Injury Report: Erik Gudbranson to undergo shoulder surgery.

[Chairman Maouth]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

 

[Jyrki21]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

Not sign him? Or if you have to, sign him for something approximating his value? Or wait until free agency and if he gets no bites, low-ball him?

In what world are you forced to sign a player whose performance has been a negative to the team? At a raise and for term, no less?

 

[Hit the post]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

A "show me" contract like he gave Tanev? I think that was a realistic option. Maybe "overpay" him a bit more for the short-term (who really cares that much on a one year deal?) so as to to tick him off too much on the short-term deal. It's not like he did much while wearing the Canuck uniform to earn that raise & term.

 

[Diamonddog01]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

I feel there were two options.

1) Let him walk. While this would look poor from an optics perspective, I personally think this was the best option. I am not a believer in the theory that asset management is the most important part of a GM's position. That being said losing a 2nd and McCann for nothing is certainly not ideal, however there are times when you just need to recognize you made a mistake and not get stuck in a sunk cost fallacy. Here's a Canucks Army article which I agreed with way back in early Nov, before his shoulder injury:

Get Out While You Still Can: Erik Gudbranson and the Sunk Cost Fallacy

"Merely not having him on the roster at that salary next season is the very definition of addition by subtraction, both in terms of the salary cap structure, and the team’s ability to control the flow of play on the ice-ice."

2) Offer him another 1 year deal for the same AAV if you really feel as though the team should get something for him. Trade him for the best offer available next season, as soon as possible, even if that offer is substantially less than what the team paid for him.

 

[Verviticus]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

let him walk because he sucks. what kind of silly q is that

 

[Nuckles]

let him walk because he sucks. what kind of silly q is that

Yup. If no team wanted to give up anything for an injured Gudbranson (which I doubt), then you don't hand him this idiotic contract and spend the money in better ways.

 

[vancityluongo]

A lot of people in here claiming the Gudbranson extension while he's injured is another example of Benning's ineptitude. What were Benning's options?

He had an infinite number of options. A lot of them have been covered already, but ignoring that the most logical thing to do would be to walk away from the sunk cost... operating on the assumption that they HAD TO keep him, and he likely wouldn't go for any lower than what he did...

- Play hardball, knowing full well that once the injury is revealed (and it would be) the market for him logically goes down further, and maybe you can squeeze him down another couple hundred k.
- Wait for his injury to be clarified by the medical staff/publicly, and see what sort of value he has at the draft. If no tangible offer (in their mind) materializes, offer him the same contract then.
- Wait two months. Do absolutely nothing else different, just ensure that you're committing three years to a player who is recovering well post-surgery rather than an injured player pre-surgery. They hold full control of his rights until July 1st.

Astonishingly, if they even had to pay an extra 200k/season after doing their due diligence vs just signing him when they did, I'd actually argue that it would be "worth" the extra price. Arguing otherwise would be hindsight; similar to how people bitch about Gillis not bringing back Willie Mitchell, even though it was 50/50 that he'd never play again. The team made the right call there doing their due diligence to wait and see how that would turn out...unfortunately, that one didn't work out and Willie walked.

Here, they're not only tying up 4M on a terrible player...they're tying it up on a terrible player that may or may not come back at the level he was previously at!!!

 

[Dab]

I think if Gudbranson was headed towards major shoulder surgery, it would have dampened the market around him July 1. I would have sat on it, and if they really wanted Gud offered him a 1 year deal when he started fidgeting a bit around the draft. I think the likelihood he would have been offered a similar or better contract on July 1 then he got from Benning are very low considering the surgery.

 

[Dab]

Astonishingly, if they even had to pay an extra 200k/season after doing their due diligence vs just signing him when they did, I'd actually argue that it would be "worth" the extra price. Arguing otherwise would be hindsight; similar to how people ***** about Gillis not bringing back Willie Mitchell, even though it was 50/50 that he'd never play again. The team made the right call there doing their due diligence to wait and see how that would turn out...unfortunately, that one didn't work out and Willie walked.

I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."

Mitchell also stated
"that he started feeling better in mid-June, but rather than sign with a club on the first day of free agency on July 1, he delayed his decision until he could prove to teams that he was healthy enough to resume his career.
While many NHLers were relaxing in June, the Port McNeill, B.C., native did "two-a-days" which included bag skates in the morning and off-ice workouts in the afternoon with a personal trainer.
He also completed the usual pre-season fitness tests at the UBC, where he has been skating recently with former Canuck teammates, other NHLers and junior-age players."
Kings, Willie Mitchell agree to deal

 

[Hit the post]

I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."

