[Trade] Canucks trade Erik Gudbranson to Penguins for Tanner Pearson

[Pears]

19 minutes ago, shad0w4life said:

Dhalen: "I'm bad and need to get better, I asked coach if we can tweak my development as I don't feel like I'm developing into a proper player"

Response was Cull told him to ask for a trade if he didn't like how he was developing.....How was JD not putting in the effort, he was our best rookie putting up numbers.

 

Guddy putting up great numbers play with a new team, maybe our coaches should take note.

1 point and a +2 are “great” numbers? Let’s pump the brakes and wait until he plays a full season with Pittsburgh before making that judgement. 

[kanucks25]

Perhaps never again will we see a player who performed so poorly in all measurable ways be defended so vehemently even after he was shown the door due to said poor performance. All the "context" that "explained" his poor performance are really just excuses with lip-stick smeared on them.

 

If Gudbranson performs better in Pittsburgh it won't be a surprise, because depth players can be sheltered and supported by good teams. On bad teams, they're exposed.

 

However Gudbranson performing better in Pittsburgh doesn't mean that he's actually a good player that the Canucks organization failed, it just means that he's another dime a dozen depth player that can tread water with the right supporting cast. These kind of players can be found in free agency every year, and they aren't major losses to the team as a whole, at least on the ice.

 

Good players perform well regardless of their surroundings, in fact they drag their teammates up. If you're a player that can only perform in the most perfect environments, you are replaceable.

Edited March 4, 2019 by kanucks25

[oldnews]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Perhaps never again will we see a player who performed so poorly in all measurable ways be defended so vehemently even after he was shown the door due to said poor performance.

 

If Gudbranson performs better in Pittsburgh it won't be a surprise, because depth players can be sheltered and supported by good teams. On bad teams, they're exposed.

 

Ironically you haven't shown a single 'measurable' way in which he performed so poorly.

 

And then you blew your load completely suggesting he can be "sheltered" on a good team in Pittsburgh.

 

Here's a "measurable" thing - 29% ozone starts and 20 minutes of shutdown isn't "sheltered" - not even close - and makes it patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

[theo5789]

2 hours ago, shad0w4life said:

Dhalen: "I'm bad and need to get better, I asked coach if we can tweak my development as I don't feel like I'm developing into a proper player"

Response was Cull told him to ask for a trade if he didn't like how he was developing.....How was JD not putting in the effort, he was our best rookie putting up numbers.

 

Guddy putting up great numbers play with a new team, maybe our coaches should take note.

Is that a direct quote from Dahlen? Goldobin also put up amazing numbers in the AHL but clearly needed a lot of work (and still does) to be an NHLer. Putting up numbers is not all that is needed to become an NHL player.

 

I can pretty much guarantee that the way you've portrayed the situation is not how it played out. Seems more like Dahlen is playing the victim card to rid himself of any wrongdoing while trying smear the Canucks organization.

[Dazzle]

4 hours ago, oldnews said:

Who is "Pitts fans"? and how long is "never"?

Fans that purport to be supporters of the team that thought this trade was a negative for them.

[oldnews]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

Fans that purport to be supporters of the team that thought this trade was a negative for them.

but there is no such thing as "Pens fans" - as there is no such thing as "Canucks fans".    It's the myth of some mass consensus of opinion  (which could be a worthless and uninformed one regardless of how shared it is).

 

To that point - it wasn't long ago around here that an in vogue opinion that Markstrom was useless and a backup at best, that would never make an NHL starter was a fairly popular one.

 

But there are literally tens of thousands of people with different opinions = nothing that ever resembles a consensus.

 

Edited March 5, 2019 by oldnews

[Dazzle]

Just now, oldnews said:

but there is no such thing as "Pens fans" - as there is no such thing as "Canucks fans".    It's the myth of some mass consensus of opinion  (which could be a worthless and uninformed one regardless of how shared it is).

 

There are literally tens of thousands of people with different opinions = nothing that ever resembles a consensus.

