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

(Rumour) Maple Leafs Have Interest In Erik Gudbranson


Bo53Horvat

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think he's a top 4 dman. TSN had overhyped him because Toronto, but I think he looked alright to me for an 18 year old. The reason we would be trading Gudbranson is likely because we won't be able to re-sign him, so to get a potential top 4 dman who is only 18 years old (9 points in 17 AHL games) for an upcoming UFA, I don't see why you wouldn't be thrilled by that. One tournament does not define a player.

I think he looked all right as well, just not impressive. If we can't sign Guddy and Lil is the best offer on the table then definitely, and I'd be happy to have him as a prospect, but I'd have reserved feelings rather than feeling thrilled because I'd prefer to have a healthy Guddy for now and for the future, is all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think he's a top 4 dman. TSN had overhyped him because Toronto, but I think he looked alright to me for an 18 year old. The reason we would be trading Gudbranson is likely because we won't be able to re-sign him, so to get a potential top 4 dman who is only 18 years old (9 points in 17 AHL games) for an upcoming UFA, I don't see why you wouldn't be thrilled by that. One tournament does not define a player.

It's not really about whether we'd be thrilled to have Liljegren - it's about whether we'd be thrilled to give up a Tanev or Gudbranson for him.

 

Sure, I'd be thrilled to have Liljegren - at a different price or for a different asset than Tanev or Gudbranson.

 

For Tanev - absolutely not - not even ballpark, not even close - a non-starter as the principle in a deal like that.

If we can re-sign Gudbranson, I also don't make that trade. 

And regardless, in any event, it's the value of a proven NHL defenseman - a big, physical, mobile, tough and hard to play against RHD - vs the value of a maybe prospect.  

I make that Gudbranson for McCann and a pick deal all over again myself - and wouldn't be looking to take a comparable reverse risk on a prospect unless our hands are tied - which they are not at this point.  If it plays out that he's not interested in signing here, then maybe we divide our assets and take a prospect, pick back - but I also think we're more likely to do better talking to Tallon than we are the Laffs - and I'd feel a whole lot better sending him to Florida than the center of the universe.  The last thing I want to see is Tanev or  Gudbranson pushing the Leafs to the next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

I think he looked all right as well, just not impressive. If we can't sign Guddy and Lil is the best offer on the table then definitely, and I'd be happy to have him as a prospect, but I'd have reserved feelings rather than feeling thrilled because I'd prefer to have a healthy Guddy for now and for the future, is all. 

 

2 minutes ago, oldnews said:

It's not really about whether we'd be thrilled to have Liljegren - it's about whether we'd be thrilled to give up a Tanev or Gudbranson for him.

 

Sure, I'd be thrilled to have Liljegren - at a different price or for a different asset than Tanev or Gudbranson.

 

For Tanev - absolutely not - not even ballpark, not even close - a non-starter as the principle in a deal like that.

If we can re-sign Gudbranson, I also don't make that trade. 

And regardless, in any event, it's the value of a proven NHL defenseman - a big, physical, mobile, tough and hard to play against RHD - vs the value of a maybe prospect.  

I make that Gudbranson for McCann and a pick deal all over again myself - and wouldn't be looking to take a comparable reverse risk on a prospect unless our hands are tied - which they are not at this point.  If it plays out that he's not interested in signing here, then maybe we divide our assets and take a prospect, pick back - but I also think we're more likely to do better talking to Tallon than we are the Laffs - and I'd feel a whole lot better sending him to Florida than the center of the universe.  The last thing I want to see is Tanev or  Gudbranson pushing the Leafs to the next level.

Considering the rumour that we almost traded Gudbranson back to Florida for Demers, I think it may not be a great idea to be dealing with Tallon.

