Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson


Bo53Horvat

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

 

I could not care less about Kris Russell's future with the Coil or what he does at 34 years old   Let him decline.  I'll leave the fortune-telling to you though.

 

Gudranson is 25 - your point appears irrelevent.

The point alluded to signing a contract we might end up regretting later. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Of course, I can count on you to pull the spin move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, guntrix said:

The point alluded to signing a contract we might end up regretting later. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Of course, I can count on you to pull the spin move.

I've seen your protests about what we might end up regretting in the future.

 

My favorite was probably how much we were going to regret the Granlund deal.

What was the score again?   Bennng 5, guntrix 0....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, guntrix said:

The point alluded to signing a contract we might end up regretting later. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Of course, I can count on you to pull the spin move.

The way I read your original post about signing a Russel type of deal would include the fact that near the end of the deal, Russel would've been 34 and declined.  If you put the same contract on Guddy which takes away the risky part, turning it into a fairly good deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hutton will be gone before Guddy. 

 

If Guddy gets a 5mil offer come July 1st. He would be dumb not to take it.

 

If he likes our system and sees the picture here....

 

4.4 max for 4 5 Id go. 

 

Gives us a big deterant and allows him time to grow into his full form. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

I've seen your protests about what we might end up regretting in the future.

 

I think this might even be the same thread?

My favorite was probably how much we were going to regret the Granlund deal.

What was the score again?   Bennng 5, guntrix 0....

 

 

 

Classic oldnews. Switch it up abruptly when everything else fails.

 

Virtanen, Prust, Forsling, there's so much you're omitting. Not that it matters, it's your traditional get-out phrase.

 

Oh, and try reading up on your draft-expansion rules. Would hate for that lapse in knowledge to happen again. 

 

6 minutes ago, blackpluto96 said:

The way I read your original post about signing a Russel type of deal would include the fact that near the end of the deal, Russel would've been 34 and declined.  If you put the same contract on Guddy which takes away the risky part, turning it into a fairly good deal.

It was a more simplistic point that I had already mentioned in this thread. I'm sure he knew what I meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, shiznak said:

Thanks for proving my original point.

 

This is what you should expect as a return for Gudbranson.

To be fair, Roman Polak was 3rd in the NHL in hits that year, 1 hit behind 2nd place. He's also a little better offensively than Gudbranson, finishing the season with 16 points and a + 6. 

If that's a plug, then what does that make Gudbranson? That sounds like a valuable player to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

To be fair, Roman Polak was 3rd in the NHL in hits that year, 1 hit behind 2nd place. He's also a little better offensively than Gudbranson, finishing the season with 16 points and a + 6. 

If that's a plug, then what does that make Gudbranson? That sounds like a valuable player to me. 

yeah, a great rental that was for San Jose.

 

55.4% offensive zone starts, 2nd highest on San Jose

44.4% corsi = 12th of 19

 

0 points in 24 games

-5

 

San Jose's worst player in the playoffs.

 

2 x 2nds well spent

 

 

Erik Gudbranson in his first playoffs:

 

28.7% offensive zone starts = the lowest on the Panthers (40% was 2nd lowest).

49.5% corsi - that's better than Polak's was, on a Stanley Cup finalist, with 55.4% ozone starts, while Gudbranson played a shutdown role and lead his team with 26:54 per game in ice-time - all hard minutes.

.951 on ice sv%.

 

It's fairly clear why Luongo - and Willie Mitchell - publicly hated that trade.

 

The playoffs are why teams add rentals, but who'd choose Gudbranson there?

Polak - not a fan - but not as bad a deal as I thought when St Louis dealt him to Toronto.  Gunnarsson was solid as a Leaf, and made Phaneuf better, but not the player In StL that he was in Toronto,  Polak remained serviceable - but if he sounds like a valuable player / rental, worth a pair of 2nds, then what does that make Gudbranson?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, oldnews said:

yeah, a great rental that was for San Jose.

 

55.4% offensive zone starts, 2nd highest on San Jose

44.4% corsi = 12th of 19

 

0 points in 24 games

-5

 

San Jose's worst player in the playoffs.

