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

[Discussion] Erik Gudbranson


brian42

Recommended Posts

Based on JB's comments of trading established players for younger guys &/or picks, yet not have discussions on injured Canuck players. 

 

Also considering Gudbranson's lack of ice time, Gudbranson seems like the most logical player to deal. 

 

I would love to trade Gudbranson and although we would miss his toughness we can find toughness else where for cheaper.

 

1 logical trading partner would be Toronto as they could use a right side D-man.

 

I would love to give Timothy Liljegren a chance but I doubt the Leafs would be willing to move him. Possibly Gudranson with salary retention and a prospect for him.  

 

What are your thoughts on trading Gudbranson and who could we get for him?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, brian42 said:

Based on JB's comments of trading established players for younger guys &/or picks, yet not have discussions on injured Canuck players. 

 

Also considering Gudbranson's lack of ice time, Gudbranson seems like the most logical player to deal. 

 

I would love to trade Gudbranson and although we would miss his toughness we can find toughness else where for cheaper.

 

1 logical trading partner would be Toronto as they could use a right side D-man.

 

I would love to give Timothy Liljegren a chance but I doubt the Leafs would be willing to move him. Possibly Gudranson with salary retention and a prospect for him.  

 

What are your thoughts on trading Gudbranson and who could we get for him?  

Liljegren is off limits according to Dubas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like gudbranson solely because he’s our only heavy weight BUT just the other day I saw his stats for the first time this year and he’s a team worse -25 soooo ouchie 

 

hes also been on the ice for 44% of our goals against 

 

he’s a glorified 3rd pair guy, but we still need him until we add more muscle  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doubt Dubas, a guy with an analytics background, has any interest in Gudbranson considering he might literally be the worst D-man in the NHL this year statistically.

 

You know for sure Babcock would love him, but Dubas doesn't work for Babcock, that's why he let go of a similar player in Polak.

 

Even if the Leafs were interested, not a chance they offer Liljegren for him. It would have to something like a pick + a depth D-man back because the Leafs won't want to take the entire salary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, D-Money said:

Honestly, with the way he's playing, and his contract status (2 more years at $4M per), he's negative value. I don't think he'd get claimed on waivers.

 

If we retained, maybe we'd get some interest, but nothing phenomenal.

 

I am not a fan of Gudbranson whatsoever but I'd be surprised if he wasn't claimed because NHL management teams all over the league still feature many dinosaurs.

 

He has a lot of name value and is "famous" for his "leadership" and "toughness". This stuff holds a lot of weight in NHL circles.

 

Yes, intangibles are important, but not at the price of playing Gudbranson (the price being his cap-hit coupled with him being a complete liability).

 

Heck, I bet a Benning-type manager out there would still pay a decent price for Gudbranson in a trade.

 

Just wish this trade was made before Gudbranson's value tanked: before he re-signed here or at least before Green started squeezing his minutes. It would have been a shrewd move to cut our losses, but asset management has never been Benning's forte.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Doubt Dubas, a guy with an analytics background, has any interest in Gudbranson considering he might literally be the worst D-man in the NHL this year statistically.

 

You know for sure Babcock would love him, but Dubas doesn't work for Babcock, that's why he let go of a similar player in Polak.

 

Even if the Leafs were interested, not a chance they offer Liljegren for him. It would have to something like a pick + a depth D-man back because the Leafs won't want to take the entire salary.

The only way I'd see Toronto dealing for Guddy if it were part of a package to send Zaitsev out (another contract dump, only larger).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, D-Money said:

Honestly, with the way he's playing, and his contract status (2 more years at $4M per), he's negative value. I don't think he'd get claimed on waivers.

 

If we retained, maybe we'd get some interest, but nothing phenomenal.

 

I can't see any team waiving Guddy. I know he isn't the greatest but I would be shocked if he was waived. Really no point in seeing him sent down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dr.BRR said:

I can't see any team waiving Guddy. I know he isn't the greatest but I would be shocked if he was waived. Really no point in seeing him sent down.

I'm not suggesting that we actually waive him. Given our depth issues at D and our position in the standings, it wouldn't make sense.

 

However, if for some reason we actually did, I wouldn't be surprised if he cleared. Because of that, I don't suspect we'll get anything of value for him in a trade.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on JB's interview with Farhan Lalji, he said hockey trades like a D-man for a forward. 

 

Previously he stated as mentioned in OP established players for younger guys but not our injured guys.

 

I could see something like Gudbranson for a young forward.  I would like a trade like that mainly because I think our D will improve without Gudbranson. 

 

The Canucks need help on D but Hughes, Juolevi and cap space from Gudbranson could help there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -SN- changed the title to [Discussion] Erik Gudbranson

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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