Gilligan offered him I believe a one year deal - Kings offered him a multi-year deal (they had > $6 million in cap space available before signing Mitchell so they could easily afford to take that chance with the longer term deal).

 

[Orr4Norris]

I think his best option was to sign him.

1. Like it or not, Gudbranson is definitely one of our six best defenders and I would argue one of our top four. Replacing him will not be easy. You could roll the dice and try signing someone in the offseason, but you're likely overpaying based on the fact that this team is rebuilding...and that's if someone bites. Trading for someone? Well, that would cost some good picks and or prospects. Look what Calgary paid for Hamonic.

2. 4mil is a solid number for him. A touch high, but then you get no no-trade protection and a shorter term. Both those things were worth paying the bit extra.

3. This also gives you more flexibility going forward and if Gudbranson recovers (likely), you now have a good trade piece. Or if he's playing well, you can look to move Tanev at the deadline.

His contract comes off the books before they have to worry about Pettersson's, and whoever we draft this year's, next contract.

They don't have to protect him in an expansion draft if they don't want to.

They can trade him.

 

[arttk]

I think his best option was to sign him.

1. Like it or not, Gudbranson is definitely one of our six best defenders and I would argue one of our top four. Replacing him will not be easy. You could roll the dice and try signing someone in the offseason, but you're likely overpaying based on the fact that this team is rebuilding...and that's if someone bites. Trading for someone? Well, that would cost some good picks and or prospects. Look what Calgary paid for Hamonic.

2. 4mil is a solid number for him. A touch high, but then you get no no-trade protection and a shorter term. Both those things were worth paying the bit extra.

3. This also gives you more flexibility going forward and if Gudbranson recovers (likely), you now have a good trade piece. Or if he's playing well, you can look to move Tanev at the deadline.

His contract comes off the books before they have to worry about Pettersson's, and whoever we draft this year's, next contract.

They don't have to protect him in an expansion draft if they don't want to.

They can trade him.

1. He actually is not, our D is better when he is actually not playing.
2. He is not worth 4M. He is a 3rd paring guy, those guys should be below 2M and considering that his highest point total is 13, he should be nowhere near 4M.
3. What flexibility? Having a guy that is insanely overpaid doesn't scream flexibility. Yeah we can trade him if we absorb half his salary, but we can technically absorb 3 contracts a year but we really can only do 2 since Luongo is not going to be gone for a long while. Retaining Gubranson's salary actually reduces our flexibility because we will only have 1 more spot for Eriksson and we can't retain cap to get extra assets.

Our cap is so messed up right now that we don't even have enough to absorb Boeser's bonus. Basically we are barely getting by somehow with the worst team in the NHL and you think Gubranson's 4M won't hurt us?

 

[vancityluongo]

I disagree. Mitchell had suffered a bad concussion, but Willie "indicated the Canucks did not meet his financial terms as "economics" got in the way."

Mitchell also stated
"that he started feeling better in mid-June, but rather than sign with a club on the first day of free agency on July 1, he delayed his decision until he could prove to teams that he was healthy enough to resume his career.
While many NHLers were relaxing in June, the Port McNeill, B.C., native did "two-a-days" which included bag skates in the morning and off-ice workouts in the afternoon with a personal trainer.
He also completed the usual pre-season fitness tests at the UBC, where he has been skating recently with former Canuck teammates, other NHLers and junior-age players."
Kings, Willie Mitchell agree to deal

Not to derail thread from the riveting discussion on Gudbranson, but two things:

- Obviously Gillis and co. were hesitant to make financial terms meet for a player who had just undergone a severe concussion and despite being able to work out short term in the summer, was effectively one hit to the head from calling it a career.
- Hamhuis and Ballard were brought in before/while Willie was doing those bag skates. The timing was just unfortunately off, and the Canucks rightfully couldn't just sit around waiting.

Gudbranson's injury is analogous because the "worst case" scenario from the Canucks perspective is that he's healthy and practicing in August, hits the market and finds another suitor willing to pay more. Just like with Mitchell, there is a strong financial incentive for the player to demonstrate that before taking a contract. I don't care if there are 10 NHL GM's who legitimately think Gudbranson is a $5M player - none of them would give him that without clearing him medically. The risk of waiting for the Canucks was essentially nothing, while the return for doing so is clear - they would know what they're getting.

Unlike with Willie's injury, there is a pretty clear medical timeline here. Mitchell could have been symptom free and taking full contact in June or he could have been unable to skate until October. With Gudbranson, he played through the injury, so they had a relative sense of where things were at. This was never a career-threatening injury, but there is a possible downside in that his performance may not rebound post-op. Therefore, there was zero need to take on the risk until after the surgery happened and he had some recovery time.

 

[pgj98m3]

I think his best option was to sign him.