 

2 x 2nds well spent!

 

 

Hmmm.

Erik Gudbranson in his first playoffs:

 

28.7% offensive zone starts = the lowest on the Panthers (40% was 2nd lowest).

49.5% corsi - hmmm. that's better than Polak's was, on a Stanley Cup finalist, with 55.4% ozone starts.

26:54 per game in ice-time - lead the team - all hard minutes.

.951 on ice sv%. - interesting.

 

I guess it's really clear there why Luongo - and Willie Mitchell publicly hated that trade.

 

Polak was a solid #4-5 defenseman the year he was traded to SJ. I would kill to have a top 3 hitter in our lineup. Gudbranson will never be near the top of the league in any stat, ever. As far as the corsi goes, he was a #4-5 defenseman. He had his stregths and he obviously had his weaknesses too. But that doesn't mean he wasn't valuable. SJ wouldn't have traded 2 2nd round picks for a so called plug. Sure, the trade didn't work out the way they would have liked but that doesn't take away from the fact that Polak quietly put together a pretty strong season. 

 

Also, will you ever come to realize that part of the reason Gudbranson has so few offensive starts is because he's one of the worst offensive players in the league. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

Straight up - have you ever seen Douglas Murray play?

Larsson was one of the most under-rated players in the NHL.  Feel free to go necro that thread if you want to discuss what his value or impact to a team is - cite some Travis Yost 'analytics' if it serves you.   I elaborated on it at length there and am not going to repost it all in this thread.

I'm not a highlight reel fan that believes all it takes to win in the NHL is to assemble a 'core' of shiny forwards.

Yes, have you? 

 

They play a similar style. Plays top 4 minutes, hits, block shots, fights, but plays with limited skillsets.

 

What's keeping Gudbranson still in the league is that he has a good enough footwork to keeping up with the speed of the game. If not that, I would question whether or not he'd be a serviceable NHL defensemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Yes, have you? 

 

They play a similar style. Plays top 4 minutes, hits, block shots, fights, but plays with limited skillsets.

 

What's keeping Gudbranson still in the league is that he has a good enough footwork to keeping up with the speed of the game. If not that, I would question whether or not he'd be a serviceable NHL defensemen.

That's where I can't really agree with you - that Gubbranson has such a limited skillset.

Where I do agree is that he can skate - which is what limited Murray, he just wasn't mobile enough in the end - whereas Gudbranson moves far better than a lot of people seem to realize.  When you're that big, physical - and can skate...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, VIC_CITY said:

Polak was a solid #4-5 defenseman the year he was traded to SJ. I would kill to have a top 3 hitter in our lineup. Gudbranson will never be near the top of the league in any stat, ever. As far as the corsi goes, he was a #4-5 defenseman. He had his stregths and he obviously had his weaknesses too. But that doesn't mean he wasn't valuable. SJ wouldn't have traded 2 2nd round picks for a so called plug. Sure, the trade didn't work out the way they would have liked but that doesn't take away from the fact that Polak quietly put together a pretty strong season. 

 

Also, will you ever come to realize that part of the reason Gudbranson has so few offensive starts is because he's one of the worst offensive players in the league. 

That doesn't make sense though - it's  like arguing that Sutter plays a shutdown role because he has no offensive talent - which is not necessarily true, nor does it define the player.    Their strength is the ability to shutdown.opponents.

Tanev has the lowest ozone starts among defensemen this year, Sutter second lowest among forwards - do we judge a player like Tanev's defensive zone starts as if he's only there because he's a poor offensive player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, oldnews said:

That's where I can't really agree with you - that Gubbranson has such a limited skillset.

Where I do agree is that he can skate - which is what limited Murray, he just wasn't mobile enough in the end - whereas Gudbranson moves far better than a lot of people seem to realize.  When you're that big, physical - and can skate...

I like to know what other skillsets that he possess?

 

His outlets are probably second worst on the team behind Hutton's (surprisingly), and his offensive awareness is brutal. His ability to move the puck up is non-existent, as well. 