 

I am fully aware of your high opinion of Gudbranson during his tenure here, and I do believe he provided intangible qualities such as leadership, so I do see why you post something like this.

 

There is merit to what you are saying about a bunch of fans saying Point X, Y and Z; however, there is an overwhelming number of people of Pittsburgh fans that did not like this trade (much like there was an overwhelming number of people that didn't like the Virtanen). Numbers may not mean anything, especially if they're uneducated, but the Gudbranson situation in VANCOUVER is divided largely into two camps: he was either poorly utilized or he was not good enough, with some arguments found in the middle ground.

 

We'll see now if he does fine in Pittsburgh, which MAY shed light on why he did so poorly here. It could be that Baumgartner is a bum. Or maybe not.

 

What we can see from the eye test in Vancouver was that he was too slow, full stop. He was a decent skater for a big guy, but even you would have difficulty justifying that he was effective with his mobility. It's not fair to compare him to Byfuglien, but if he were like Byfuglien, he'd probably still have a job in Vancouver.

 

The team didn't lose or isn't losing because of Gudbranson. However, he didn't provide good outlet passes (not his style of game, so that is on Benning), made low percentage moves (shooting pucks around the board constantly), slow in forechecking, which made him ineffective to block point shots and ZERO offensive output.

 

There really wasn't much to praise about Gudbranson's game here, but his character has always been regarded as high.

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I am fully aware of your high opinion of Gudbranson during his tenure here, and I do believe he provided intangible qualities such as leadership, so I do see why you post something like this.

 

There is merit to what you are saying about a bunch of fans saying Point X, Y and Z; however, there is an overwhelming number of people of Pittsburgh fans that did not like this trade (much like there was an overwhelming number of people that didn't like the Virtanen). Numbers may not mean anything, especially if they're uneducated, but the Gudbranson situation in VANCOUVER is divided largely into two camps: he was either poorly utilized or he was not good enough, with some arguments found in the middle ground.

 

We'll see now if he does fine in Pittsburgh, which MAY shed light on why he did so poorly here. It could be that Baumgartner is a bum. Or maybe not.

 

What we can see from the eye test in Vancouver was that he was too slow, full stop. He was a decent skater for a big guy, but even you would have difficulty justifying that he was effective with his mobility. It's not fair to compare him to Byfuglien, but if he were like Byfuglien, he'd probably still have a job in Vancouver.

 

The team didn't lose or isn't losing because of Gudbranson. However, he didn't provide good outlet passes (not his style of game, so that is on Benning), made low percentage moves (shooting pucks around the board constantly), slow in forechecking, which made him ineffective to block point shots and ZERO offensive output.

 

There really wasn't much to praise about Gudbranson's game here, but his character has always been regarded as high.

First thing I can't agree with is suggesting that it might indicate that Baumgartner is a bum if Gud succeeds in Pittsburgh.   There are lots of reasons a guy may not live up to his own, or other's expectations, including health, context of play, partners, systems etc.

I also disagree with the suggestion that Gudbranson is "too slow".   Speed is not really the limiting factor in Gudbranson's skating imo - he's actually pretty fast, particularly A to B - the challenge for him is to improve his lateral movement (not that unlike Pedan, who also had quite respectable speed, but being a big guy - and in his case a pretty upright skating posture, was more limited imo in his 'quickness' - as distinct from speed - his pivoting, lateral movement etc.  I think Gudbranson is naturally not as 'quick' as smaller guys, but that cost also comes with counterpoint benefits.  In any event, I doubt many Pittsburgh fans have seen much of Gudbranson in recent years or delve much deeper than plus/minus 'analytics'.

The underlined part doesn't make a lot of sense to me - don't know what "slow in forechecking" means when you're a shutdown D that literally never forechecks - unless you mean was slow to pinch in the Ozone to maintain possession - but none of that I find particularly 'analytical' or grounded in actual metrics - which was the claim of the other poster - that there was nothing measurable that wasn't poor about Gudbranson's play.   It's not actually very difficult to find counterpoints to cherry-picks that suggest he had poor statistics or 'underlying numbers' - ie a person can suggest that his goal-metrics / plus minus this year tell us how bad he is, but ironically last year he had the lowest 5 on 5 on-ice goals against per 60 (2.0) of any regular Canuck defenseman.    The corsi-gazers don't really have a case to make either.  In the end it boils down to what people choose to focus on as there are postives and negatives with any player.

