Player Discussion Erik Gudbranson - To trade or extend?

[Melvin]

heh, like I said, I'd hope our standards are higher than "at least our GM ain't the worst GM in the league"

He is the worst in the league; that was not my point.

 

[Motte and Bailey]

How has he been effective?

He's a battler. Physically in the boards our team is extremely harder to play against when he's in the lineup. That's a very important thing that flies under the radar because advanced stats doesn't measure. He makes good plays here and there as well. There aren't many defenseman who can do what he does physically while also moving the puck at a high level. That would be a franchise defenseman material. Not a player you get back for Jared McCann and a pick.

 

[RobertKron]

He's a battler. Physically in the boards our team is extremely harder to play against when he's in the lineup. That's a very important thing that flies under the radar because advanced stats doesn't measure. He makes good plays here and there as well. There aren't many defenseman who can do what he does physically while also moving the puck at a high level. That would be a franchise defenseman material. Not a player you get back for Jared McCann and a pick.

Lol

 

[Motte and Bailey]

Lol

Not an argument son

 

[RobertKron]

Not an argument son

Well, yeah. I also don't argue with flat-earthers.

EXTREMELY HARDER

 

[I in the Eye]

This is a good 2016 interview with Benning about the Gudbranson trade:

 

[Sawchuk]

Most gms dont give a **** about statistics they are in denial. Gudbranson was just as awful on the panthers as he was on the canucks so some dim GM will probably make a really dumb offer for him.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...-entire-story/gcbnWQcfutUnqCJpclkKhO/amp.html

These days teams just about all employ multiple stats specialists. They do care, or at the very least they pretend to care. That said, stats are only one tool in an arsenal of analytical methods. They only tell part of the story. Would you choose a wedding cake by simply looking at a numerical analysis of its sugar content?

The best method of judgment is still to watch a player play. I urge you to do this. It might give you some perspective on the player that Gudbranson really is. I'm not saying that he is a superstar, but he is far from the slug you make him out to be.

 

[The Extrapolater]

The argument which I'm finding increasingly annoying is "how Gudbransson pins his opponent against the boards, allowing his teammates to get the puck".

That's not a good thing! It forces the Canucks forwards to collapse back into their own zone, taking away outlets, allowing their opponents to move their forecheck up to the Canucks' own blueline, and forcing the Canucks into some fairly awkward 50/50 battles for loose pucks in their own end. And if Gudbransson's on the ice, it's not 50/50. It's a 60/40 advantage for the opponents. The Canucks might as well be playing shorthanded trying to get loose pucks when he's on the ice.

 

[I in the Eye]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...-entire-story/gcbnWQcfutUnqCJpclkKhO/amp.html

These days teams just about all employ multiple stats specialists. They do care, or at the very least they pretend to care. That said, stats are only one tool in an arsenal of analytical methods. They only tell part of the story. Would you choose a wedding cake by simply looking at a numerical analysis of its sugar content?

The best method of judgment is still to watch a player play. I urge you to do this. It might give you some perspective on the player that Gudbranson really is. I'm not saying that he is a superstar, but he is far from the slug you make him out to be.

Some wedding cakes you can't even eat... they are round styrofoam molds designed to look good on the table. Personally, I liked gudbranson much better when he was on Florida. He looked appetizing... but now that he is here, bite into him and you get a mouth full of cardboard. He looks good on the plate, but he tastes like styrofoam. Benning should have read the Amazon reviews before purchasing. Hopefully he can be re-sold to the next bride come trade deadline for a decent price. On wedding day, lots of brides are more concerned with form over functionality.

 

[WTG]

He's a battler. Physically in the boards our team is extremely harder to play against when he's in the lineup. That's a very important thing that flies under the radar because advanced stats doesn't measure. He makes good plays here and there as well. There aren't many defenseman who can do what he does physically while also moving the puck at a high level. That would be a franchise defenseman material. Not a player you get back for Jared McCann and a pick.

Alright, let's assume you are right, that advanced stats might not pick up the finer details, but do they pick up the broader details? And if the finer details aren't seen in the broader strokes, what's the point of them? What separates him from Tanev who is put in the same position of going to the corner and getting pucks, but his details do show up in advanced stats. What seperates him from Tanev? What is he doing that advanced stats don't show?

Why can we analyze using advanced stats and come the conclusion Tanev is great and Gudbranson is not?

Also, think of McCann as a future top 6 center, because that is the value Benning placed on McCann at the time of trading him.

