Player Discussion Erik Brännström |5'10, 181lbs | Left Handed Defenceman

[Sens of Anarchy]

It’s not a clear cut recipe or formula but this is what I think...

Stone was never a fast skater, so losing a step isn’t going to affect his game the same way losing a step will be for Matt Duchene.

I don’t care about his draft pedigree or his underrated hockey IQ, if Duchene loses his speed and doesn’t adapt, he’s going to find his later years to be much more difficult as opposed to Stone. (And look, no one is saying he can’t adjust- but that’s the thing, he HAS to adjust his game whereas Stone doesn’t)

Look at Karlsson, he doesn’t lack hockey IQ, creativity or hands- and his game is already looking different without speed. Granted it’s from an injury, you can see still see what taking away someone’s main attribute can do to them.

Here’s the one caveat though, McDavid (Duchene) is a blessed skater and uses his speed as his main weapon. I definitely think he’s going to age his game much better than let’s say another player who didn’t use his speed was.

Again, not clear concise recipe.

Definitely two sides to it. If a significantly large part of a player's effectiveness was due to his speed . He can have a harder time adjusting. Karlsson I think was playing quite hurt so that is a different factor. If you are in pain every time you try to give it beyond a certain point. Anyway , back to my point. If speed is your main weapon and you lose a step or two , you could have more difficult adjustments than a player who never relied on beating people in foot races losing a step.

 

[Viletho]

Definitely two sides to it. If a significantly large part of a player's effectiveness was due to his speed . He can have a harder time adjusting. Karlsson I think was playing quite hurt so that is a different factor. If you are in pain every time you try to give it beyond a certain point. Anyway , back to my point. If speed is your main weapon and you lose a step or two , you could have more difficult adjustments than a player who never relied on beating people in foot races losing a step.

But there is other part of the game that could be affected. Like Stone for exemple, he is using IQ to steal puck. But let's say he take 4 stride and steal the puck, if he lose a step and take 3 instead, that puck might not be turnovered. ( if it make sense lol )

Stone doesn't need speed or great skating to be effective in the Ozone. That's for sure. But if he always needed that extra effort for backchecking, try to steal puck, hitting, at the end of the game, will he be has effective since he need extra energy to do so?
Maybe not. The only thing i'm sure, losing a step won't affect his cycling game. It won't affect his screening game and more. He's that good.

I feel that this debate had Nothing to do with Brannstrom anyway. We should never have trade Stone, but for the guy, i'm happy he was trade. With how they decide to do a rebuild, i don't feel keeping Stone was the best option for him. It's just unfortunate, that we had to do this rebuild and lose this many players.

That being said, i'm really exited for Brannstrom. I really believe we have a great one. That's just a little unfortunate that he will always be link to a great player like Stone.

 

[Ice-Tray]

When Stone will start to decline is an interesting question in and of itself; he's not a guy that relies on speed, so how much of an impact with a decline in his skating and such actually have? Will he be like Alfredsson, and have his best years from 29-36? Or will he be like Heatley who's production rapidly declined from 29 onward.

My personal belief is guys who rely on hockey sense are typically the guys that have slower declines. Sakic, Alfredsson, Thornton all come to mind as guys who's decline was gradual because of their ability to use their hockey sense to adapt to changing physical abilities. I think Stone should be like that.

Obviously, injuries/health can throw a monkey wrench into things; Spezza's back as an example.

In Brannstrom, I have what I consider to be high hopes, but I see him as a Krug level player. I think Stone has a fair bit of buffer zone above Krug, so if he starts regressing in year 3, there's some leeway.

Time will tell, and as you say, it will be interesting to watch.

Well, he does rely on his speed, it’s just not a strength. It is adequate for him to get around the ice and be effective, but it is right there on the border.

Take away a step from Stone and he won’t be able to get where he needs to be as quickly, and won’t be able to break away from players when he steals the puck as effectively.

He is a smart player, so as his step slows a bit he’ll have to rely more and more on other players to get places quickly so that he can distribute the puck. That’s means a system approach, which is more easily countered by other teams.

Stone is a great winger, and has a few more seasons for sure at the very top level in my opinion, but when he starts to slow, his skating has nowhere to drop but into the land of being a detractor.

I don’t like that deal at all for the Sens. I think trade protection for the first 5 years was more than fair, but when he starts to decline, a small market team has to have the flexibility to trade that contract out (even with a sweetener or retention).

If Branstrom lives up to his potential, he’ll be a fine replacement for Stone, especially since he’ll be a cornerstone (pardon the pun) of one of the best D corps in the league in that case.

