Player Discussion Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[BankStreetParade]

Dude I know you get it but are loving to pretend to be obtuse. Hamonic is no longer an NHL player and by giving him an NMC Dorion wasted a roster spot. Combine that with Dorion having no idea how to manage a cap we were stuck running Hamonic out there rather than a callup. Did Dorion overpay Brannstrom, yes he did but at least he’s an NHL 6/7 who can be in a lineup.

Hamonic with 800 career NHL games has something to offer teams who have young rosters and need veteran leadership and guidance. I know you guys think everything is about how players perform on the ice but there's also a lot that happens behind the scenes and off the ice to mentor young, inexperienced NHLers about how to be pros. Listen to player interviews about the impact vets had on them as far as the nuance of being an NHLer to understand how valuable this perspective is in the locker room. Yes, if you can get a guy who can also play, that's the best of both worlds and that's what we have with Giroux. But you can't have all Girouxs in the lineup to give you that veteran mentorship and leadership. You need to find the guys willing to take very small salaries to fill that role. That's the trade off in the NHL. They're not the guys you necessarily want but they're the guys you need.

Would he have been my first choice? In an ideal world, no. But I posted a list of guys of his ilk and there were fewer than 15 of them who could have been available to us. They made the decision to stick with the guy they knew.

Meanwhile, we continue to go round and round in circles that somehow a redundant bottom-pairing player making almost twice as much was not a bigger impediment to this team's cap and roster flexibility. It's honestly bizarre to hear people saying that with a straight face. He makes twice as much. His salary necessitates him taking a roster spot. He doesn't bring anything to the table that 3 other LDs on the roster don't contribute significantly better than him. So why are we so stuck on Hamonic who actually offers something this team needs (veteran experience) vs. a guy who makes double and doesn't bring value to this roster?

 

[Micklebot]

ELCs have no real or perceived value and hold nearly zero negotiating power, hence why they are not an accurate representation of a player's true worth. It's the only part of the NHL where players exist in a closed market. Whereas, on the open market, we see a more accurate reflection of player valuations as they gain bargaining power. Also, I never said Brannstrom was a second pairing, I said he was paid on the cusp of being a top 4, which he objectively is.

So this team was better off with Brannstrom making $2M for the bottom pairing instead of shipping him off for futures and using that money for cap and roster flexibility? You keep running around in circles trying to make an insanely convoluted argument that a bottom-pairing guy making $1.1M was worse for our cap and roster flexibility than a bottom-pairing guy making $2M. Also, I never said that the decision to give him a NMC was good. I only said he had the right to ask for it given his status in the league and the fact that he most likely accepted less money for it. And the overall point I was making was that he was such a low-grade issue for this team that it's hard to imagine people being that bothered by it, given everything else that's wrong.

Yes, the guy who could be targeted for a buy out this offseason, one year after signing his deal, is worse for our cap flexibility.

 

[Agent Zub]

Hamonic with 800 career NHL games has something to offer teams who have young rosters and need veteran leadership and guidance. I know you guys think everything is about how players perform on the ice but there's also a lot that happens behind the scenes and off the ice to mentor young, inexperienced NHLers about how to be pros. Listen to player interviews about the impact vets had on them as far as the nuance of being an NHLer to understand how valuable this perspective is in the locker room. Yes, if you can get a guy who can also play, that's the best of both worlds and that's what we have with Giroux. But you can't have all Girouxs in the lineup to give you that veteran mentorship and leadership. You need to find the guys willing to take very small salaries to fill that role. That's the trade off in the NHL. They're not the guys you necessarily want but they're the guys you need.

Would he have been my first choice? In an ideal world, no. But I posted a list of guys of his ilk and there were fewer than 15 of them who could have been available to us. They made the decision to stick with the guy they knew.

Meanwhile, we continue to go round and round in circles that somehow a redundant bottom-pairing player making almost twice as much was not a bigger impediment to this team's cap and roster flexibility. It's honestly bizarre to hear people saying that with a straight face. He makes twice as much. His salary necessitates him taking a roster spot. He doesn't bring anything to the table that 3 other LDs on the roster don't contribute significantly better than him. So why are we so stuck on Hamonic who actually offers something this team needs (veteran experience) vs. a guy who makes double and doesn't bring value to this roster?

