(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, Rush17 said:

i wish there was more juice leaking from this squeezed fruit. appears pretty dry.   i can see us re-signing him then flipping him in a season or 2.  he hasn't had a stellar year by any means.  his cap hit may be a tad higher then we like but i think we would do alright signing and keeping for a year or 2 before flipping.

Would you keep him if it meant sitting him?

Would you keep him if it meant sitting Hutton?

Would you keep him if it meant sitting Stetcher?

 

One of those things will need to happen as soon as Tanev is back. 

[Junkyard Dog]

If he asks for too much then a package of Vanek+Gudbranson would be pretty enticing to contending teams.

 

I think we could get a good amount for both.

[Rush17]

1 hour ago, VIC_CITY said:

Would you keep him if it meant sitting him?

Would you keep him if it meant sitting Hutton?

Would you keep him if it meant sitting Stetcher?

 

One of those things will need to happen as soon as Tanev is back. 

hutton can sit some. not stecher tho.

[Provost]

7 hours ago, oldnews said:

We could replace those 25 pts for an Andrej Pedan and a 4th.....and put those points where they are more difficult to produce and are more needed - on our blueline - in the form of Pouliot, who's on pace for 26....

 

In any event, I don't think this team is anywhere near as in need of a skilled forward / McCann - (Pettersson, Horvat, Baertschi, Granlund, Boeser, Virtanen, Goldobin, Dahlen, Lind, Gaudette, Gadjovich, Lockwood...) as they are a big, physical, solid, mobile RHD...(? who other than Gud fits that description?)

I am guessing your sarcasm meter doesn’t work as well as normal folks.

 

You May have missed that so had quoted making fun of people saying that the assets we gave up for Gudbranson are irreplaceable and we can’t move him because he cost so much.

 

 

[VIC_CITY]

2 hours ago, Rush17 said:

hutton can sit some. not stecher tho.

2 assists and a big hit on Brown. Hutton doesn't wanna sit!

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, Rush17 said:

hutton can sit some. not stecher tho.

Yeah, Hutton was brutal tonight despite the nice hit and touch up to Granlund on the Dowd goal.  I like him, but he's bloody frustrating to watch - so many mental errors / vacant on way too many occassions and it comes down as it usually does with him to his decision making, where he should know better.  He just doesn't have the mental poise/confidence presently.   You don't mind any other kinds of mistakes, but tonight was a M-A Gragnani impression you hope to never see again.

That slashing penalty he took was due to a brain cramp - chasing as if he were a forward and leaving a gaping vacancy in front of his net.

Again on the Clifford goal - a wtf moment where he's chasing above the faceoff circle - two forwards already in the area - hanging Markstrom out to dry.

The only thing more frustrating tonight than Hutton was the pathetic effort by Gagner (with the floating 'backcheck') on the Kings first entirely preventable goal.   Difficult game to lose when the team as a whole plays so well but a few really weak efforts wind up with the puck in the back of the net.

And of course, the goal with 7 men guys on the ice - and none of them remotely close to their bench or even intending to get off the ice.   Loved the apologism from the panel afterwards as if that's a legit goalol.

I really don't like the Hutton Gudbranson pairing - it didn't work last year and doesn't appear to be working this year.  Gudbranson logs hard minutes and Hutton just isn't up to the task.  Not sure what they can do in the short-term when Pouliot, Stecher and Hutton are all in the lineup - tonight may have been a good night to dress Biega as Gudbranson's partner and let those two assert themselves. 

I think Ben is otb tbh, otherwise I don't see him holding off Biega for that 6th spot and certainly don't see him in the lineup wihen Tanev returns.

 

[oldnews]

20 hours ago, SingleThorn said:

The original rumour about a Gudbranson trade was 'Demers for Gudbranson'. Is there a reputable source for this ? I can understand that we would know that Demers turned down "a" trade, but why would he or anyone know it was for Gudbranson ? Doesn't smell right. An annoying TV judge said 'if it doesn't make sense, it's probably a lie'. I think that the details of this non-trade have been spread by Pratt on am1040 and those auctioneers on speed from am650.

Yeah  - the only substance to it was a refusal of Demers to waive his ntc.  All that indicates is that Tallon was looking to dump him and/or that he was intending to talk to Benning.  In the end Florida dumped Demers for McGinn, which gives you a pretty clear indication of the market for Demers.  Tallon approaching Demers to see if he'd go to Vancouver could be the extent of it, or there is the possibility that Benning kicked tires on taking on Demers - in the context of preparing to lose Sbisa to the ED.  The rest is assumption and nonsense imo - what I'd take from it is that Benning entertained the option of taking a Demers cap dump from a team that was needing to move a couple contracts (and dumped Reilly Smith in addition).  I would have to agree with Benning for sniffing around where a lowball will suffice, but not for a moment do I buy that Gudbranson was dangled for Demers - Florida would have had to pony up far more than a cap dump - that's a narrative that only makes sense to Canucksmarmy/Yost types that have no idea of the value of players like Gudbranson, Sutter.  What I take from that is that it may have been an earlier option to what eventually became the MDZ signing.