 

Look, I'm not saying he isn't valuable on this team. He brings that physical presence that we sorely lack on the backend, but I just don't see him as irreplaceable as some of you do. 

 

People are are basing his value, on ONE stellar playoff series he had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shiznak said:

I like to know what other skillsets that he possess?

 

His outlets are probably second worst on the team behind Hutton's (surprisingly), and his offensive awareness is brutal. His ability to move the puck up is non-existent, as well. 

You mean other than being able to transition to defense, retrieve pucks, because he's such a good skater, separate people from the puck, prevent people from driving the net or making them pay if they do, handling powerforwards in front of his net, hit and wear on opposition forwards, intimidate and/or answer when liberties are taken against his team-mates, limit those grade A area chances and generally contribute to the success of his goaltenders (as would appear to be the indication from one of the best this franchise ever had - Luongo)?

Aside from being a shutdown, hard minutes force - he's actually got a pretty heavy shot, he simply isn't really the primary offensive presence on a pairing, he's complementing his partner to take those opportunities, if not an exclusively shutdown role.  There's room to improve in his puck moving at times (actually that's true of the entire blueline, with perhaps the exception of Tanev) and its' often situational where Gudbranson is not necessarily looking to transition as much as he is ending possession and clearing the zone - it's not necessarily his role to rush up ice - after playing shutdown in his zone.... When it comes to a player like him, his offensive production can't be expected in this context, particularly when the team isn't very healthy and/or transitioning - when they're healthier and deeper you'll see them tilt possession better in their favour and that's when a guy like him might have some opportunity to contribute.  His possession numbers are higher than his ozone starts - his on ice sv% is .951, he's a plus player five on five in a role that is to prevent, not generate scoring....Not sure which of these outcomes indicates a lack of skillset.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

12 hours ago, Hutton Wink said:

 

Fallacious and hyperbole, I simply asked for sources -- not discussions or speculation, but actual factual sources.  Strawmanning me won't help your argument when you don't provide substance for it.
 

Yeah sorry, but that's not how debates and argumentation work.  The one making the claim has the burden of proof and that is why you are being asked for it, and until you provide substance your assertions will remain speculative conjecture.

 

In short -- I am not saying Gudbranson will not be traded.  The issue is, there has been zero substance for anyone to say he will or is likely to be traded.  And until at least ONE source of substance is brought forth, it will remain nothing but speculation on a guy with an expiring contract who is a pending UFA.
 

You sound like some kid who took a first year class and is throwing words around to make himself sound smart.

In your effort to try to make a clever argument, you have gradually worked yourself into just morphing and inventing arguments on your own that you can shoot down to make yourself feel better.

 

Please go re-read my post that you have a huge problem with, it has zero bearing on anything you are arguing at this point.

 

I stated that he is likely to get traded.  I did not make a claim that I had proof or some inside knowledge that he was going to be traded, you keep indicating that I did.  I stated my belief after reading, listening and piecing together bits of information from multiple sources, a few of which I have since outlined.  Your position from every single one of your responses to my post seems to be that on a discussion forum such as this, people may only post their positions if they can not only cite sources, but sources that you personally find acceptable and of "substance".

 

Please copy the appropriate portion of the rules and guidelines supporting your position on this.  I have missed it.  

 

You do not believe that you need to hold yourself to the same standard as you have made many claims in your responses without an attempt or shred of citation or source material.  You have probably made a dozen declarative statements such Gudbranson being an offensive, transition D and how competitive rosters are and aren't built.  You have provided no back up for a single one of them.  You simply don't get to logically make an argument that every position stated on the forum requires ironclad sources except when they are the ones you happen to be positing.
 

I attempted to give you the credit of taking your seriously and included several links plus additional information about how I arrived at my position.