1. Like it or not, Gudbranson is definitely one of our six best defenders and I would argue one of our top four. Replacing him will not be easy. You could roll the dice and try signing someone in the offseason, but you're likely overpaying based on the fact that this team is rebuilding...and that's if someone bites. Trading for someone? Well, that would cost some good picks and or prospects. Look what Calgary paid for Hamonic.

2. 4mil is a solid number for him. A touch high, but then you get no no-trade protection and a shorter term. Both those things were worth paying the bit extra.

3. This also gives you more flexibility going forward and if Gudbranson recovers (likely), you now have a good trade piece. Or if he's playing well, you can look to move Tanev at the deadline.

His contract comes off the books before they have to worry about Pettersson's, and whoever we draft this year's, next contract.

They don't have to protect him in an expansion draft if they don't want to.

They can trade him.

After Edler and Tanev our defencemen might have trouble cracking a mediocre NHL bottom pairing so you're not saying much.
Who in their right mind would give him a NTC and long term.
Unless you are his surgeon you're blowing smoke out of your ass.

The best option was to never sign him in the first place but once that mistake is made, I guess out of some sense of loyalty give him a low dollar one year contract to see what his recovery actually is.

 

[vancityluongo]

The best option was to never sign him in the first place but once that mistake is made, I guess out of some sense of loyalty give him a low dollar one year contract to see what his recovery actually is.

They didn't even have to go that far!

1) Instead of signing him on February 20th, shut him down for the season that day (assuming they knew it would require surgery then). Assume he undergoes surgery March 1st.
2) Wait until June 1st, 3 months post-op, get an actual assessment of how the player is doing, and offer him/negotiate the same contract (3 years, $12M) at that time. Be willing to go up slightly to compensate for the fact that you're no longer taking on the risk of an injured player.

Canucks get a better valuation of what they're committing to. Gudbranson possibly gets more leverage in negotiations. Canucks get counter-leverage in that there might actually be a trade market for him if teams don't have to be wary of his bum shoulder.

Instead, they now possibly have a 6th defenseman (if all goes well with the surgery) as the UPSIDE, signed at $4M per season. The downside is that he could possibly never be the same player again... so they have an AHL defenseman/boat anchor signed at $4M per season for three years.

That's my logical assessment of the situation. I literally can't understand the mental gymnastics they had to do to justify this. Especially with all the speculation about them rushing to get this done. Did they envision that post-surgery he'd step onto the ice (shirtless), rip a clapper top shelf, punch out Ben Hutton in the hallway and command $7M per season from the 30 teams lined up to sign him?

 

[pgj98m3]

They didn't even have to go that far!

I was trying to be nice.....an awful lot of sensitive egos around here.....

 

[vancityluongo]

I was trying to be nice.....an awful lot of sensitive egos around here.....

Apologies if my post came across as aggressive towards you; I agree with you completely. I'm simply saying they could have been even nicer and it still would've made more sense than what actually happened.

 

[pgj98m3]

Apologies if my post came across as aggressive towards you; I agree with you completely. I'm simply saying they could have been even nicer and it still would've made more sense than what actually happened.

No...didn't mean you at all. Keep up the good fight.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

Not sign him? Or if you have to, sign him for something approximating his value? Or wait until free agency and if he gets no bites, low-ball him?

In what world are you forced to sign a player whose performance has been a negative to the team? At a raise and for term, no less?

Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.

2) Offer him another 1 year deal for the same AAV if you really feel as though the team should get something for him. Trade him for the best offer available next season, as soon as possible, even if that offer is substantially less than what the team paid for him.

He can still be traded at any time. He has no trade protection. And a trading partner may prefer him on a three year deal as opposed to a one year deal. But again, whether he's on a one year deal like you suggest or a three year, he can still be traded either way.

- Play hardball, knowing full well that once the injury is revealed (and it would be) the market for him logically goes down further, and maybe you can squeeze him down another couple hundred k.

Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.

- Wait for his injury to be clarified by the medical staff/publicly, and see what sort of value he has at the draft. If no tangible offer (in their mind) materializes, offer him the same contract then.

He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.

- Wait two months. Do absolutely nothing else different, just ensure that you're committing three years to a player who is recovering well post-surgery rather than an injured player pre-surgery. They hold full control of his rights until July 1st.

Again, two months into a six month recovery means absolutely nothing. Even five months means nothing. What does mean something is how he performs on the ice post surgery.

let him walk because he sucks. what kind of silly q is that

If you think I ask silly questions, don't bother replying.

 

[vancityluongo]

Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.

How? If you were a player, would you rather play for the shmuck that signs whatever you put in front of him, or the one that negotiates a tough but fair deal?