[oldnews]

5 hours ago, Provost said:

I am guessing your sarcasm meter doesn’t work as well as normal folks.

 

No, actually I got the sarcasm and was agreeing with you, but you misread it, ironically.

[Provost]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

No, actually I got the sarcasm and was agreeing with you, but you misread it, ironically.

Agreement generally tends to start with some sort of suggestion of agreement.

 

We don't agree, I think we should trade Gudbranson if we can get any sort of decent return for him.

Responding to a rhetorical question that is sarcastic is just strange.

[oldnews]

8 hours ago, Provost said:

Agreement generally tends to start with some sort of suggestion of agreement.

 

We don't agree, I think we should trade Gudbranson if we can get any sort of decent return for him.

Responding to a rhetorical question that is sarcastic is just strange.

whatever.  if you need this spelled out for you, your sarcasm targetted McCann's replaceability - I agreed, McCann is replaceable and has been replaced.

 

irrelevent, I couldn't care less what you think of Gudbranson - and that wasn't what I was responding to in any event.  The rest of your narrative doesn't matter to me and doesn't precude responding to a post regarding McCann.

 

whatever.  Again, I couldn't care less how you think your posts or your sarcasm should be responded to.  You may have inadvertently undermined the complaining that Benning overpaid for McCann - perhaps that's what your frustration stems from - but the idea that the team can therefore afford to dump Gudbranson for 'any sort of decent return' is a strange opinion and poor reasoning as far as I'm concerned - but it's your opinion, one I don't have much regard for.

[shiznak]

On December 29, 2017 at 9:20 AM, coryberg said:

Pretty tragic that the panthers fell so hard in one year when they went to analytics. That was some Mike Keenan GM level scortched earth.

 

Phoenix hasn't improved at all under their young blood analytics crew. So many questionable moves, that one at the draft was a huge head shaker. The team is horrible and rebuilding so you trade your 8th overall pick and a former 1st rounder for 27 year old derek stephan's 6.5mil 4 year NTC boat anchor contract and a 28 year old backup. Could you imagine if Benning traded the Pettersson picķ for that return?

 

Analytics is nice to reference but if you are making hockey decisions based mostly on those instead of actual hockey sense you are in trouble.

 

 

They didn't "fall hard", because they switch to analytics. They fell hard, because they loss Luongo during their playoff push at the end of last season and if I remember correctly, they were in a wildcard spot at the deadline. Then Luongo got hurt, and everything went south.

[ForsbergTheGreat]

3 hours ago, shiznak said:

They didn't "fall hard", because they switch to analytics. They fell hard, because they loss Luongo during their playoff push at the end of last season and if I remember correctly, they were in a wildcard spot at the deadline. Then Luongo got hurt, and everything went south.

Exactly, there were so many things the came into play for the panthers.  Jagr put up a 66 point season in 15/16, but dropped 20 point the next (likely due to age) Jokinen put up 60 points in 15/16, but hurt his knee early season of 16/17 missed 15 games and never was able to recover only putting up 28 points.  Luongo went from playing like he did in van in 2016/17 season to playing mediocre/getting injured. Huberdeau was sidelined for almost the entire season (missed 51 games)  Barkov was out 21 games, Bjugstad missed 18 games.  Despite those injuries Panthers were still 6th in the east on Feb 20th which pushed them into going out and trading for a rental in vanek, giving up a 3rd round pick in the process.  They lost Campbell, Kulikov, and Mitchell from their D core along with Gudbranson.  I find it hilarious when someone even mentions Gudbranson, attempting connect/imply that he was a major reason as to why they "fell hard".  He was about as big of a loss to them that year as Raymond was being out of our line up in 13/14.

 

 

[oldnews]

40 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

He was about as big of a loss to them that year as Raymond was being out of our line up in 13/14.

 

What an absurd 'comparable.'

[ForsbergTheGreat]

51 minutes ago, oldnews said:

What an absurd 'comparable.'

What hole did losing Gudbranson leave the panthers that caused them to go from a 103 point team to a 81 points team?  He's not a defining player, he brings some good aspects to a team just like Raymond did, but they are support players. Did canucks miss raymonds 40 point pace the following year, sure it could have helped, just like Guddy's physical presence could have helped the panthers but him leaving was one of the lowest reason on the totem poll for the panthers struggles the following year.

 

 

Edit. Anyone that thinks guddy brought more, is only thinking purely on emotions rather than using facts and statistics, I know everyone hates raymond but he was still a decent player that produced for the canucks.  That's not a knock on Guddy that's just the reality.  16/17 panthers weren't a gudbranson away from being another 100 point team.  They had far bigger issues (mostly injuries and age regression) that hurt far more than losing guddy. 