 

[DrJockitch]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Good players perform well regardless of their surroundings, in fact they drag their teammates up. If you're a player that can only perform in the most perfect environments, you are replaceable.

I think Messier proved that wrong for us.  

He may be a better player for Pitts but that doesn't change return we got on our investment, he was not good for us and not over a small sample size.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

First thing I can't agree with is suggesting that it might indicate that Baumgartner is a bum if Gud succeeds in Pittsburgh.   There are lots of reasons a guy may not live up to his own, or other's expectations, including health, context of play, partners, systems etc.

I also disagree with the suggestion that Gudbranson is "too slow".   Speed is not really the limiting factor in Gudbranson's skating imo - he's actually pretty fast, particularly A to B - the challenge for him is to improve his lateral movement (not that unlike Pedan, who also had quite respectable speed, but being a big guy - and in his case a pretty upright skating posture, was more limited imo in his 'quickness' - as distinct from speed - his pivoting, lateral movement etc.  I think Gudbranson is naturally not as 'quick' as smaller guys, but that cost also comes with counterpoint benefits.  In any event, I doubt many Pittsburgh fans have seen much of Gudbranson in recent years or delve much deeper than plus/minus 'analytics'.

The underlined part doesn't make a lot of sense to me - don't know what "slow in forechecking" means when you're a shutdown D that literally never forechecks - unless you mean was slow to pinch in the Ozone to maintain possession - but none of that I find particularly 'analytical' or grounded in actual metrics - which was the claim of the other poster - that there was nothing measurable that wasn't poor about Gudbranson's play.   It's not actually very difficult to find counterpoints to cherry-picks that suggest he had poor statistics or 'underlying numbers' - ie a person can suggest that his goal-metrics / plus minus this year tell us how bad he is, but ironically last year he had the lowest 5 on 5 on-ice goals against per 60 (2.0) of any regular Canuck defenseman.    The corsi-gazers don't really have a case to make either.  In the end it boils down to what people choose to focus on as there are postives and negatives with any player.

 

Considering Baumgartner was in charge of the defensive corps, I would've assumed he specifically would be responsible for how Gudbranson performs. If he, for example, put Gudbranson in situations where he would not succeed (i.e. PP1 or PP2), then that is not Gudbranson's fault.

 

Gudbranson is a decent skater for his size, but he does struggle against faster/smaller forwards. Perhaps the style of skating contributes to the 'nimbleness' factor that I'm referring to. Maybe it's just a matter of him going to a skating coach and asking for advice. Everything is a matter of development. Regardless, Gudbranson didn't work out as everyone had planned.

 

Yes, that was my error in transcribing my thoughts. I didn't mean to say he would be "ahead" (even though I wrongly said forechecking). I meant closing gaps as needed, or preventing rebounds from going to a nearby player. He didn't seem exceptionally good in that department - as well as other people who are supposedly 'defensive' minded, like Horvat. If he was an exceptional rebound clearer or one who can take pucks confidently from the net because he was consistently first to arrive, that would have made a difference on the team (and earned his minutes). That wasn't the case, nor was it the case for other players.

 

There's only so much that analytics can say. A team built purely on analytics is wrong and has been proven to be the case at least twice (Arizona and Florida as examples). The so-called eye test is not perfect either. One has to make sense of the numbers instead of regurgitating them without the understanding of context.

 

I know you're not necessarily pro analytics, even though you contribute A LOT in that department. Sometimes you even mock analytzzzzics analysts like J.D. Burke or some other clown that doesn't know what he's talking about. Gudbranson didn't score very well analytics wise, which I feel would hurt his case as a player.