 

The bulk of the hockey writers and broadcasters in this market have come to the belief that the team is likely moving on from Gudbranson.  They have gone so far as to say that talking with folks around the team, they have gotten that sense.  Writers in other markets think he is likely to get traded by including him on their top trade bait lists.  The argument that it is just because he is a UFA don't hold water because there are many UFA's of substance and they don't show up on the lists.  It is a combination of him being a UFA, where the team is, how his performance has been with the team, How much of our cap do we want to commit to him, and what level of interest there would be from other teams.  It all adds up to their combined belief that he is likely to be on the trade market.  Please cite sources or present any actual evidence that you have any qualification, credibility, inside knowledge, or experience that you have which supports your hubris about confidently dismissing them all as windbags who are not of "substance" (I did note that in the face of fact, you quietly changed your argument from there not being ANY sources... to a modified one where they must be of "substance" to your satisfaction).

 

The Benning quote stated how the game has changed and how D have changed in his opinion.  That opinion matters since he is the one making the decisions.  Gudbranson can in no way be considered an offensive, transition defenceman like you stated he is.  There is just no way you can spin it that way.  The stats don't show it, and the eye test doesn't show it.  The Ferraro clip was additional support of that.  He isn't a stats guy, and gives his opinion based on many years of being involved in hockey.  He thinks of Gudbranson as the opposite of a transition guy... and that the next place the puck ends up when it goes off his stick is onto an opponent's.  Benning has repeatedly referred to Gudbranson as a physical stay at home defenceman (though the physicality hasn't yet come through regularly)... the exact kind he thinks are less important now.

 

Your ramblings about Benning only trading Gudbranson if he is a bumbling idiot don't make any sense at all.  Circumstances change all the time, players don't work out, other players supplant them, the game evolves, contract negotiations don't go well.  GM's trade away guys they signed and drafted countless times every season, none of them are bumbling idiots and every one of them has infinitely more hockey knowledge than you do.  It can be pretty fairly argued that Benning may not have even traded for Gudbranson at all if he knew Stecher and Tryamkin would surprise out of the next camp as legitimate NHL defencemen.  That May we had one legitimate NHL capable right side D signed, so it was a pressing need to fill.  He signed Philip Larsen too that offseason to quarterback our PP on the right side... by your logic he should still be here because it would make no sense for Benning to have changed his mind between then and now.  To suggest that he would just stubbornly refuse to change his mind and wouldn't look at the entire body of work, where the team is at, what return he could get, and how the game is being played... just because he traded for the guy a couple summers ago?  That is honestly silly.

 

I also said that Gudbranson was going to get overpaid if he becomes a UFA.  UFA's get overpaid almost all of the time, that shouldn't be a contentious fact.  They get overpaid because it only takes one of 31 GMs to decide they need that particular element in their lineup.  It is a reasonable position to take, especially when considering the cap is now projected to go up by a healthy margin next season and many teams will have cash to play with (which hasn't been the case the last couple of years which have been of unusual austerity). He is one of the few notable UFA defenceman under 30. 


So, I put out my position.  I backed it up with multiple sources and how I arrived at my belief.  I did not say he would definitely be traded, there are many things that can happen which would result in him staying with the team.  Most of them just aren't likely.  On the balance of probabilities, it all adds up to him more likely moving than not.

 

You have made a claim that my belief is wrong.  You have provided no support for that except random word salads of your personal musings.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You mean other than being able to transition to defense, retrieve pucks, because he's such a good skater, separate people from the puck, prevent people from driving the net or making them pay if they do, handling powerforwards in front of his net, hit and wear on opposition forwards, intimidate and/or answer when liberties are taken against his team-mates, limit those grade A area chances and generally contribute to the success of his goaltenders (as would appear to be the indication from one of the best this franchise ever had - Luongo)?

Aside from being a shutdown, hard minutes force - he's actually got a pretty heavy shot, he simply isn't really the primary offensive presence on a pairing, he's complementing his partner to take those opportunities, if not an exclusively shutdown role.  There's room to improve in his puck moving at times (actually that's true of the entire blueline, with perhaps the exception of Tanev) and its' often situational where Gudbranson is not necessarily looking to transition as much as he is ending possession and clearing the zone - it's not necessarily his role to rush up ice - after playing shutdown in his zone.... When it comes to a player like him, his offensive production can't be expected in this context, particularly when the team isn't very healthy and/or transitioning - when they're healthier and deeper you'll see them tilt possession better in their favour and that's when a guy like him might have some opportunity to contribute.  His possession numbers are higher than his ozone starts - his on ice sv% is .951, he's a plus player five on five in a role that is to prevent, not generate scoring....Not sure which of these outcomes indicates a lack of skillset.

