Super premature to say 3 games into a 7 year deal...
Confirmed with Link: CBJ sign Erik Gudbranson (D) 4 years 4 million AAV
- Thread starter CBJWerenski8
- Start date
My take is that the problem is mostly about coaching, but obviously Gud is not very gud, not helping, at all, but makes things worse.
If the defense was OK last season, or if the defense was OK with guys known to be good defensively like Bjork, I would be more content with the analysis that it's just the bad players (like Gud now or Boqvist [defensively] last season). But it has been quite systematic. Obviously better players play better than worse players even with bad systems, but rarely even good players can shine if the system is not providing support for that.
Other candidates were Voracek, Nyquist and maybe Roslovic. With the first two, we'd have to add a young player, and it wouldn't be called Bemstrom, Chinakhov, or Foudy. Roslovic is a center.
Sdrawkcab321
Registered User
Gaudreau has to provide a net positive that not only makes up for Bjork but also accounts for the Gudbranson disaster. Being a star player is the bare minimum required to make the player carousel a wash.
The other candidates were anyone making more than about $1.8m. Most of the roster. All of them have their pluses and minuses to moving.
Not to be rude but Johnny is 2x the player Bjorky is. Hands down the best player to play for Jackets since Panarin. Suggesting that Bjorky for Johnny is a bad deal, because of a classic NHL style overpayment for a 3rd pair dman is absolutely insane imo.
That and there's also nothing about signing Gaudreau that mandated moving Bjorkstrand. We could have easily had both.
Xoggz22
Registered User
It's not rude. It's called truth. The fact there are so many with strong opinions on any of these topics after 3 games (that was before the unreal goal last night and multi point game) is ludicrous and crazy to stomach as part of this fan base. To each their own.
At least give these guys a little time to play. I try, every year, not to judge this team until after 10 games or so. They just came out of their toughest camp ever (per Kuraly) and had no legs to start the year. that's a coaching/planning issue in my book. Let them settle in and play together a bit. If it's still that bad into November... bitch away. (that's not intended for this post but the overall crap in these threads).
koteka
Registered User
That would have been a waste of resources in my opinion. More top 6 wings than places for top 6 wings to play. And too much salary tied up in wings. I believe Bjorkstrand‘s days were numbered the second Johnny Hockey fell into our laps. The only thing to discuss, in my opinion, is whether we got a good enough return for Bjorkstrand or should we have waited and gotten more. If the cap jumps $4 million next year as some have said, maybe we should have waited a year to move Bjorkstrand. If the cap stays flat, then maybe we made the right move.
MissADD
Registered User
I think they got what the best deal they could. They needed space for this season and it most likely came down to getting something for Bjorkstrand, even if it was under valued, vs giving up something to get rid of say a player like Gus or Jake. This still isn't a playoff team, it wasn't when they signed Gaudreau, so getting more picks to stock the cupboard with potential is the right move.
- Apr 27, 2005
- 33,713
- 30,022
Gudbranson looks like buyout material. The only potential positive is that this is how he looked at the start of last year, but he got better as the season went on to the point where he looked more like a #4 than a #6. Hopefully that's a trend with him.
Unfortiatel the thing is (and from the CBJ video IMO it's confirmed) that the CBJ had no idea that Johnny would ever have considerd playing here if we didn't sign Gudbranson.
So I don't see it as a package deal - more that the CBJ overpaid for his buddy, then found out JOhnny was interested.
So maybe if we didn't sign Gudbranson, that the CBJ may have called Johnny?
I still find is crazy how it worked out. More times than not the preferred teams are aware for the top free agents. If not it seems crazy that the CBJ wouldn't have made a courtesy call that morning free agency started.
So I don't see it as a package deal - more that the CBJ overpaid for his buddy, then found out JOhnny was interested.
So maybe if we didn't sign Gudbranson, that the CBJ may have called Johnny?
I still find is crazy how it worked out. More times than not the preferred teams are aware for the top free agents. If not it seems crazy that the CBJ wouldn't have made a courtesy call that morning free agency started.
spintheblackcircle
incoming!!!
- Mar 1, 2002
- 66,272
- 12,216
I'd worry way more about Jake than I would about Gudbranson.
Jake looks washed
Jake looks washed
koteka
Registered User
That's not how it went down.
The Jackets did make a big offer to Gaudreau when free agency opened at noon. But they didn't hear back from him and no one else did either because the Gaudreau's were figuring things out with themselves and talking to friends. One of those friends was Gudbranson and after Gud talks to Johnny he tells Dorse that Johnny wants to go to Columbus. That is when the Jackets realize they are in it, a bit after 3pm, but it doesn't imply that Johnny's camp wouldn't have told the Jackets that they were interested. They most likely would have talked to the Jackets anyways, word just got ahead of them.
What is more likely is that the Gudbransons going to Columbus is what put Columbus on top for the Gaudreaus. Gud and Johnny are buds and probably more importantly their wives are besties and were both expecting. It was obviously a family decision.
We had a lot of forwards and it's awkward, I get that. But I think the Jackets now really lack resiliency and versatility. We don't have guys who can win picks on their own, almost no one who keeps a high battle level when things are going badly.
Folks, so far, my initial "hot" "take" is aging very well.
Jovavic
Gaslight Object Project
Agreeing with the vast majority of posters isn't a hot take lol
I don't think the take has come of age yet, either. It's still a minor. Icky.
Johansen2Foligno
CBJ Realest
- Jan 2, 2015
- 9,253
- 4,174
This is a post for December/January. Not 2 weeks into the season lol
Your take was not hot but kind of consensus that 4*4 is too much for Gud. While it's way too early to tell, his xGF% certainly is horrible.
Also there is a quite jump from one D being 1-2M too expensive to "fire the GM".
Erik Gudbranson is on a historical pace - a historically bad one.
*All stats are Dmen at 5v5, per Natural Stat Trick
*took the 3-4 "worst" players in terms of shot share and expected goals %
*included what I think is the "worst" season of the analytics era (stats start in '07-'08) and that's Josh Gorges of the actively-tanking '14-'15 Sabres
Weird covid-shortened seasons, but generally 500 min TOI is the cut-off I used (had to lower it for the 2020 seasons). I noted when a player did not reach 60 games played as well.
In general, the worst Dmen hit ~40% in shot share and expected goals % over a full season, plus or minus a percent or so.
Erik Gudbranson isn't anywhere close. I could not find any Dman in the analytics era to be on the ice for as many shot attempts against (CA/60) and unblocked shot attempts against (FA/60) per 60 minutes of 5v5 ice time as Gudbranson is this season. His xG% is the 2nd-worst of any Dman I could find - behind only Troy Stretcher of this season. His shot share % (CF%) is on pace to be the worst of any season for any Dman since 2007, save for Josh Gorges in '14-'15.
I get that some people think analytics are overrated or whatever, but Gudbranson is on pace to set historic marks and put up possibly the worst defensive season of at least the last 15 years.
Double-Shift Lasse
Just post better
All part of a thought experiment to see what happens when you pair a poor scheme with a bad player.