I’m fully converted to the idea that massive long term trade protected deals to players where the contract half covers their declining years are bad deals. That contract will look much better playing EB for 8 years of his prime (should he reach his potential of course).

I loved Stone, but I don’t think he’ll age as well as a guy like Duchene, who has speed to give.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I don't care if Stone declines next year and Brannstrom turns into Lidstrom next year. Mark Stone should've been traded for more and never signed to that one year muppet contract.

Lol....

 

[DaveMatthew]

If Branstrom lives up to his potential, he’ll be a fine replacement for Stone, especially since he’ll be a cornerstone (pardon the pun) of one of the best D corps in the league in that case.

You're comparing the trade by looking at the worst case scenario for Mark Stone vs. the best case scenario for Erik Brannstrom.

No, Mark Stone is not likely to continue being a PPG winger into his 30's. But he's also not likely to completely fall of a cliff. The guy just turned 27 this summer. We're talking about him as if he's already in his mid 30's.

At the same time, Erik Brannstrom is not likely to become Erik Karlsson. More realistically, he'll be Sami Vatanen, a good 2nd pairing, PP QB.

So let's say we traded 4 years of a PPG captain-quality player for 8 years of Sami Vatanen. Doesn't sound as rosy.

And obviously there's a risk of signing any player to an 8-year deal. But if you avoid it, you'll never win a Cup. Sometimes, you need to take that risk. Plus, who's to say 30 is the cut off? Erik Karlsson suffered a couple career altering injuries at 26. Next summer, Thomas Chabot will be 23. Is it wise to sign him to an 8-year deal? What if something happens and he's not as good for the last half?

With Brady Tkachuk's style of play, what if he wears down in his 20's, like Lucic, Dustin Brown, and other power forwards have? Maybe we shouldn't sign him either...

 

[JD1]

You're comparing the trade by looking at the worst case scenario for Mark Stone vs. the best case scenario for Erik Brannstrom.

No, Mark Stone is not likely to continue being a PPG winger into his 30's. But he's also not likely to completely fall of a cliff. The guy just turned 27 this summer. We're talking about him as if he's already in his mid 30's.

At the same time, Erik Brannstrom is not likely to become Erik Karlsson. More realistically, he'll be Sami Vatanen, a good 2nd pairing, PP QB.

So let's say we traded 4 years of a PPG captain-quality player for 8 years of Sami Vatanen. Doesn't sound as rosy.

And obviously there's a risk of signing any player to an 8-year deal. But if you avoid it, you'll never win a Cup. Sometimes, you need to take that risk. Plus, who's to say 30 is the cut off? Erik Karlsson suffered a couple career altering injuries at 26. Next summer, Thomas Chabot will be 23. Is it wise to sign him to an 8-year deal? What if something happens and he's not as good for the last half?

With Brady Tkachuk's style of play, what if he wears down in his 20's, like Lucic, Dustin Brown, and other power forwards have? Maybe we shouldn't sign him either...

I think your doing a bit of the same....in terms of comparing the players

I kind of started this whole discussion by saying I think for 5 of Stone's 8 years Brannstrom will be the more valuable player. It's strictly an opinion based on my own hopes for Brannstrom and my thoughts on Stone into his 30s.

Your contribution to the discussion has been from an opposite point of view but your responses have been pretty level headed and some quality discussion seems to be returning to the board which is good.

 

[JD1]

What exactly are you trying to prove here? Giroux's issue was recovering from his hip injury. There's an interview where he talks about it. That's not losing a step naturally over time, he doesn't skate the same today as he did when he was 23, but he adapted and continues to put up points. When he had a hip injury, or was recovering from hip surgery and still not confident in his health, it affected him.

Are you suggesting Stone will start skating like a guy who need/just had hip and hernia surgery in the near future and see a drastic decline in his skating? Or are we talking about guys naturally losing a step over time as they age? The two are very different issues and affect performance in different ways.

I'm sorry. I thought you were following along with the discussion but you seem to be reacting post by post.

 

[Rand0m]

Anyone who says Stone relies on his speed to be effective has obviously never watched Stone play. Their styles are different but Joe Thornton is in no way a speedster yet he’s done pretty well with an elite hockey IQ, even in his late 30’s.

Sens traded from a position of weakness with 2 of the best players in franchise history. The returns were both “meh” considering who went out no matter what character assassination is going by a select few posters here.

Karlsson was my favourite player but I can buy the argument that his best days might be behind him especially after having a few injuries, he’s likely fine for the next 3-4 years but I do anticipate a noticeable decline after that. Trading Stone is one of the biggest mistakes this franchise has ever done.