Sounds like you just describe Douglas Murray, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DeNiro said:

What that selling Gudbranson now would be selling low?

 

We're not getting a prospect and a 2nd round pick for him now after the last two seasons he's had, I can tell you that.

 

Don't see how the two relate.

 

9 hours ago, DeNiro said:

Anyone who thinks the market for Gudbranson is 5 million doesn't know the market.

 

Look at the D-men comparables that have signed over the last couple years and you'll see Guddy can command no more than 3-4 million. My guess is he gets a slight raise to put him at around 3.8-4 million.

I agree with what you just said. Guddy hasn’t been able to do anything to up his value from when we traded for him (injuries are the big part of that). So a trade today would likely be less than what we gave up (but it will come down to a buyers/sellers market). 

 

There comes a point at which guddys $ demands benefit the team less than the value we could get back in a trade. If he sits at 6x6 and won’t budge. Do we just offer him it because we need a physical presence. Or do we move him take some assets (rather than locking in to a contract we might regret) and look else where to fill that need.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

 

I agree with what you just said. Guddy hasn’t been able to do anything to up his value from when we traded for him (injuries are the big part of that). So a trade today would likely be less than what we gave up (but it will come down to a buyers/sellers market). 

 

There comes a point at which guddys $ demands benefit the team less than the value we could get back in a trade. If he sits at 6x6 and won’t budge. Do we just offer him it because we need a physical presence. Or do we move him take some assets (rather than locking in to a contract we might regret) and look else where to fill that need.   

I agree that at some point the market might put a bigger value on Gudbranson than makes sense for the Canucks to keep him. I do not discount his physicality as it has been a huge deficit for the Canuck org and had a lot to do with losing the 2011 CUP. That said I do not think Benning needs to overpay for it either. On a shorter term (4 years) I am more willing to up the $ payout. No NTC so that he could be moved. As mentioned I suspect the UFA market pays him $'s and term. I am resigned to Gudbranson being traded. It is a strong Draft and Benning has a plan. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

I agree that at some point the market might put a bigger value on Gudbranson than makes sense for the Canucks to keep him. I do not discount his physicality as it has been a huge deficit for the Canuck org and had a lot to do with losing the 2011 CUP. That said I do not think Benning needs to overpay for it either. On a shorter term (4 years) I am more willing to up the $ payout. No NTC so that he could be moved. As mentioned I suspect the UFA market pays him $'s and term. I am resigned to Gudbranson being traded. It is a strong Draft and Benning has a plan. 

Yeah. I guess what I’m trying to discuss is what point do people think overpaying becomes less beneficial than a trade return?  

 

For example. If I had to chose between guddy at $5 over 6 years or a 2nd round pick + decent prospect. I’m probably going the trade route. 

 

In my mind I think I have a rough ball park idea of what guddys trade value would be. A 2nd and a decent prospect. Some people may think that’s low others may think that’s high. But if that’s where my trade value is. Using that hen I can determine where I think the contract term and $$ becomes less benefitial to the team in the long term. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Yeah. I guess what I’m trying to discuss is what point do people think overpaying becomes less beneficial than a trade return?  

 

For example. If I had to chose between guddy at $5 over 6 years or a 2nd round pick + decent prospect. I’m probably going the trade route. 

For sure it is a balance between keeping Gudbranson at some price weighed against what might come back. I think your idea of a 2nd + Prospect is in the ballpark. Strong Draft and I am sure Benning has his list. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oldnews said:

...because he's such a good skater...

 

7 hours ago, shiznak said:

Sounds like you just describe Douglas Murray, honestly.

While you are being honest you should add that you have never seen Douglas Murray play. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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