Injury Report: Erik Gudbranson to undergo shoulder surgery.

Chairman Maouth

Retired Staff
Apr 29, 2009
25,710
11,933
Comox Valley
Not really. If he's playing well - of course he can be traded...but why would he trade him if that's the case?
What do you mean not really? He has no trade protection. He can be traded at any time. But you know the answer to your question about if he's playing well - he can be traded for assets.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
What do you mean not really? He has no trade protection. He can be traded at any time. But you know the answer to your question about if he's playing well - he can be traded for assets.
Didn't I explain that in the other part of my post that you cut out? If he's playing the same (or worse), who would want to trade for him with that contract? Sure it's not Eriksson bad (not even close) but it's hardly a contract that somebody will give up anything for (instead force us to take a contract dump in return).

There's no reason to trade him if he's playing well (not like we have a ton of D prospects that will be prevented from being in the lineup if they've earned it).
 

Chairman Maouth

Retired Staff
Apr 29, 2009
25,710
11,933
Comox Valley
Didn't I explain that in the other part of my post that you cut out? If he's playing the same (or worse), who would want to trade for him with that contract? Sure it's not Eriksson bad (not even close) but it's hardly a contract that somebody will give up anything for (instead force us to take a contract dump in return).

There's no reason to trade him if he's playing well (not like we have a ton of D prospects that will be prevented from being in the lineup if they've earned it).
He has value if he's healthy. I think there are teams that would trade for him. And of course he can be traded if he's playing well. You know as well as I do that no one is untradeable.

And sometimes you just gotta roll the dice. In my opinion that's what Benning did here. He's gambling that he can turn a shit sandwich into a prime rib sandwich. Or at least into something borderline edible.
 

Hit the post

I have your gold medal Zippy!
Oct 1, 2015
22,288
14,030
Hiding under WTG's bed...
You know as well as I do that no one is untradeable.
Sure, if you find some GM dumber than you (ie., acquiring a player that couldn't be insured despite being a team that couldn't afford to pay him because of an internal [lower] cap - Horton if he did get hurt).

Market value. You can disagree but I think he can get the same deal as a UFA
I never claimed Benning was the worst GM in the league.

And sometimes you just gotta roll the dice. In my opinion that's what Benning did here. He's gambling that he can turn a **** sandwich into a prime rib sandwich. Or at least into something borderline edible.
His pro-scouting has been his weakest ability (at least from my POV).
 

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,013
3,833
Vancouver
Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.

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.

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

I disagree that not extending or re-signing an injured player is unwise based on future player acquisitions or optics. This isn't a charity, it's a multi-million dollar business. You inform him and his agent the team won't be extending him and they are free to explore all options or make whatever decision regarding his shoulder they wish as a courtesy but you don't re-sign an injured bottom pairing defender for a higher AAV and 3 years.

In regards to the bolded - possibly. His play could deteriorate further, possibly due to the injury being long-term or permanent, in which case this contract might be untradeable (not unlike Lucic, Eriksson and the other awful contracts around the league). In any case as the article so succinctly stated:

"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."

The best option would'v been to walk away - again in terms of the on-ice results and in terms of the cap space. Cut your losses as opposed to letting them drag you down to the bottom of the sea.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,034
8,751
Los Angeles
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.
I think there is a difference between not extending you and screwing you over. Mind you, Benning not only extended him, he paid him based on what he think he is rather than what he actually is, big big big difference.
[/quote]

I think you misunderstood me.

"future player acquisitions."

Meaning, not players that are already Canucks.
I know, why would this affect any future player acquisition. It's well understood around the league that if you get into a potentially career ending injury, you might not get a contract if you are out of one. It's harsh but it is business and everyone gets why that is, especially now we operate in the cap world.


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.
Problem is that with Gubranson, he has ONE attribute that is somewhat useful, his physical play, and even that is debatable whether or not it is actually useful. This shoulder injury directly impacts that. We are taking a big risk in the sense that if the shoulder injury does impact his phsyical play, he is absolutely useless. Spending 4M on a non physical Andrew Albert is a potential scenario at this point. If you think I am exaggerating, this is his 2nd time injuring his shoulder, tear your shoulder twice, it's pretty much chronic.

If there's any nonsense here it's coming from you because I said optics, not obligated.
I really don't believe there is any optics issue, players don't get extended for a variety of reasons, and injury is one of them. You are basically bringing up an issue that has never been an issue.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
first the wrist, now the shoulder. and then he has the long history of injuries before he came here.

let's be generous and assume we reasonably thought on good independent medical advice when we re-signed him that it was safe for him to continue to play out the season and that he could rehab the shoulder during the offseason and be ready for camp.

i still cannot imagine why the canucks knowing of the shoulder injury would imagine he would suddenly become durable enough to merit a salary at the level they paid him.

you do not have to dislike this player at all to dislike this signing. all you have to do is calculate what we are paying him per game, and then consider the disruptions to the lineup caused by having a second rhd who cannot stay healthy.
 