 

[Ice-Tray]

You're comparing the trade by looking at the worst case scenario for Mark Stone vs. the best case scenario for Erik Brannstrom.

No, Mark Stone is not likely to continue being a PPG winger into his 30's. But he's also not likely to completely fall of a cliff. The guy just turned 27 this summer. We're talking about him as if he's already in his mid 30's.

At the same time, Erik Brannstrom is not likely to become Erik Karlsson. More realistically, he'll be Sami Vatanen, a good 2nd pairing, PP QB.

So let's say we traded 4 years of a PPG captain-quality player for 8 years of Sami Vatanen. Doesn't sound as rosy.

And obviously there's a risk of signing any player to an 8-year deal. But if you avoid it, you'll never win a Cup. Sometimes, you need to take that risk. Plus, who's to say 30 is the cut off? Erik Karlsson suffered a couple career altering injuries at 26. Next summer, Thomas Chabot will be 23. Is it wise to sign him to an 8-year deal? What if something happens and he's not as good for the last half?

With Brady Tkachuk's style of play, what if he wears down in his 20's, like Lucic, Dustin Brown, and other power forwards have? Maybe we shouldn't sign him either...

You’ve made up this best/worst case situation to suit yourself, I didn’t include anything of the sort in my post. It’s like you go out of your way to try and make discussions with me as divisive as possible... Fine with me if that’s your flavour....

I don’t think Stone will fall off a cliff, nor do I think that him losing a step and starting a decline of sorts in three years is close to worst case scenario. I think it would be hedging bets at best. He’s a good player, but as JD1 was saying, the last 5 years of his deal, with a full NMC is a pretty big gamble in my opinion. It’s not a no brainer not to do it, it just makes it ok that we didn’t want to go that far, in my personal opinion.

It’s why I don’t particularly like these types of long term deals at this stage of a player’s career. I fully understand why players love them:

Branstrom living up to his potential is also not the best case scenario either, it’s a good scenario, but obviously overshooting his thought potential would be best case. You keep mentioning a multiple Norris winning, best per season point producing d man of our time as your Branstrom comparison, why are you doing that? He has been projected as a 1st line D man, if he meets his potential that’s pretty awesome for us, and he was arguably one of the very best D men not in the NHL at the time of the trade, it’s not like he’s a long shot to be that good. He doesn’t have to be EK for us to be a more valuable asset to our young team in 3-4 years than Stone would be at that time.

Yes, signing a young star defenseman to an 8 year deal that covers his entire prime is an excellent way to give out a long term contract. Paying half a long term contract for declining years, at prime years dollars not so much.

I’m not seeing that value in trying to compare signing BT at 19 to signing Stone at 26 to a long term deal. Maybe just stick to the Stone signing and it’s merits, your other comparisons don’t fit and just clutter the discussion. There is plenty to talk about without that.

 

[Micklebot]

I'm sorry. I thought you were following along with the discussion but you seem to be reacting post by post.

Yeah i followed. You consistently ignore that there is a distinction between losing a step to natural decline and a sudden drastict change.

Nobody disputes that should stone start skating like a 40 year old it will have a drastic affect. Whats being discussed by everyone but you is losing a step. I dont think its reasonable to expect stone to skate like hip surgery Giroux at 30 to 33.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Anyone who says Stone relies on his speed to be effective has obviously never watched Stone play. Their styles are different but Joe Thornton is in no way a speedster yet he’s done pretty well with an elite hockey IQ, even in his late 30’s.

Sens traded from a position of weakness with 2 of the best players in franchise history. The returns were both “meh” considering who went out no matter what character assassination is going by a select few posters here.

Karlsson was my favourite player but I can buy the argument that his best days might be behind him especially after having a few injuries, he’s likely fine for the next 3-4 years but I do anticipate a noticeable decline after that. Trading Stone is one of the biggest mistakes this franchise has ever done.

Dude, try and accept some player criticism. It’s ok to consider that Stone may drop a level or two in his 30’s, it’s not character assassination. Opinions that don’t match yours are often just as valuable, as hard a pill as that may be to swallow.

Also it doesn’t compute that you can concede that you think EKs best days are behind him, but then it’s not reasonable for Stone’s to be behind him in a few years as well. EK is a far better player than Stone is, brains to boots.

Branstrom is not a ‘meh’ return. That’s an assessment that only fits if you’re trying to minimize the return because you I’ve Stone and want to be angry. Branstrom is the best prospect we have seen be moved in quite a while, he is absolutely top shelf blue-chip.