 

My whole suggestion of Gudbranson being traded is simply if he cannot be re-signed. I would definitely not make this move if Gudbranson returns with a reasonable contract. The other question is Gudbranson's health as that has set him back the last couple of seasons. Liljegren may not be a top 2 elite dman (as he may be hyped up to be because of Toronto), but he's a surefire top 4 dman in the NHL when he's developed. He has good size, doesn't shy away from the physical game and has some untapped offense. I'm looking at maybe a Sbisa but not as hard hitting, but better offensively.

 

As for Tanev, I suggest Liljegren and a 1st as a starter. Not sure what to expect for him, but 2 1sts+ is probably not a bad return for a player who is looking to be very injury prone and is probably around his prime age now, so may not be too beneficial when the Canucks start to make their serious push for the playoffs in a couple more years. There may be other more intriguing proposals with other teams, but this is what I would suggest if we are dealing with the Leafs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

 

Considering the rumour that we almost traded Gudbranson back to Florida for Demers, I think it may not be a great idea to be dealing with Tallon.

 

My whole suggestion of Gudbranson being traded is simply if he cannot be re-signed. I would definitely not make this move if Gudbranson returns with a reasonable contract. The other question is Gudbranson's health as that has set him back the last couple of seasons. Liljegren may not be a top 2 elite dman (as he may be hyped up to be because of Toronto), but he's a surefire top 4 dman in the NHL when he's developed. He has good size, doesn't shy away from the physical game and has some untapped offense. I'm looking at maybe a Sbisa but not as hard hitting, but better offensively.

 

As for Tanev, I suggest Liljegren and a 1st as a starter. Not sure what to expect for him, but 2 1sts+ is probably not a bad return for a player who is looking to be very injury prone and is probably around his prime age now, so may not be too beneficial when the Canucks start to make their serious push for the playoffs in a couple more years. There may be other more intriguing proposals with other teams, but this is what I would suggest if we are dealing with the Leafs.

And you're welcome to buy that rumour if you believe it - I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

 

Considering the rumour that we almost traded Gudbranson back to Florida for Demers, I think it may not be a great idea to be dealing with Tallon.

All this speculation is based on demers flapping his mouth, pretty sure he had no idea who (or what) he was being traded for.  Tallon doesn't strike me as a guy who divulges precious information to a player who he is desperately trying to dump.
 
As we saw from the Phoenix trade Demers had negative value. Even the Gudbranson haters can admit that Gudbranson has some value. If by chance there was a serious negotiation there would have been a ++ beside demers without a doubt, anybody who thinks otherwise should put down the pipe. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, smithers joe said:

linden said that they are not planning to trade a defenseman, but that could change on this road trip. could that be telling?

I found that quote quite weird to be honest; first Linden says they’re not looking to trade a Dman, then he says it could happen during the next week or two.

 

Honestly think something is close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smithers joe said:

linden said that they are not planning to trade a defenseman, but that could change on this road trip. could that be telling?

That sounds to me like the Canucks are not actively trying to get rid of any players, but some other GM with a big problem is desperate to pick up a Dman and is giving the Canucks increasingly better offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, smithers joe said:

linden said that they are not planning to trade a defenseman, but that could change on this road trip. could that be telling?

 

3 hours ago, Shiftynifty said:

I found that quote quite weird to be honest; first Linden says they’re not looking to trade a Dman, then he says it could happen during the next week or two.

 

Honestly think something is close.

 

28 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

That sounds to me like the Canucks are not actively trying to get rid of any players, but some other GM with a big problem is desperate to pick up a Dman and is giving the Canucks increasingly better offers.

given the context of the conversation, though unclear, I believe linden was referring to the back end finally being healthy as the situation that could change as early as this road trip, not their desire to move a dman. basically, the way I interpret it, linden was saying that they could have another injury at any time that clears up the logjam, and that's why they're not in any hurry to make a move. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WeneedLumme said:

That sounds to me like the Canucks are not actively trying to get rid of any players, but some other GM with a big problem is desperate to pick up a Dman and is giving the Canucks increasingly better offers.

