Player Discussion: Erik Gudbranson | Part 4

[DL44]

Arguing with people who flat out reject data in favor for subjective eye tests, can be hard. Everything seems hyperbolic when you reject data in favor of subjective eye tests to try prove your narrative.

Transitionally he simply IS a disaster. Data proves this.
Possessionally he is bad. Data proves this.

Yeah that can seem hyperbolic when you rather reject the data and think that Gudbranson is a good defenseman.


There is little actual data suggesting he's even been average let alone good. So yeah, in your eyes I am being hyperbolic. But in my eyes you are rejecting data because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Where you f*** up and go off the rails is assuming The Data is measuring everything. It doesn't.


It's easy to reject and dismiss your hyperbole when we watch the the games games too.
Would take a little more than a couple cherrypicked stats.


Whatever.. Carry on.

 

[WTG]

Where you **** up and go off the rails is assuming The Data is measuring everything. It doesn't.


It's easy to reject and dismiss your hyperbole when we watch the the games games too.
Would take a little more than a couple cherrypicked stats.


Whatever.. Carry on.

Alright, let's look at all of Gudbransons stats as a player this year. To make sure I'm not "cherrypicking statistics." Let's look at all of it. I'll write it out for you and tell you where he ranks relative towards his team.

General statitstics:
41.5 CF% worst on the team, relatively CF% -10.73 <------ seriously awful
0/p16 he's gotten no points
40 GF% worst on the team again, relatively GF% -22.96
PDO 99.81 so actually not really getting unlucky
Zone ratio 49.23, Gudbranson has the 2nd highest offensive to defensive zone starts on the team. Meaning he starts the 2nd most of the team in the offensive zone as a defenseman.
CF%QoT 52.85, Gudbranson has the highest QoT - CF% out of all defenseman which makes it more baffling that he is somehow that bad at possession.
TOI%QoC 29.19, 4th highest QoC/TOI% out of defenseman on the squad.

So looking at all that general data, we can take say that he gets the highest QoT/CF% out of all the defenseman, meaning he plays with our top possession players, yet he has a CF% of 41.5 which is abysmal. How you manage to do that, who the hell knows.

Is he good at keeping the puck out of the net? Nope.
Is he just unlucky? Nope.
Maybe he's starting in his own zone a bunch therefore he's getting scored on? Nope.
Maybe he's being used to shutdown the opposing teams main players, their most played players. Nope.

Well, maybe he's good at transitioning.

Transition statistics for defenseman (Edler doesn't make the list, not enough TOI):
DEFENSIVE ZONE
16.22% fail on zone exits (6.11% higher then team average) 2nd worst on the team
13.33% Direct CTL zone exit% (11.4% lower then team average) worst on the team
48.43% Passing% no zone exit (1.98% higher then team average) 3rd best on the team
NEUTRAL ZONE
26.32% Carry in + Pass % (8.72% higher then team average) worst on the team
43.42% Dump in% (3.75% lower then team average) 4th on the team
6.58% Break up% (6.46% lower then team average) worst on the team

Now, looking at the transitional data we can say that his he isn't good at moving the puck out, with the 2nd worst fail% on zone exits out of all defenseman. His direct zone control exit data is also the worst on the team by a wide margin. Gudbranson does pass more then others on the blue line. 3rd best on the team. In the neutral zone, he allows the most carry ins + pass ins on the team. He forces opponents to dump it in at a OKAY rate. The guy is not breaking up many plays of players entering the zone, worst on the team in that regard.


Now let's take all that data, that I just listed. Let's take all the 13 points of data, and tell me that I cherry picked. What other statistics show that somehow he is a good defenseman? What data am I missing?


Where is the data that shows him not being a complete disaster? The only argument for Gudbranson is that somehow good, and all these data points are just false, is a completely subjective eye test. Yet, when I reference this data I get called hyperbolic? I don't understand how I'm somehow exaggerating the idea that Gudbranson is a bad defenseman, when all the data in front of me suggests that he is, all the data except for anecdotal, "eye test" data. Look I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. But it's going to take more then "I think he played well".

I'm sorry if this comes off as combative or overtly aggressive not my intention. However, I just don't see why I'm wrong. What am I missing about this player that is so obvious to others? Even my own eye test confirm the data I'm being shown.

 

[MS]

Alright, let's look at all of Gudbransons stats as a player this year. To make sure I'm not "cherrypicking statistics." Let's look at all of it. I'll write it out for you and tell you where he ranks relative towards his team.

General statitstics:
41.5 CF% worst on the team, relatively CF% -10.73 <------ seriously awful
0/p16 he's gotten no points
40 GF% worst on the team again, relatively GF% -22.96 <----- seriously awful
PDO 99.81 so actually not really getting unlucky
Zone ratio 49.23, Gudbranson has the 2nd highest offensive to defensive zone starts on the team. Meaning he starts the 2nd most of the team in the offensive zone as a defenseman.
CF%QoT 52.85, Gudbranson has the highest QoT - CF% out of all defenseman which makes it more baffling that he is somehow that bad at possession.
TOI%QoC 29.19, 4th highest QoC/TOI% out of defenseman on the squad.