Seems like Dorions strategy of bringing in old past their prime veterans who are scratch worthy to show the young players what to do didn't actually work.

Or maybe the plan was to bring in these liabilities to show the young players what NOT to do on the ice.

 

[HoweHullOrr]

Not sure who Kacies a Martin is, do you have a link? Assuming you just mean Jacques Martin?

got a link? Who is Kacies?

The Kacies mystery. LOL. There’s no need to make sense, just type.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Hamonic with 800 career NHL games has something to offer teams who have young rosters and need veteran leadership and guidance. I know you guys think everything is about how players perform on the ice but there's also a lot that happens behind the scenes and off the ice to mentor young, inexperienced NHLers about how to be pros. Listen to player interviews about the impact vets had on them as far as the nuance of being an NHLer to understand how valuable this perspective is in the locker room. Yes, if you can get a guy who can also play, that's the best of both worlds and that's what we have with Giroux. But you can't have all Girouxs in the lineup to give you that veteran mentorship and leadership. You need to find the guys willing to take very small salaries to fill that role. That's the trade off in the NHL. They're not the guys you necessarily want but they're the guys you need.

Would he have been my first choice? In an ideal world, no. But I posted a list of guys of his ilk and there were fewer than 15 of them who could have been available to us. They made the decision to stick with the guy they knew.

Meanwhile, we continue to go round and round in circles that somehow a redundant bottom-pairing player making almost twice as much was not a bigger impediment to this team's cap and roster flexibility. It's honestly bizarre to hear people saying that with a straight face. He makes twice as much. His salary necessitates him taking a roster spot. He doesn't bring anything to the table that 3 other LDs on the roster don't contribute significantly better than him. So why are we so stuck on Hamonic who actually offers something this team needs (veteran experience) vs. a guy who makes double and doesn't bring value to this roster?

Damn the way you talk about Hamonic it seems we won’t need to buy him out. Team will definitely be offering something for him. This is great news.

 

[bicboi64]

Damn the way you talk about Hamonic it seems we won’t need to buy him out. Team will definitely be offering something for him. This is great news.

If another team doesn't have a 3rd round to offer, I hope they give us their 2nd

 

[Alf Silfversson]

You don't factor in ELCs because they don't have any true or relative contract value. It's a contract that every "entry-level" player gets, with a few minor exceptions. Real contract values, indicative of player quality or projected quality, are negotiated post-ELC. That's where a team and player negotiate the player's value to determine compensation. You know you're intentionally making a disingenuous point and you don't seem to have any problem with it.

How does this make any sense? Why would a guy who got a contract for much less money than Brannstrom be the guy who's "supposed" to be playing ahead him? Hamonic is the 7th D, so why would the team play him over Brannstrom who's paid closer to top 4 money?

Mental gymnastics? The f***ing nerve you have. The only objective way to look at it is that this team ABSOLUTELY DID NOT need a $2M LHD for the bottom pairing and this team ABSOLUTELY DID NEED an RHD to sign for $1.5M or less. Keep trying to spin it any way you want but it won't change the facts.

Keep talking about cults yet it's never the people supposedly in the cult who keep bringing up the guy's name. Remind me how that works again? Oh right, you can't because it's bullshit and only meant as a cheap way to discredit or dismiss someone's opinion. You sound like someone with some sort of derangement syndrome to me.

Buddy. Every time people challenge something as mundane (yet still obviously terrible) like a 2 year deal AND a NMC for Travis Hamonic you descend into a profanity laced, unhinged rant where you accuse people of being deranged.

I suggest a step back and perhaps therapy or at least some kind of meditation.

Oh and if Hamonic is/was not a bad signing I'll eat my keyboard if another team takes him off our hands. If we valued his locker room contribution so much then we should have given him a development coaching role for year two at the very least. And as it regards his locker room value perhaps we should ask Canucks players and fans about that. Might not be glowing.