I hope your right desperate GM's give up good prospects and picks to try and save their bacon. If we can acquire a top defenseman prospect then I am sure JB will be all over it. It's the weakest position we have when it comes to Prospects. Although I do hold out hope for Brisebois and Chatfield as well as believing Juolevi will be a NHLer, I don't see a lot else with true NHL potential in our system right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

And you're welcome to buy that rumour if you believe it - I don't.

Well it's nice to choose what you want to believe or not to make your point, especially when the player said it himself. Believe it or not, what are you looking to get from Florida for Gudbranson because I don't see much that is quality that would be available. Plus they are 7 points out of a wild card spot, so it's questionable if they will even want to buy come trade deadline.

 

7 hours ago, coryberg said:
All this speculation is based on demers flapping his mouth, pretty sure he had no idea who (or what) he was being traded for.  Tallon doesn't strike me as a guy who divulges precious information to a player who he is desperately trying to dump.
 
As we saw from the Phoenix trade Demers had negative value. Even the Gudbranson haters can admit that Gudbranson has some value. If by chance there was a serious negotiation there would have been a ++ beside demers without a doubt, anybody who thinks otherwise should put down the pipe. 

I sure hope there was more to the deal than it being straight up as well, but we will never know if there was more to it. I believe Demers would know because he had a no trade clause, so I'm sure he could ask what's being moved so he can make his decision if he wanted to waive. I'll admit that Tallon could easily just say that he could not reveal that information, but it seemed to be very specific that Demers would mention Gudbranson if he knew nothing at all.

 

I don't see how being traded for Jamie McGinn meant he had negative value. Their cap hits aren't too far off and the only thing is maybe because of the duration of the contract. I think Tallon was looking to add some more toughness to his lineup which is why he added a player like McGinn and was looking to bring back someone like Gudbranson. The Canucks were looking for a puck moving dman, which is why in the end we acquired Pouliot. At the end of the day, the trade was nixed and both teams pursued to acquire what they wanted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, theo5789 said:

 

Considering the rumour that we almost traded Gudbranson back to Florida for Demers, I think it may not be a great idea to be dealing with Tallon.

This:

 

9 hours ago, oldnews said:

And you're welcome to buy that rumour if you believe it - I don't.

And even if we are going to run down that rabbit hole and assume that that rumour is true. Demers was a cap dump, if it was indeed Gudbranson going back (which there's zero evidence of), you can bet your arse it was Gudbranson for Demers plus some other valuable asset(s) (player/pick/prospect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This:

 

And even if we are going to run down that rabbit hole and assume that that rumour is true. Demers was a cap dump, if it was indeed Gudbranson going back (which there's zero evidence of), you can bet your arse it was Gudbranson for Demers plus some other valuable asset(s) (player/pick/prospect).

I think it's funny that you (and others) choose to not believe in the rumour, but if the rumour is true that you can add your own speculative ideas to make it more reasonable in your mind. You claim there is zero evidence that Gudbranson is involved, but I can bet my arse that there would be much more involved yet I at least have a player suggesting that it was Gudbranson involved in the deal and there is actually no information, rumour or not, that more was involved.

 

All they saved in cap if he was a cap dump is 2 years of his contract. The 600k difference between McGinn and Demers was retained by Florida from Demers' contract each year for the next four years. If they got Gudbranson back, they will eventually have to re-sign him for a contract possibly similar to Demers' anyway. Tallon wanted toughness back and couldn't get Gudbranson and ended up with McGinn instead. I don't see it as a cap dump move, but rather wanting to allocate that cap towards something he felt his team needed instead of what Demers' provided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I think it's funny that you (and others) choose to not believe in the rumour, but if the rumour is true that you can add your own speculative ideas to make it more reasonable in your mind. You claim there is zero evidence that Gudbranson is involved, but I can bet my arse that there would be much more involved yet I at least have a player suggesting that it was Gudbranson involved in the deal and there is actually no information, rumour or not, that more was involved.