By that standard is every UFA looking to sign here because of the Eriksson contract?

He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.

Again, two months into a six month recovery means absolutely nothing. Even five months means nothing. What does mean something is how he performs on the ice post surgery.

Sure. But a three-month recovery period means incrementally more than the assessment pre-surgery. It at least gives them full clarification on the injury, allows the surgeon to give the clearance that the operation was completed successfully, and places him halfway on the timeline to a full recovery. Whether you think that's worth very little or a lot, it means more than "nothing". Why give that up?

 

[arttk]

Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.

That's a weird statement. The factor for players resigning usually comes down to pay and term, not the history of other players not getting resigned for {insert reason}. For example, Boeser is not going to look at Gubranson not resigning because he was injured as a reason for him not wanting to resign. Give him a reasonable number with term and he will sign it and he will not give a shit how Gubranson was treated.

He can still be traded at any time. He has no trade protection. And a trading partner may prefer him on a three year deal as opposed to a one year deal. But again, whether he's on a one year deal like you suggest or a three year, he can still be traded either way.

A guy with a severe shoulder injury is not going to be more attractive on a 3 year contract, especially when he is being paid like a top 4 guy. He has to prove that he is a top4 guy and his shoulder is not impacting his physical play and show that his injury is not chronic. That's a lot of things to prove before he has value.

Again, very poor optics that could hurt the Canucks in the future.

Poor management decisions is also bad optics.

He would have little value at the draft while on a six month recovery from surgery.

little value > retaining him with a big contract with all the risks associated with it.

 

[opendoor]

Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.

What? You think any time a player gets injured that his team is essentially obligated to re-sign him? What kind of nonsense is that?

 

[F A N]

I was for trading Gudbranson but didn't mind the re-signing. Personally, regardless of what you think of him as a player, I think that there are plenty of teams that see him as an asset. His contract isn't cheap but the term is relatively short for a young UFA with zero NTC.

The Canucks have essentially zero depth when it comes to RHS RD. There is no one in the system he is blocking. Maybe Tanev gets traded this summer. No Gudbranson can't replace Tanev but there are no options to replace Tanev anyways. I know many here want the Canucks to use cap room to acquire draft picks but it ain't happening. The Canucks need players and Gudbranson fills a role that the Canucks want to be filled even if the majority here don't think he can fill it.

 

[Chairman Maouth]

How? If you were a player, would you rather play for the shmuck that signs whatever you put in front of him, or the one that negotiates a tough but fair deal?

I would rather play for a team that I don't think will try and screw me over when I'm injured and at a low point in my career.

Sure. But a three-month recovery period means incrementally more than the assessment pre-surgery. It at least gives them full clarification on the injury, allows the surgeon to give the clearance that the operation was completed successfully, and places him halfway on the timeline to a full recovery. Whether you think that's worth very little or a lot, it means more than "nothing". Why give that up?

Those would have to be microscopic increments. All I can do is repeat my same point. He will have little value before or after the surgery until he actually steps on the ice again for the Canucks. No one is going to offer anything of real value for him now or months from now - not until he proves he's healthy and can play in NHL games again.

That's a weird statement. The factor for players resigning usually comes down to pay and term, not the history of other players not getting resigned for {insert reason}. For example, Boeser is not going to look at Gubranson not resigning because he was injured as a reason for him not wanting to resign. Give him a reasonable number with term and he will sign it and he will not give a **** how Gubranson was treated.

I think you misunderstood me.

"future player acquisitions."

Meaning, not players that are already Canucks.

A guy with a severe shoulder injury is not going to be more attractive on a 3 year contract, especially when he is being paid like a top 4 guy. He has to prove that he is a top4 guy and his shoulder is not impacting his physical play and show that his injury is not chronic. That's a lot of things to prove before he has value.

That actually plays into my point. Three years is more time to do that than one. But realistically, he has a year or two to prove it where Benning has the possibility of making the original Gudbranson deal a little more palatable. He can thrive as Canuck, or he can be traded at any time; early, for peanuts, or later for potentially more. The three year contract gives Benning more options.

What? You think any time a player gets injured that his team is essentially obligated to re-sign him? What kind of nonsense is that?

If there's any nonsense here it's coming from you because I said optics, not obligated.

 

[Hit the post]

He can be traded at any time; early, for peanuts, or later for potentially more. The three year contract gives Benning more options.

Not really. If he's playing well - of course he can be traded...but why would he trade him if that's the case? If he stays the same - that three year deal will be a sort of NTC by default (nobody would want to trade for an injury prone player/a player with shoulder issues that has to play a physical style to be effective - at least not without getting something in return to take that risk).

Still don't understand why he got a raise (after he was given term).