 

[BankStreetParade]

Buddy. Every time people challenge something as mundane (yet still obviously terrible) like a 2 year deal AND a NMC for Travis Hamonic you descend into a profanity laced, unhinged rant where you accuse people of being deranged.

I suggest a step back and perhaps therapy or at least some kind of meditation.

Oh and if Hamonic is/was not a bad signing I'll eat my keyboard if another team takes him off our hands. If we valued his locker room contribution so much then we should have given him a development coaching role for year two at the very least. And as it regards his locker room value perhaps we should ask Canucks players and fans about that. Might not be glowing.

Says the guy who tries to cheaply discredit people by saying they're in a cult while displaying clear signs of derangement syndrome. Like, no one mentioned or even alluded to Dorion and yet somehow your paranoia was triggered enough to bring him up. For what reason? Why would you bring the guy up? Yeah, I would say it's likely you have some sort of Dorion Derangement if you feel the need to bring him up unprovoked while laughably accusing others of being in his cult. Take your own advice on this one.

 

[Golden_Jet]

Buddy. Every time people challenge something as mundane (yet still obviously terrible) like a 2 year deal AND a NMC for Travis Hamonic you descend into a profanity laced, unhinged rant where you accuse people of being deranged.

I suggest a step back and perhaps therapy or at least some kind of meditation.

Oh and if Hamonic is/was not a bad signing I'll eat my keyboard if another team takes him off our hands. If we valued his locker room contribution so much then we should have given him a development coaching role for year two at the very least. And as it regards his locker room value perhaps we should ask Canucks players and fans about that. Might not be glowing.

Locker room, Hammer has been fine, and loved by the guys. Sandy says he’s one of his best friends.
Vancouver / Calgary thing was about Covid and his family, and was concerned about his child getting it, after getting very sick.

Playing for the Flames last season, the 30-year-old defenceman from St. Malo, Man., opted out of the summer Stanley Cup tournament after his daughter, Charlie, suffered a serious respiratory illness when she was eight months old.

He explained his decision not to play in this achingly-honest statement in July: “Like every parent, everything we do is to provide and protect our kids and try to take away any suffering they may endure. Last year, we spent the longest, scariest and hardest week of our lives by our daughter’s hospital bedside. We were unsure of what would come next. But with God’s strength, our little girl fought her respiratory virus and recovered during that long week. We were helpless and couldn’t do anything to help her except hold her little hands, kiss her head and pray. We saw what a respiratory virus can do to our healthy little girl. And it’s something no parent wants or should go through. Now, blessed with our second child, a baby boy, the risk of today’s COVID-19 pandemic is a very difficult one to weigh as parents.”

His daughter’s illness in January 2019 came a few months after Hamonic and his wife, Stephanie, partnered the Flames in a charity initiative called Charlie’s Children to provide items like cribs, strollers and car seats to low-income families expecting a baby.

Fearful of bringing COVID-19 into his family, Hamonic chose not to play for the Flames last summer.

He ended his statement with this: “I wish I could lace up my skates and be out there battling, blocking a shot, and helping the team win. But my family has and always will come first. Being my little kids’ dad every day is the most important job I have.”

Hamonic was just 10 years old when he lost his own father.

An unsigned free agent throughout the off-season, Hamonic joined the Canucks in January on a professional tryout and agreed to a one-year contract. And now he has tested positive for COVID-19.

The ordeal he is enduring – and the risk to his family – should provide pause and context to fans who are disappointed or, worse, angry that hockey games are being postponed.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Says the guy who tries to cheaply discredit people by saying they're in a cult while displaying clear signs of derangement syndrome. Like, no one mentioned or even alluded to Dorion and yet somehow your paranoia was triggered enough to bring him up. For what reason? Why would you bring the guy up? Yeah, I would say it's likely you have some sort of Dorion Derangement if you feel the need to bring him up unprovoked while laughably accusing others of being in his cult. Take your own advice on this one.

Honestly being in cult is the best possible scenario for a person defending multiple years and a NMC for this stage in career Hamonic.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Locker room, Hammer has been fine, and loved by the guys. Sandy says he’s one of his best friends.
Vancouver / Calgary thing was about Covid and his family, and was concerned about his child getting it, after getting very sick.