 

All they saved in cap if he was a cap dump is 2 years of his contract. The 600k difference between McGinn and Demers was retained by Florida from Demers' contract each year for the next four years. If they got Gudbranson back, they will eventually have to re-sign him for a contract possibly similar to Demers' anyway. Tallon wanted toughness back and couldn't get Gudbranson and ended up with McGinn instead. I don't see it as a cap dump move, but rather wanting to allocate that cap towards something he felt his team needed instead of what Demers' provided.

As far as I recall Gudbranson's involvement was all media driven speculation. I've seen no direct quotes that actually name him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/5/2018 at 7:41 AM, aGENT said:

Sorry, tired last night, forgot to add a pick as well. I'd be pressing for their late 1st as well. 

If were moving Tanev, NYI would have to be a team i'd target for him to go. They are really missing their shutdown guy in Hamonic.

  

They have a real need for the right side.  Boychuk has been out since December, which means all they are left for on the right side is 36 year old Seidenberg who's been in and out of the line up.  Mayfield who's got a career total of 67 NHL games, and 23 year old Pulock who's got a career total of 44 NHL games.  If they plan on making the playoffs and some sort of run to entice JT, they will need to find someone for that side.

 

In terms of asset to aim for; They have 2 first round picks, 2 second round picks this year, they have a ton of prospects, they have a slew of talented forward prospects (Ho Sang, Bellows, Beauvillier, Dal Colle), they have some pretty solid D prospects (toews, Aho, Salo) and they have a top of the line star upcoming goalie (sorokin)

 

I'd go after a 1st, a 2nd, and a young RHD player (Pulock/Toews).  I'd even be willing to take on Kulemin as a cap dump.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

If were moving Tanev, NYI would have to be a team i'd target for him to go. They are really missing their shutdown guy in Hamonic.

  

They have a real need for the right side.  Boychuk has been out since December, which means all they are left for on the right side is 36 year old Seidenberg who's been in and out of the line up.  Mayfield who's got a career total of 67 NHL games, and 23 year old Pulock who's got a career total of 44 NHL games.  If they plan on making the playoffs and some sort of run to entice JT, they will need to find someone for that side.

 

In terms of asset to aim for; They have 2 first round picks, 2 second round picks this year, they have a ton of prospects, they have a slew of talented forward prospects (Ho Sang, Bellows, Beauvillier, Dal Colle), they have some pretty solid D prospects (toews, Aho, Salo) and they have a top of the line star upcoming goalie (sorokin)

 

I'd go after a 1st, a 2nd, and a young RHD player (Pulock/Toews).  I'd even be willing to take on Kulemin as a cap dump.   

 

Sure. Sounds great.

 

I was just replying to the specific TOR rumour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a rumor out there from TSN that the Leafs have offered Andrew Neilsen and a 3rd.

I don't have the link, so don't put any stock in it happening, but do you feel about that value?

I think it is a pretty good value, but would rather JB hold out for a 2nd to replace the 3rd..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theo5789 said:

Well it's nice to choose what you want to believe or not to make your point, especially when the player said it himself. Believe it or not, what are you looking to get from Florida for Gudbranson because I don't see much that is quality that would be available.

cool story but you've mangled it and added a couple layers of assumption that weren't / aren't based in fact.

you don't see much that is quality that would be available out of Florida?  I see lots of quality in Florida - I also don't pretend to know what Tallon would make available to acquire Gudbranson.

nowhere did Demers say he declined a deal for Gudbranson - he simply declined to waive.

you and I have no idea what assets were discussed, but what we do know is that Demers was dumped for Jamie McGinn.  You're welcome to equate McGinn to Gudbranson's market value if you think that makes sense - I don't, and in fact I consider it complete nonsense that might sell down at CA, but I aint buying a whiff of it.

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...