 

[WTG]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...-entire-story/gcbnWQcfutUnqCJpclkKhO/amp.html

These days teams just about all employ multiple stats specialists. They do care, or at the very least they pretend to care. That said, stats are only one tool in an arsenal of analytical methods. They only tell part of the story. Would you choose a wedding cake by simply looking at a numerical analysis of its sugar content?

The best method of judgment is still to watch a player play. I urge you to do this. It might give you some perspective on the player that Gudbranson really is. I'm not saying that he is a superstar, but he is far from the slug you make him out to be.

I watch Gudbranson play, and he doesn't play well.

I look at the stats and that confirms my eye test. Basically, I do not use analytic to be lazy, I use it to point to and say "hey look, Gudbranson's awful." to people who think he plays well.

 

[I in the Eye]

I watch Gudbranson play, and he doesn't play well.

I look at the stats and that confirms my eye test. Basically, I do not use analytic to be lazy, I use it to point to and say "hey look, Gudbranson's awful." to people who think he plays well.

I'd add that it is not practical to watch gudbranson play (and every player in the league play) game-after-game, year-after-year. Even in a given game, it's not practical to catch every detail throughout those years... so much happens in a game. How many Canucks fans watched gudbranson play every Florida game? I'd imagine not many.

In the business world, it would be best to ask every customer what they like or dislike about a given product... but this isn't practical... so you take a representative sample, and make predictions and best guesses across the population based on this representative sample. It's a solution to a similar problem... can't watch every game, can't ask every customer... and yet, the more games and customers you can see (ask) approaching the population size, the more accurate you'd be... stats is the best solution to catch what you don't see (ask), and is a much better solution than relying on a limited number of games / customers to describe the population on the whole.

If relying on the eye test, there are only so many games that can be watched... and the eye test is filled with personal bias. The stats allow someone to go back over all games played, and have a reasonable prediction how the player looked and performed in those games, and a reasonable prediction how the player will do going forward. Stats based on a representative sample and analyzed by a trained eye are extremely important to uncover trends and help make predictions for the future.

We could watch gudbranson for 1000 games... and wouldn't we make notes to go back to in the future for our perusal? Well, that's stats... capturing what was seen into numbers, run through statistical programs to help catch errors and describe what has been observed. Are stats perfect? No. Are they better than relying on the eye test? Yes. When what is being seen matches with what the numbers reveal interpreted by a trained eye, that's when the good things happen.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i've been ruminating over the penguins game. i thought he played average defence but was one of our most valuable dmen.

i am going to reach a partial landing on gudbranson. his stats suck but not as badly as people are claiming. he is a classic defensive dman compensating reasonably well for his lack of skill and iq by making short passes and chipping the puck out while knocking people over enough. for a physical defensive dman he has above average mobility and skill. he's not a top 4 dman but he skates and plays d well enough to be given top 4 minutes without giving away too much.

assuming he gets no better (and i think he is still gradually improving this season), gudbranson is a guy who for the right salary and term i want on the team. he's a guy i would try to play less than top 4 minutes if the game and his ego allowed it, but i think he should be paid as a top 4 dman. he's a guy certain teams need and will want on the ice playing top 4 minutes in certain games . we are such a team. we are completely lacking in dmen who are a credible threat to fight back (sorry biega) and we have none in the pipeline. so we need him.

gudbranson by no means makes us a tough team but he makes us a less weak team. he confronts physical pushes from other teams and he can dish out his own hits that can distract and disrupt other teams and rally ours. bieksa was the last guy to do it.

obviously i'd much rather have a guy like gudbranson who also plays at least like a hutton. but realistically, that guy at his age would be a top pair dman in this league.

i understand to gain the gudbranson benefits there is a trade off. while i think he's a guy who can play top 4 without getting into too much trouble, he will never be a reliable first pass guy or a puck rusher and his defending even 1 on 1 he is never going to be completely reliable. his style of clearing the puck will lose us possession frequently. it also seems likely he will always be vulnerable to being pylonned in a murray baron kind of way. i can see him breaking my heart in a playoff game. i still would take a hard shot at signing him.

 

[Nucker101]

Shannon on Gudbranson: "Benning will make decision in Feb. Won't go through Hamhuis situation again. Would be shocked if he re-signs in VAN"
— Sportsnet 650 (@Sportsnet650) November 6, 2017


If this is true then he better be traded by the TDL.​

 

[MS]

Shannon on Gudbranson: "Benning will make decision in Feb. Won't go through Hamhuis situation again. Would be shocked if he re-signs in VAN"
— Sportsnet 650 (@Sportsnet650) November 6, 2017


If this is true then he better be traded by the TDL.​

That's extremely encouraging if true.