 

 

[Rob_Zepp]

15 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

What hole did losing Gudbranson leave the panthers that caused them to go from a 103 point team to a 81 points team?  He's not a defining player, he brings some good aspects to a team just like Raymond did, but they are support players. Did canucks miss raymonds 40 point pace the following year, sure it could have helped, just like Guddy's physical presence could have helped the panthers but him leaving was one of the lowest reason on the totem poll for the panthers struggles the following year.

 

 

Edit. Anyone that thinks guddy brought more, is only thinking purely on emotions rather than using facts and statistics, I know everyone hates raymond but he was still a decent player that produced for the canucks.  That's not a knock on Guddy that's just the reality.  16/17 panthers weren't a gudbranson away from being another 100 point team.  They had far bigger issues (mostly injuries and age regression) that hurt far more than losing guddy. 

 

 

As someone who follows the Panthers as closely (more actually) than I follow the Canucks, your evaluation is heavily skewed.   The loss of Gudbranson’s physicality was noticed in 2016-17 in many ways/shapes/forms for us. The Cats weren’t playing well in the defensive zone and we were allowing a lot of soft goals. The team also had the defensive wall fall quickly in so many games.   No push back whatsoever and the progress some of the other young D had made seemingly vanished without Erik there to solidify things.

 

Why on earth do you think Dale Tallon's seemingly first move when reinstated as the GM was to try and get him back?!

[SilentSam]

6 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

As someone who follows the Panthers as closely (more actually) than I follow the Canucks, your evaluation is heavily skewed.   The loss of Gudbranson’s physicality was noticed in 2016-17 in many ways/shapes/forms for us. The Cats weren’t playing well in the defensive zone and we were allowing a lot of soft goals. The team also had the defensive wall fall quickly in so many games.   No push back whatsoever and the progress some of the other young D had made seemingly vanished without Erik there to solidify things.

 

Why on earth do you think Dale Tallon's seemingly first move when reinstated as the GM was to try and get him back?!

I do like the "way" WE as a team play with Gudbranson in the line up vs without him..  

I like the way Pouliotte and EG play together..  Biegga is another good partner for EG , and would like to see EG paired with CTanev once CT is 100%..  tired of seeing Chris go down to injury, as management probably is,. perhaps he comes under the spotlight more as the player to move before TDL.

 

[ForsbergTheGreat]

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

As someone who follows the Panthers as closely (more actually) than I follow the Canucks, your evaluation is heavily skewed.   The loss of Gudbranson’s physicality was noticed in 2016-17 in many ways/shapes/forms for us. The Cats weren’t playing well in the defensive zone and we were allowing a lot of soft goals. The team also had the defensive wall fall quickly in so many games.   No push back whatsoever and the progress some of the other young D had made seemingly vanished without Erik there to solidify things.

 

I agree that they missed his physicality but again that was one of the lowest reason as to why panthers struggled.  Panthers still had MacKenzie and Petrovic, two players that brought the same if not more of that play to the panthers than Guddy did when he played there.  The Canucks also missed scoring in the 2013/14 season. But one support player doesn't have that big of an effect on a roster falling, context is needed.  In both cased you can list a handful of other issues that played a far bigger roll on the teams set backs, injuries being the biggest.  What hurt the panther more missing Gudbranson and the 64 games he played in 15/16. or losing Huberdeau for 4 months (51 games)? 

 

2 minutes ago, Rob_Zepp said:

Why on earth do you think Dale Tallon's seemingly first move when reinstated as the GM was to try and get him back?!

Well according to a lot of people, the demers/gudbranson rumours were just made up....or does it only become a made up rumour when someone brings up the point that it means canucks considered moving guddy?

 

[Provost]

Eklund has an E4 about Gudbranson moving in the next few days.  Leafs, Islanders, and Buffalo are his takes.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen soon, we have a little break between games and teams will have seen enough to know that he is healthy.  It may be a matter of waiting until tomorrow when they can negotiate an extension and find out how much he would cost to lock up (either for us or for the receiving team).  Once that can be worked on, then maybe a day or two to see if we can drive up the price.

[oldnews]

3 minutes ago, Provost said:

Eklund has an E4 about Gudbranson moving in the next few days.  Leafs, Islanders, and Buffalo are his takes.
 

I wonder if JD Burke was Eklund's source, or if Eklund was JD Burke's source?

fwiw, you can take it to the Bottle Depot.

[Provost]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

I wonder if JD Burke was Eklund's source, or if Eklund was JD Burke's source?

fwiw, you can take it to the Bottle Depot.

Maybe a New Year's resolution could be for you to actually add content to discussions rather than just posting inane responses in order to up your post count?

Too much to ask, I know... sorry.