Columbus is the team that took a serious hit on those gambles they took...

 

[Masked]

With Brady Tkachuk's style of play, what if he wears down in his 20's, like Lucic, Dustin Brown, and other power forwards have? Maybe we shouldn't sign him either...

If only there was a good comparable for Brady and how long he played - like having a father who was a power forward?

 

[Ice-Tray]

Yeah i followed. You consistently ignore that there is a distinction between losing a step to natural decline and a sudden drastict change.

Nobody disputes that should stone start skating like a 40 year old it will have a drastic affect. Whats being discussed by everyone but you is losing a step. I dont think its reasonable to expect stone to skate like hip surgery Giroux at 30 to 33.

Well, his skating is not great at the moment. He’s closer to hip surgery CG than he is to uninsured CG.

He really has to work hard to be a very average NHL skater. If he loses a step or two he’ll have to adjust to stay effective. He can do that.

I think the discussion is being pulled into divisiveness by some because some fans can’t abide any disparaging comments being made about their favourite players. I mean people are deliberately downplaying EBs potential because he was the major return for Stone.

Look, no one is arguing that Stone is going to suck all of a sudden in his early 30’s, the discussion is whether in 3-4 year Branstrom becomes a lore valuable player than Stone. It’s entirely reasonable to consider this given the stage of Stone’s career vs the generally accepted (outside of HFSens seemingly) potential that Branstrom has.

 

[JD1]

Yeah i followed. You consistently ignore that there is a distinction between losing a step to natural decline and a sudden drastict change.

Nobody disputes that should stone start skating like a 40 year old it will have a drastic affect. Whats being discussed by everyone but you is losing a step. I dont think its reasonable to expect stone to skate like hip surgery Giroux at 30 to 33.

I didn't distinctly ignore it at all. I referenced the distinction. Go back and read what I wrote if you like. This entire discussion started based on what I posted.

I also didn't bring Giroux into the discussion. Go back and read. I didn't bring an injury example into the discussion. But given it was brought to the discussion I highlighted the difference between his 58 point season and his 102 point season that followed as not being related to hands and IQ. it's the same player so the hands and IQ are the same. The difference was skating. Lose the ability and the game doesn't care why.

You want to criticize my posts. Fine. Fill your boots. I've been putting up with that for a while. But please at least read and understand what I have written and criticize me for that, as opposed to what you think I wrote.

That's why I made the comment about following along, because you clearly are criticizing me for something I didn't bring to the discussion.

Enjoy your long weekend!

 

[JD1]

Anyone who says Stone relies on his speed to be effective has obviously never watched Stone play. Their styles are different but Joe Thornton is in no way a speedster yet he’s done pretty well with an elite hockey IQ, even in his late 30’s.

Sens traded from a position of weakness with 2 of the best players in franchise history. The returns were both “meh” considering who went out no matter what character assassination is going by a select few posters here.

Karlsson was my favourite player but I can buy the argument that his best days might be behind him especially after having a few injuries, he’s likely fine for the next 3-4 years but I do anticipate a noticeable decline after that. Trading Stone is one of the biggest mistakes this franchise has ever done.

I dont think anyone here is of the opinion that Stone relies on his speed to be effective. That's clearly not the case.

 

[DaveMatthew]

Yes, signing a young star defenseman to an 8 year deal that covers his entire prime is an excellent way to give out a long term contract. Paying half a long term contract for declining years, at prime years dollars not so much.

I’m not seeing that value in trying to compare signing BT at 19 to signing Stone at 26 to a long term deal. Maybe just stick to the Stone signing and it’s merits, your other comparisons don’t fit and just clutter the discussion. There is plenty to talk about without that.

What's young and "prime" differs player by player.

Karlsson's prime was between 21-26. Next year, Chabot will be 23. If he has the same prime as EK, signing him to a max extension means 5 of the 8 seasons will be his "non-prime" seasons.

And Brady Tkachuk is 19 today. He won't be when he's up for his long, big-money contract.

 

[DaveMatthew]

What's young and "prime" differs player by player.

Karlsson's prime was between 21-26. Next year, Chabot will be 23. If he has the same prime as EK, signing him to a max extension means 5 of the 8 seasons will be his "non-prime" seasons.

And Brady Tkachuk is 19 today. He won't be when he's up for his long, big-money contract.

For the record, I think we should absolutely sign both long-term. I also think we would have had a much better shot at competing over the next 4-5 years if we had re-signed Stone and Duchene. Trading them made it more unlikely that this rebuild ends up with a winning team.