[Mathew Barzal]

52 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

There's only so much that analytics can say. A team built purely on analytics is wrong and has been proven to be the case at least twice (Arizona and Florida as examples).

 

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but Arizona would have been a playoff team sans an injury-plagued year.

[Dazzle]

1 hour ago, Mathew Barzal said:

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you here, but Arizona would have been a playoff team sans an injury-plagued year.

That's a fair point. Maybe Arizona could/would've flourished without the injuries.

 

I think for two teams that were fully invested in the analytics to fall so far down looks really bad though.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dazzle

[mll]

Gudbranson himself says he didn't play all that well in Vancouver and that he just was never able to find his confidence and get anything going.  Green says he felt he was chasing his game in Vancouver.  Both sides admit he wasn't playing to the level they hoped.  

 

He talked about how he feels more comfortable after one practice in Pittsburgh than he ever has in Vancouver.  Says they support the puck better there and that when you get it you already have an idea what you are going to do with it.

 

It didn't work out and they need to learn and improve from it - how much is on scouting, systems, the player himself.  They traded for him, watched him play under 2 different coaches and extended him.  They need to figure out why he says he never got comfortable in Vancouver and whether there is something systems related, as he implies, that could be improved.  

 

[oldnews]

42 minutes ago, mll said:

Gudbranson himself says he didn't play all that well in Vancouver and that he just was never able to find his confidence and get anything going.  Green says he felt he was chasing his game in Vancouver.  Both sides admit he wasn't playing to the level they hoped.  

 

He talked about how he feels more comfortable after one practice in Pittsburgh than he ever has in Vancouver.  Says they support the puck better there and that when you get it you already have an idea what you are going to do with it.

 

It didn't work out and they need to learn and improve from it - how much is on scouting, systems, the player himself.  They traded for him, watched him play under 2 different coaches and extended him.  They need to figure out why he says he never got comfortable in Vancouver and whether there is something systems related, as he implies, that could be improved.  

 

They're valid questions, but at the same time it doesn't necessarily boil down to just 'systems'.

 

Pittsburgh is a considerably more veteran group.  Multiple Stanley Cup rings on most of those player's fingers....

They have a pair of elite top 6 centers.

Letang, DuMoulin, Schultz, Maata, Johnson...and the 22 yr old Gud is playing with (Pettersson) aint chopped liver either.

4 x 20-30 goal scorers and another 3x 15-20....

It's a deep team that is a serious transition threat - lots of speed up front.....when Pitts retrieves a puck, I suspect teams are slightly less 'comfortable' themselves and more prone to counter that transition as opposed to the kind of pressure teams can apply to a young, relatively inexperienced, depleted Canucks team that is also much less of a transition threat in general (aside from Virtuzzi and Horvat, not a great deal of breakout threat yet, imo).

 

They are well coached as well - Sully made an impressive difference there imo in altering their systems to suit their personnel (and speed up front) - demanding that their forward group pressure the puck over 200ft, attempting to counter what was a perceived weakness when he took over (a blueline that wasn't necessarily convincing as a contender).... Rutherford acknowledged that he hadn't really given Johnston the D pieces to suit his coaching systems....whereas Sullivan used his experience, particularly in Detroit, to alter those systems to what he had to work with (something his buddy Torts didn't necessarily have in his own toolbox).

Anyhow, Gud's early numbers (40% ozone starts, 54% corsi), 5.0 on ice goals for per 60, 1.7 against, 3 hits, +2, an assist in a few games there = would suggest he's more comfortable, but he's also surrounded by Stanley Cup quality team-mates, with tons of experience - and he has a partner that complements his own style of game....In Van...he was surrounded by a M.A.S.H. unit of fellow shutdown guys (not only himself, but Tanev, Edler, Sutter, Beagle with frequent trips to the hospital - and otherwise a pretty young, inexperienced group) and paired with a couple struggling young guys (Hutton was horrible last year, Pouliot struggling this year...).