Melvin

21/12/05
Sep 29, 2017
15,198
28,055
Montreal, QC
The canucks could have shut him down in December or January and avoided pretty much any criticism. Just the f***ing way she goes.

But playoffs, I guess.

If he gets healthy and for some reason you want to sign him, you can sign him after the season. Why he needed to sign an extension in February, in advance of the surgery, makes no f***ing sense at all. It is completely inexplicable.

And that is before you even get to that he is just am awful player who should be under no special priority to sign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vancityluongo

Orr4Norris

Registered User
Mar 2, 2018
809
934
1. He actually is not, our D is better when he is actually not playing.

Our D is not better without him. Gudbranson is what he is, a physical 4/5 guy with good character. Just like Sbisa, the last whipping boy. And hey, looks like another team also sees Sbisa's value. Imagine that! You might not like him, fine. But coaches do.

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.

He's an 18-20 min guy. Helps the PK. Apparently great in the room. He's also the only defenseman we have with a physically nasty side.

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?

No, I don't think it will. The Sedins will either retire this year or take a bit of a pay cut to come back. I highly doubt we see them for two more years. Boeser will be the next big raise, and a few years after that, the next wave (hopefully) will be looking for raises. By that time, Gudbranson is coming off the books. We are not in danger of losing any of our young guys due to salary cap restraints. So the sky is not falling.
 

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
He's an 18-20 min guy. Helps the PK. Apparently great in the room. He's also the only defenseman we have with a physically nasty side.

let's assume i agree. that's still a best case scenario. some questions for you:

1. based on his injury history to date, how many games per year do you expect him to average 18-20 minutes of healthy play over the term of his new contract? in two years i would estimate we have seen no more than 30 healthy games total just based on the two major injuries, and he has apparently missed games for other reasons.

2. how many games do you expect him to play where he will be nursing an injury that impacts his play and/or reduces his minutes?

3. at what point (assuming it has not already happened) do you expect he will start avoiding physical contact to prolong his career? how effective do you expect him to be when that happens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

Diamonddog01

Diamond in the rough
Jul 18, 2007
11,013
3,833
Vancouver
Our D is not better without him. Gudbranson is what he is, a physical 4/5 guy with good character. Just like Sbisa, the last whipping boy. And hey, looks like another team also sees Sbisa's value. Imagine that! You might not like him, fine. But coaches do.

It absolutely is, by just about every metric you can assess a player with. You're more of an eye-test guy? Watch the games as see his poor decision making, poor positioning and bonehead plays instead.

He's an 18-20 min guy. Helps the PK. Apparently great in the room. He's also the only defenseman we have with a physically nasty side.

If he helped our PK, and this was a positive thing, you'd think that would show up somewhere. Our PK is currently an abysmal 25th in the league. He's not physically nasty - he's third in hits this year (126) after such intimidating, nasty players Alex Edler and Michael Del Zotto. He has a grand total of 4 fights in this time here. This guy is a kitten.

Basically you're just parroting everything this regime has told you about the player without objectively analyzing whether any of this is in fact true. I prefer facts to propaganda.
 

Billy Kvcmu

Registered User
Dec 5, 2014
27,122
15,439
West Vancouver
Our D is not better without him. Gudbranson is what he is, a physical 4/5 guy with good character. Just like Sbisa, the last whipping boy. And hey, looks like another team also sees Sbisa's value. Imagine that! You might not like him, fine. But coaches do.



He's an 18-20 min guy. Helps the PK. Apparently great in the room. He's also the only defenseman we have with a physically nasty side.



No, I don't think it will. The Sedins will either retire this year or take a bit of a pay cut to come back. I highly doubt we see them for two more years. Boeser will be the next big raise, and a few years after that, the next wave (hopefully) will be looking for raises. By that time, Gudbranson is coming off the books. We are not in danger of losing any of our young guys due to salary cap restraints. So the sky is not falling.
For the 1000th time
Gudbranson is not a physical player, he just has a big body. He is asked to play more tough, that’s why you see him try to shovel the opponent’s face after the whistle a couple times. But in reality, he’s one of the softest player in the nhl when the play is actually going on.

Any player with a decent hand and frame can strip the puck off him and beat him in a board battle, we’ve seen it countless times already.
 

Kryten

slightly regarded
Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
14,717
12,018
Kootenays
At best Id say Erik is our 4th snarliest defender.

Biega
MDZ
Edler
Gudbranson.

His stare downs per 60 is off the charts though, #1 in that department
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Extrapolater

vancityluongo

curse of the strombino
Sponsor
Jul 8, 2006
18,560
6,210
Edmonton
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.

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.

Screw you over? It takes two sides to negotiate. A team willing to offer you a contract when your future is uncertain is taking on all the risk. Of course it's going to be discounted - it should be.

Is there a single industry/profession on the planet where an employer would just willingly take on an employee that has professed issues, at a "low point" in their career, and take on all of the associated risk of them not performing their duties with no conditions? The NHL actually has guaranteed contracts IIRC - that's a huge step better than most. Let alone that they make millions.