 

[FolignoQuantumLeap]

Branstrom's realistic potential is that of a Jake Gardiner. He has a bit higher ceiling but he's likely gonna be a player in a similar mould.

 

[Masked]

Branstrom's realistic potential is that of a Jake Gardiner. He has a bit higher ceiling but he's likely gonna be a player in a similar mould.

Other than speed, those 2 have very little in common.

 

[darnok]

Branstrom's realistic potential is that of a Jake Gardiner. He has a bit higher ceiling but he's likely gonna be a player in a similar mould.

Nice that his ceiling is higher than his potential, I guess!

 

[JD1]

For the record, I think we should absolutely sign both long-term. I also think we would have had a much better shot at competing over the next 4-5 years if we had re-signed Stone and Duchene. Trading them made it more unlikely that this rebuild ends up with a winning team.

Ya I agree if y8u are talking about winning a cup. We'd have an easier time doing that in the next 4 to 5 years had we signed those 2 guys. Emphasis on easier. But notwithstanding the chances would be better, would the chances be good? Within 4 to 5 years? The window might be opening and were ready to compete.

The problem with it is those two guys chewing up a ton of cap space the the opportunity to win being better in 5 to 8 years but the ability to pay what would be the teams best players would be compromised by those two contracts

 

[bert]

Lol....

I dont understand what you are insinuating here but he isnt wrong. Its your post that has all the holes in it.

 

[bert]

You’ve made up this best/worst case situation to suit yourself, I didn’t include anything of the sort in my post. It’s like you go out of your way to try and make discussions with me as divisive as possible... Fine with me if that’s your flavour....

I don’t think Stone will fall off a cliff, nor do I think that him losing a step and starting a decline of sorts in three years is close to worst case scenario. I think it would be hedging bets at best. He’s a good player, but as JD1 was saying, the last 5 years of his deal, with a full NMC is a pretty big gamble in my opinion. It’s not a no brainer not to do it, it just makes it ok that we didn’t want to go that far, in my personal opinion.

It’s why I don’t particularly like these types of long term deals at this stage of a player’s career. I fully understand why players love them:

Branstrom living up to his potential is also not the best case scenario either, it’s a good scenario, but obviously overshooting his thought potential would be best case. You keep mentioning a multiple Norris winning, best per season point producing d man of our time as your Branstrom comparison, why are you doing that? He has been projected as a 1st line D man, if he meets his potential that’s pretty awesome for us, and he was arguably one of the very best D men not in the NHL at the time of the trade, it’s not like he’s a long shot to be that good. He doesn’t have to be EK for us to be a more valuable asset to our young team in 3-4 years than Stone would be at that time.

Yes, signing a young star defenseman to an 8 year deal that covers his entire prime is an excellent way to give out a long term contract. Paying half a long term contract for declining years, at prime years dollars not so much.

I’m not seeing that value in trying to compare signing BT at 19 to signing Stone at 26 to a long term deal. Maybe just stick to the Stone signing and it’s merits, your other comparisons don’t fit and just clutter the discussion. There is plenty to talk about without that.

Your first paragraph is actually unbelievable. He literally did the exact same thing you did.

Stone was 26 when he signed that contract. What are you talking about?!... So should the sens just trade everyone once they are 26? Tkachuk isnt the nicest skater i guess they should trade him too when he is hitting his prime.

 

[bert]

Well, his skating is not great at the moment. He’s closer to hip surgery CG than he is to uninsured CG.

He really has to work hard to be a very average NHL skater. If he loses a step or two he’ll have to adjust to stay effective. He can do that.

I think the discussion is being pulled into divisiveness by some because some fans can’t abide any disparaging comments being made about their favourite players. I mean people are deliberately downplaying EBs potential because he was the major return for Stone.

Look, no one is arguing that Stone is going to suck all of a sudden in his early 30’s, the discussion is whether in 3-4 year Branstrom becomes a lore valuable player than Stone. It’s entirely reasonable to consider this given the stage of Stone’s career vs the generally accepted (outside of HFSens seemingly) potential that Branstrom has.

If Brannstrom was projecting to be a top 10 player at his position he would be a way higher ranked prospect. The irony in all these posts are too much. If anyone is downplaying anyone its you doing it to Stone. Players like Stone come around for an organization every 5 to 10 years. You act like they grow on trees.

Massively overating Brannstrom, temper your expectations. Over hyping guys because you are hopeful is a sure fire way to be dissapointed.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I dont understand what you are insinuating here but he isnt wrong. Its your post that has all the holes in it.

It’s ok if you don’t get it.