 

I respect that he owned his own part in not quite being the player he or others hoped, but at the same time, failing to look at how the larger context impacts not just himself but the lineup as a whole can lead to undervaluing a player.  I would have liked to see what he'd look like once this team hits it's stride - and/or with Edler as a partner - but whatever - you can't necessarily get too attached to most players in a transition.  I get the impression that this was a plan B, 11th hour move/decision though - I think I would have preferred to see the Gud that wasn't 'chasing' his game before making a move like this, because for the most part, there are a fair number of players on this team still 'chasing' or pursuing their game and players like Gud, when they gain theirs, are not easy to acquire. 

 

 

[kanucks25]

22 hours ago, oldnews said:

It's not actually very difficult to find counterpoints to cherry-picks that suggest he had poor statistics or 'underlying numbers' - ie a person can suggest that his goal-metrics / plus minus this year tell us how bad he is, but ironically last year he had the lowest 5 on 5 on-ice goals against per 60 (2.0) of any regular Canuck defenseman.    The corsi-gazers don't really have a case to make either.  In the end it boils down to what people choose to focus on as there are postives and negatives with any player.

Laughably ironic that you say that Gudbranson only looks bad statistically when certain numbers are cherry-picked and then you go ahead and cherry-pick the hell out of that GA/60 stat,

 

Yes, last year he did have the lowest GA/60 out of all regular Canucks D-men. However, here's some context to blow that out of the water:

 

- Worst GF%

- Worst CF%

- Worst CA/60

- Worst SCF%

- Worst HDSCF%

 

All of this while not being used on the shutdown pair.

 

And the numbers from this year are even worse.

 

Yeah, it must be the coaches' fault.

Edited March 5, 2019 by kanucks25

[The Lock]

On 3/4/2019 at 1:00 PM, shad0w4life said:

Dhalen: "I'm bad and need to get better, I asked coach if we can tweak my development as I don't feel like I'm developing into a proper player"

Response was Cull told him to ask for a trade if he didn't like how he was developing.....How was JD not putting in the effort, he was our best rookie putting up numbers.

 

Guddy putting up great numbers play with a new team, maybe our coaches should take note.

Where are your sources on this stuff because there are a lot of people out there that will yap their mouth off just to be right at the expense of spreading needless rumours that aren't even remotely true, especially when it comes to defamatory ones against someone, like Cull in this case.

 

I hope you're not one of those people and, if you are, then I don't have to listen or respect you anyway. Garbage in, garbage out.

Edited March 5, 2019 by The Lock

[oldnews]

2 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

Laughably ironic that you say that Gudbranson only looks bad statistically when certain numbers are cherry-picked and then you go ahead and cherry-pick the hell out of that GA/60 stat,

 

woosh.  the point was very simple - it's easy to counterpoint a cherry pick.  you found no irony - the irony is you believing that's irony.

 

it's like debating with Alanis Morrisette.

[kanucks25]

On 3/4/2019 at 3:46 PM, oldnews said:

Ironically you haven't shown a single 'measurable' way in which he performed so poorly.

Uhh... look up like literally any stat since he became a Canuck?

 

On 3/4/2019 at 3:46 PM, oldnews said:

And then you blew your load completely suggesting he can be "sheltered" on a good team in Pittsburgh.

 

Here's a "measurable" thing - 29% ozone starts and 20 minutes of shutdown isn't "sheltered" - not even close - and makes it patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

He's their #5 D at best, won't be used as the shutdown D and has a much, much better forward group to play with. If that's not sheltered, what is? He was sheltered the same way here but will perform better simply due to a much better supporting cast. That doesn't make him a good player.

Edited March 6, 2019 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, oldnews said:

woosh.  the point was very simple - it's easy to counterpoint a cherry pick.  you found no irony - the irony is you believing that's irony.

 

it's like debating with Alanis Morrisette.

No it's not easy to counterpoint when that counterpoint is a drop against the ocean of argument against it.

[flickyoursedin]

Starting to think Pittsburgh won that McCann for Gudbranson trade lol somehow both found there way to Pittsburgh and playing well.