Playing for the Flames last season, the 30-year-old defenceman from St. Malo, Man., opted out of the summer Stanley Cup tournament after his daughter, Charlie, suffered a serious respiratory illness when she was eight months old.

He explained his decision not to play in this achingly-honest statement in July: “Like every parent, everything we do is to provide and protect our kids and try to take away any suffering they may endure. Last year, we spent the longest, scariest and hardest week of our lives by our daughter’s hospital bedside. We were unsure of what would come next. But with God’s strength, our little girl fought her respiratory virus and recovered during that long week. We were helpless and couldn’t do anything to help her except hold her little hands, kiss her head and pray. We saw what a respiratory virus can do to our healthy little girl. And it’s something no parent wants or should go through. Now, blessed with our second child, a baby boy, the risk of today’s COVID-19 pandemic is a very difficult one to weigh as parents.”

His daughter’s illness in January 2019 came a few months after Hamonic and his wife, Stephanie, partnered the Flames in a charity initiative called Charlie’s Children to provide items like cribs, strollers and car seats to low-income families expecting a baby.

Fearful of bringing COVID-19 into his family, Hamonic chose not to play for the Flames last summer.

He ended his statement with this: “I wish I could lace up my skates and be out there battling, blocking a shot, and helping the team win. But my family has and always will come first. Being my little kids’ dad every day is the most important job I have.”

Hamonic was just 10 years old when he lost his own father.

An unsigned free agent throughout the off-season, Hamonic joined the Canucks in January on a professional tryout and agreed to a one-year contract. And now he has tested positive for COVID-19.

The ordeal he is enduring – and the risk to his family – should provide pause and context to fans who are disappointed or, worse, angry that hockey games are being postponed.

I think Hamonic is actually a good person (once a good player too who I advocated for bringing in instead of J. Brown and Gudbranson) but it's not like he's some known leader around the league.

He's just a veteran who has seen better days which is unsurprising considering how he played. But if his leadership is something that our young core needs at this point then we are in deep trouble and losing out on Travis Hamonic because we don't offer a 2nd year or a NMC (or, LOL, both) is the very least of our worries.

 

[armani]

I am ok if they bring the Brannchise back, he has been good playing on the right side with Chabot or in general in the last quarter of this season. He won't cost a lot to play on the bottom pair. Unless they can replace him with a better d-man for cheap, which I highly doubt. A cheap d-man on the bottom pair, although undersized, but can make contributions as we have seen lately. I have liked his puck moving improvement under Jacques, and he has been defensively strong with his skates and sticks. K-Train is our big shutdown guy on the bottom pair to start, like JBD too stick around to as I thought his game improved. Needs reps. Hammer can be #8 with his NMC argh!

Chychrun or Chabot - either can go (not both) to make room for a proper, shutdown type top-4 RD. Chabot is injury prone and his defensive growth was curtailed under DJ hockey, Chychrun played all 82 but has had some horrible moments and his play recently improved but it was inconsistent. Thank Alfie for Sanderson and Zub on pair 1.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Bye Branny. Enjoyed going to war for you. But the time has come.

 

[JD1]

The Athletic player cards. Paints Brannstrom favourably. Chatbot not so much.

Maybe they could shelter Chabot more than they already do.

https://theathletic.com/5014522/2024/04/08/nhl-player-cards-atlantic-division?source=user-shared-article

 

[Loach]

The Athletic player cards. Paints Brannstrom favourably. Chatbot not so much.

Maybe they could shelter Chabot more than they already do.

https://theathletic.com/5014522/2024/04/08/nhl-player-cards-atlantic-division?source=user-shared-article

He needs a coach, better forwards, better partner, better 3rd pairing, less minutes and now to be sheltered. Can't stay healthy or play defence. Needs a better offseason training as per JM. What does 8m a year get these days? I'm done with this guy. Rebuild the bottom 2 pairs. This isn't at you JD1....just...Chabot can fck off. Enough already. Drives me nuts. Lol.

 

[Nac Mac Feegle]

Brann and Hamonic need to go. Both slots need an upgrade.