And, okay, I can concede that maybe there is marginal value associated with getting a read on his partial recovery. but I agree 100% with the statement that he has no real value until he proves he's healthy and can play in NHL games again.

That is exactly why they should have waited. The downside risk of doing so is absolutely minimal, because you said it; who the hell is going to pay anything for him until he's back on the ice. Like I said, "worst case scenario", if they had feared that waiting until August means they would have lost him similar to what happened to Mitchell, then just sign him in June.

There was no reason to get this done in February as opposed to June, and I still haven't seen you make an argument otherwise.

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

If that's the only argument, sorry but I don't agree at all. Offering a contract in June is still positive from an optics perspective. Like you said, no one should be willing to pay any value for him until he can demonstrably perform on ice. For the Canucks to do so 3 months into his recovery, 3 months before he can skate again, would have been a significant leap of faith.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,034
8,751
Los Angeles
Our D is not better without him. Gudbranson is what he is, a physical 4/5 guy with good character. Just like Sbisa, the last whipping boy. And hey, looks like another team also sees Sbisa's value. Imagine that! You might not like him, fine. But coaches do.



He's an 18-20 min guy. Helps the PK. Apparently great in the room. He's also the only defenseman we have with a physically nasty side.



No, I don't think it will. The Sedins will either retire this year or take a bit of a pay cut to come back. I highly doubt we see them for two more years. Boeser will be the next big raise, and a few years after that, the next wave (hopefully) will be looking for raises. By that time, Gudbranson is coming off the books. We are not in danger of losing any of our young guys due to salary cap restraints. So the sky is not falling.

There is no metric that proves Gubranson is a) effective or b) physical. Hell we get peppered with shots every time Gubranson steps on the ice. Sbisa is not really being valued right now
18-20 minute guys by default are not worth 4M and Gubranson is not a 18-20 minute guy. yeah he can play on the PK because he is absolutely useless in every other situation and even then he is not an elite PK d. We played him with Edler to boost him up. It the net result was trying Edler who lead one of the most effective paring into the most ineffective paring on the team.
Gubranson is not good. There is no eveidence that supports he is good. There is no eye test that supports he is good. Hell even if you are blind and listen to the radio, there is no audio test that supports he is good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunnyvale420

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
Not re-signing or not extending an injured player would not be a wise decision based on future player acquisitions.

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.

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

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.

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

these are all absolutely terrible reasons. the team is worse off by having him -> let him walk

since when has "he can be traded" mattered? its such a terrible justification - instead of putting yourself in a situation where you need to make a trade, how about you dont put yourself in that situation?

otherwise, gillis' finest move was signing marco sturm because he was so bad he needed to be moved in 9 or whatever games
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
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 dunno about you but id love to play for the team that has no hope, has been the worst team over the past three years and is clearly not even trying to fix their mistakes because they literally dont understand that they made any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: But Gillis

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
17,034
8,751
Los Angeles
I think one of the thing people tend to overlook is that Gubranson is not a good pro at all. Dude tore his shoulder wakeboarding and then this year injuries his back in a holiday in Mexico. Like seriously wtf is wrong with this guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: timw33

krutovsdonut

eeyore
Sep 25, 2016
16,772
9,427
I think one of the thing people tend to overlook is that Gubranson is not a good pro at all. Dude tore his shoulder wakeboarding and then this year injuries his back in a holiday in Mexico. Like seriously wtf is wrong with this guy.

he also drinks beer with hurlers
 

VanJack

Registered User
Jul 11, 2014
21,043
14,072
Unfortunately the great Gudbranson contract debate won't end anytime soon....it just seems to be the Canucks lot in life that with Jimbo at the helm there's always going to be at least one d-man and a couple of forwards who are grossly overpaid. Gudbranson, Sutter and Eriksson were all supposed to be 'foundational' players....but with a combined $14.5m a season under the salary cap, the only thing 'foundational' is their bank balance.
 

Verviticus

Registered User
Jul 23, 2010
12,664
592
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.

this is really overlooked. results oriented thinking is really stupid and following a good process to a slight detriment is inherently good behaviour, long-term. this is the kind of shit that someone has to do to be even a marginally good gm
 

ProstheticConscience

Check dein Limit
Apr 30, 2010
18,459
10,107
Canuck Nation
Wow. Did this thread ever get dumber since last I checked.

Where did it get lost that Gudbranson is NOT a good defenseman? He's really not physical, he doesn't score goals, he bleeds shots against, he's injury-prone and this all has a six year sample size behind it. OF COURSE signing him to a three-year contract extension is a terrible idea. You know he's damaged goods, you know he's not a good player even when fully healthy...what the hell, man. This is exactly the kind of deal that bad teams make that keep them bad and deny them options by clogging up cap space and throwing a salary structure to hell. What were Benning's options? Oh gee whizz, how about cutting his losses and not signing more dead weight for three bloody years?

The real mistake was not shutting him down for surgery when the injury happened, and it's really pissing me off how often that's happening. That's something that's really going to make players think twice before signing here.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->