no clauses in his contract, this seems like a much more cut and dry situation than what transpired with Hamhuis and Vrbata. From what I heard, Benning's hands were tied due to the fact that both players had NTCs, which gave them control over being traded, and where they could be traded to.

 

If Benning didn't deal Gudbranson after finding out that he wasn't interested in re-signing, that would be a bad idea. Failure, if I'm being a pretentious wordy freak, would indicate an attempt at something which didn't yield the desired results. I can't see Benning doing that.

 

Hopefully this conversation is moot come January 1st.

[aGENT]

11 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

By simply only wanting to talk about canucks positives and how great the everything is, you put blinders on from having any real discussion.  

 

I just simply brought up the topic of how this guddy situation “could” become a fail and yet that was too much negative for JR to handle to have an adult discussion on. Apparently “potential” failure discussion can’t exist on this board. 

Wrong again Forsy

[ForsbergTheGreat]

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

I was being a grammar Nazi.

 

Anyschways. I'm a proponent of re-signing Gudbranson, if he's willing obviously. If Erik is not interested, Benning will most likely trade him to make sure he gets something in return for the blueliner.

 

I am aswell, at a reasonable rate. If he’s not interested in our value or simply staying in Vancouver then we should be moving him out and getting an asset in return. Yep I’d like a young d return. Or atleast a good pick. 

 

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

I highly doubt that Benning would let Gudbranson play out his contract and willfully let him walk at the end of the season. Seeing as how there are no clauses in his contract, this seems like a much more cut and dry situation than what transpired with Hamhuis and Vrbata. From what I heard, Benning's hands were tied due to the fact that both players had NTCs, which gave them control over being traded, and where they could be traded to.

 

I agree I don’t it happens but if it does I will be extremely disappointed and consider it a fail which I think would be a fair criticism. 

 

 

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

If Benning didn't deal Gudbranson after finding out that he wasn't interested in re-signing, that would be a bad idea. Failure, if I'm being a pretentious wordy freak, would indicate an attempt at something which didn't yield the desired results. I can't see Benning doing that.

 

No person plans on failure. But lack of effort or try could also be a failure. 

 

Just now, PhillipBlunt said:

Hopefully this conversation is moot come January 1st.

I agree. But it’s still something the we can have a conversation about. We just did and it wasn’t so bad now was it. 

[ohmy]

11 hours ago, VIC_CITY said:

 

Just reading over the comments from Botch's tweet. Write in vote for # 44 takes it in a landslide win lol.

 

But ask oldnews, coryberg and agent and they'll tell you Guddy should be in there over all of them. Quite the little fan club they've got going on. Guddy would be so proud!

 

 

Oh man come on! I actually thought you had some decent takes but then you go and use a Botch tweet to back up your argument. He self admittedly does that to get a rise and reaction out of people. You fell for it hook, line, and sinker. That's embarrassing. I no longer have to defend Gudbranson knowing you follow the word of Botch. l will move on to a real discussion. 

[PhillipBlunt]

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I am aswell, at a reasonable rate. If he’s not interested in our value or simply staying in Vancouver then we should be moving him out and getting an asset in return. Yep I’d like a young d return. Or atleast a good pick. 

It will be telling to see where Gudbranson sees his value versus what the market will dictate.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I agree I don’t it happens but if it does I will be extremely disappointed and consider it a fail which I think would be a fair criticism. 

I can't see Benning let that happen, not at this point in his tenure as GM.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No person plans on failure. But lack of effort or try could also be a failure. 

I think Benning is pretty astute when it comes to his job these days. He's probably already had talks with Linden about Gudbranson. I think the effort will be there and a fair offer will be presented.

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

I agree. But it’s still something the we can have a conversation about.

Why else would we be on these boards?

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

We just did and it wasn’t so bad now was it. 

I had no expectation that it would be.

[Nucker 67]

Botchford wrote about what happens when Guddy comes back, in today's paper. Who should sit. His opinion on Hutton is this:

 

"Some will say Ben Hutton, but he's 24 years old. Sure, he hasn't scored yet but generally he's had a positive impact when he's been in the lineup..."

 

Wow, that was brilliant Botch. What does being 24 have to do with it? 

 

 

[JM_]

14 hours ago, aGENT said:

Pretty sure i get it just fine. You have a pathological obsession, you feel the need to share, of low level 'failures' some of us have either moved on from/understand the context of. All while ignoring the forest for all the trees. 

 

What a bunch of of deluded, hypocritical hooey. 

 

Have fun with the tail chasing, not really interested in joining you.  Here's a pic of Zooey Deschanel. She's real purrty imo.

 

I have a secret crush on Zooey. What were you saying?