 

[RandV]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/...-entire-story/gcbnWQcfutUnqCJpclkKhO/amp.html

These days teams just about all employ multiple stats specialists. They do care, or at the very least they pretend to care. That said, stats are only one tool in an arsenal of analytical methods. They only tell part of the story. Would you choose a wedding cake by simply looking at a numerical analysis of its sugar content?

The best method of judgment is still to watch a player play. I urge you to do this. It might give you some perspective on the player that Gudbranson really is. I'm not saying that he is a superstar, but he is far from the slug you make him out to be.

Personally if I try to watch a specific player to analyze his play I'm not going to see anything. The "eye test" sucks in a way because entirely objective and everybody sees the game differently. You say you watch Gudbranson play and he's not that bad. WTG says he watches Gudbranson play and he is that bad. So how exactly to you resolve this difference in opinion?

 

[valkynax]

Interesting speculative tweet on Gudbranson. To my understanding, several scenario may occur...

1) EG's play improves dramatically making him a stable of this team.
-> 1a) Benning chose to extend him in a futile attempt to make playoff push.
-> 1b) EG is traded at TDL for a decent return

2) EG plays OK but does not garner enough attention at TDL.
-> 2a) Benning allows EG to walk at season end, basically learned jackshit from the Hammer situation
-> 2b) EG is either traded for a paltry return or he became a throw-in for slightly better paltry return

From what I see, I think 1a and 1b are nigh impossible; 2a seems most likely. 2b would also be plausible if the team remains in the playoff hunt but needs a little extra push (will be an act of futility and desperation, I feel).

As much as I want to be optimistic about the situation, I have to change my stance from "wait and see" to "eh we messed up again and just let it go." This acquisition has not worked out well for us, and barring a miracle it is unlikely for us to recoup the cost. It is unfortunate we once again gave up assets needlessly and came out at the bottom. Then again, this really isn't anything new from Benning.

Whatever it may be, just get it over with so we can move on. I'm pretty numb at this kinda stuff already.

 

[Pump n Dump]

Interesting speculative tweet on Gudbranson. To my understanding, several scenario may occur...

1) EG's play improves dramatically making him a stable of this team.
-> 1a) Benning chose to extend him in a futile attempt to make playoff push.
-> 1b) EG is traded at TDL for a decent return

2) EG plays OK but does not garner enough attention at TDL.
-> 2a) Benning allows EG to walk at season end, basically learned jack**** from the Hammer situation
-> 2b) EG is either traded for a poultry return or he became a throw-in for slightly better poultry return

From what I see, I think 1a and 1b are nigh impossible; 2a seems most likely. 2b would also be plausible if the team remains in the playoff hunt but needs a little extra push (will be an act of futility and desperation, I feel).

As much as I want to be optimistic about the situation, I have to change my stance from "wait and see" to "eh we messed up again and just let it go." This acquisition has not worked out well for us, and barring a miracle it is unlikely for us to recoup the cost. It is unfortunate we once again gave up assets needlessly and came out at the bottom. Then again, this really isn't anything new from Benning.

Whatever it may be, just get it over with so we can move on. I'm pretty numb at this kinda stuff already.

Why does the trade have to be with Anaheim?

 

[valkynax]

Why does the trade have to be with Anaheim?

lmao OK it took me a couple of seconds to get it, well played sir.


Me not born in this country.

 

[Breakers]

Sounds like a very nice guy and is a great teammate, and a guy you want for those certain games.

But you know his agent is going to ask for $5 million a year. And you can't sign him for that much.

 

[Nuckles]

That's extremely encouraging if true.

It's looking more and more like it's true. First there was the Gudbranson/Demers trade rumor that was vetoed by a NTC, then there was the quote by Benning earlier in the season saying old-school defensive d-men aren't really useful anymore, and now we get this tweet (though I take it with a grain of salt since Shannon isn't completely reliable).

 

[Knight53]

Wasn't their noise about a shift in the organization and how they're using more of an analytical approach in their decision making? Linden mentioned it sometime after the 2017 draft.

Gudbranson needs to be traded.

 

[krutovsdonut]

i think we will trade him because i think his salary demands are going to be out of line with what he is as a player.

or he will get injured before january and we will lose him for nothing

 

[Hit the post]

and we will lose him for nothing

I got a bad feeling he'll re-up with the Panthers....

 

[cc]

I would re-sign him if his salary demands were more in line with his skill set but he'll likely want to cash in.
I still like the idea of having at least 1 guy at the back end that isn't buttery soft that can respond to opposing physical players. From what I can see from games, it looks like opposing teams are less inclined to play the puck on his side along the boards because they know it will be a physical battle.