 

[JD1]

Brann and Hamonic need to go. Both slots need an upgrade.

That's kinda the consensus here. It was the Ceci consensus too.

Certainly this look at our players suggests that Chabot and Chychrun gotta go. To a point I made earlier, dumping both opens about 12.5 million in cap space. Maybe the assets returned on Chychrun could balance out the assets it will take to dump Chabot

That leaves you something like this
Sanderson Zub
Brannstrom RD acquisition
Kleven JBD
7D vet acquisition

And a lot of cap space

I'd do that if we could

 

[BankStreetParade]

That's kinda the consensus here. It was the Ceci consensus too.

Certainly this look at our players suggests that Chabot and Chychrun gotta go. To a point I made earlier, dumping both opens about 12.5 million in cap space. Maybe the assets returned on Chychrun could balance out the assets it will take to dump Chabot

That leaves you something like this
Sanderson Zub
Brannstrom RD acquisition
Kleven JBD
7D vet acquisition

And a lot of cap space

I'd do that if we could

You think this team gets better with Brannstrom on the second pairing, instead of Chabot or Chychrun?

 

[h2]

You think this team gets better with Brannstrom on the second pairing, instead of Chabot or Chychrun?

In my opinion, I think we need to get rid of Chabot, Chychrun, and Brannstrom. The only LD I trust defensively is Sanderson. You need to be able to trust your D in playoff situations, I would argue that's certainly not the case with the former 3 mentioned above. They're all incredibly weak/soft defensively and a big reason why we suck.

Overall, the D core needs a major overhaul with the exceptions being only Sanderson/Zub, IMO.

 

[Golden_Jet]

That's kinda the consensus here. It was the Ceci consensus too.

Certainly this look at our players suggests that Chabot and Chychrun gotta go. To a point I made earlier, dumping both opens about 12.5 million in cap space. Maybe the assets returned on Chychrun could balance out the assets it will take to dump Chabot

That leaves you something like this
Sanderson Zub
Brannstrom RD acquisition
Kleven JBD
7D vet acquisition

And a lot of cap space

I'd do that if we could

That would be a dumb move, and won’t happen, even if you want it too.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

In my opinion, I think we need to get rid of Chabot, Chychrun, and Brannstrom. The only LD I trust defensively is Sanderson. You need to be able to trust your D in playoff situations, I would argue that's certainly not the case with the former 3 mentioned above. They're all incredibly weak/soft defensively and a big reason why we suck.

Overall, the D core needs a major overhaul with the exceptions being only Sanderson/Zub, IMO.

Agree

 

[JD1]

You think this team gets better with Brannstrom on the second pairing, instead of Chabot or Chychrun?

I think teams are better when they don't have players that are massively underperforming their contracts.

The Athletics take is that Brannstrom is outperforming his deal quite handedly and that Chabot is underperforming his by a wide margin.

 

[bicboi64]

I think teams are better when they don't have players that are massively underperforming their contracts.

The Athletics take is that Brannstrom is outperforming his deal quite handedly and that Chabot is underperforming his by a wide margin.

I'd rather have Brannstrom as our 2nd LD. Tired of Chabot and Chychrun.

 

[JD1]

That would be a dumb move, and won’t happen, even if you want it too.

getting rid of underperforming contracts is dumb how?

i posted an article from an objective media outlet that rates our players

they've got Chabot and Chychrun underperforming their contracts, Brannstrom outperforming his. Is a solid top 4 RD paired with Brannstrom better than a bargain basement RD paired with Chabot ? Thing is, neither of us knows the answer to that. But we do know is that a bargain basement RD with Chabot doesn't really work.

 

[PlayOn]

I think teams are better when they don't have players that are massively underperforming their contracts.

The Athletics take is that Brannstrom is outperforming his deal quite handedly and that Chabot is underperforming his by a wide margin.

But if you’re trading Chabot, you are almost certainly taking back a player that is underperforming their contract too, so then it’s a bit of a wash.

We have too many bad contracts at this point. I’m not sure lateral moves (at best) would accomplish much. Team has to invest in these players, try to improve them, and then build their ideal roster when the guys they want to trade away have actual value.