So looking at all that general data, we can take say that he gets the highest QoT/CF% out of all the defenseman, meaning he plays with our top possession players, yet he has a CF% of 41.5 which is abysmal. How you manage to do that, who the hell knows.

Is he good at keeping the puck out of the net? Nope.
Is he just unlucky? Nope.
Maybe he's starting in his own zone a bunch therefore he's getting scored on? Nope.
Maybe he's being used to shutdown the opposing teams main players, their most played players. Nope.

Well, maybe he's good at transitioning.

Transition statistics for defenseman (Edler doesn't make the list, not enough TOI):
DEFENSIVE ZONE
16.22% fail on zone exits (6.11% higher then team average) 2nd worst on the team
13.33% Direct CTL zone exit% (11.4% lower then team average) worst on the team
48.43% Passing% no zone exit (1.98% higher then team average) 3rd best on the team
NEUTRAL ZONE
26.32% Carry in + Pass % (8.72% higher then team average) worst on the team
43.42% Dump in% (3.75% lower then team average) 4th on the team
6.58% Break up% (6.46% lower then team average) worst on the team

Now, looking at the transitional data we can say that his he isn't good at moving the puck out, with the 2nd worst fail% on zone exits out of all defenseman. His direct zone control exit data is also the worst on the team by a wide margin. Gudbranson does pass more then others on the blue line. 3rd best on the team. In the neutral zone, he allows the most carry ins + pass ins on the team. He forces opponents to dump it in at a OKAY rate. The guy is not breaking up many plays of players entering the zone, worst on the team in that regard.


Now let's take all that data, that I just listed. Let's take all the 13 points of data, and tell me that I cherry picked. What other statistics show that somehow he is a good defenseman? What data am I missing?


Where is the data that shows him not being a complete disaster? The only argument for Gudbranson is that somehow good, and all these data points are just false, is a completely subjective eye test. Yet, when I reference this data I get called hyperbolic? I don't understand how I'm somehow exaggerating the idea that Gudbranson is a bad defenseman, when all the data in front of me suggests that he is, all the data except for anecdotal, "eye test" data. Look I'll gladly eat crow if I'm wrong. But it's going to take more then "I think he played well"

Pretty much. He's a below average 5-on-5 player and there really isn't any argument to the contrary.

One thing I will say in his defence is that these numbers don't capture his PK play, where creating offence and moving the puck is much less important, and to my feeling he's more effective as a result.

 

[VanJack]

This has always been the conundrum about Gudbrandson.....the Corsi and Analytics crowd just hate him, but in terms of the 'eye test' he looks effective....a big, reasonably mobile d-man who sticks up for his team-mates, which is the reason by Jimbo traded for him in the first place and the Panthers recently tried to re-acquire him......sorry to disappoint the haters, but he's earning consideration for a contract extension with his play.

 

[WTG]

To even further add, Gudbransons CA/60 is 67.94, the next closest on the team is Del Zotto with a 56.97.

This player gets buried shots attempts against. Absolutely buried.

On the PK, he has a shot attempts against per 60 of 102.6, only beaten by Stecher, DelZotto, Pouliot. He's played as much short handed as Hutton, and Hutton has a significantly better shot attempt against/60 @ 80.67.

Now short handed data is often not reliable early on the year or until a player plays significant minutes, but it is telling that this player gets consistently buried in shot attempts against each time he steps on the ice.

 

[WTG]

I wish there was a website like war-on-ice that recorded scoring chances against, that is the only data that I feel can maybe disprove that somehow Gudbranson isn't awful.

 

[Pavel96]

This has always been the conundrum about Gudbrandson.....the Corsi and Analytics crowd just hate him, but in terms of the 'eye test' he looks effective....a big, reasonably mobile d-man who sticks up for his team-mates, which is the reason by Jimbo traded for him in the first place and the Panthers recently tried to re-acquire him......sorry to disappoint the haters, but he's earning consideration for a contract extension with his play.

But at what price? He turned down 18M/4, apparently, so what should we throw at this 5-6 dman - 5M x 4? Would that be enough to keep our beloved Guddy? Has he actually earned anything close to that? What does the average bottom pairing dman make now over 4 mil on a multi year contract?

 

[WTG]

I wish there was a website like war-on-ice that recorded scoring chances against, that is the only data that I feel can maybe disprove that somehow Gudbranson isn't awful.

Good news, found one. And it don't look better for Mr. Gudbranson
http://www.naturalstattrick.com/pla...toi=0&gpfilt=none&fd=&td=&tgp=82&lines=single

35.71 scoring chances per 60 against, worst on the team
12.23 HDCA/60, which I am pretty sure is high danger corsi against per 60, 3rd worst on the team only worse then Biega and Pouliot.

Now that we have a whole lot of data, we can now assess that, yes, Gudbranson has been a bad defenseman this year.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Where you **** up and go off the rails is assuming The Data is measuring everything. It doesn't.


It's easy to reject and dismiss your hyperbole when we watch the the games games too.
Would take a little more than a couple cherrypicked stats.


Whatever.. Carry on.

Data doesn't need to measure everything, it only needs to measure the pertinent thing. Shots for/against, scoring chances against, GA, GA/20 etc... all provide a good indication of what Gudbranson is doing on the ice.

When most of the stats are aligned against this player, that's not "cherry picking", it's a landslide.

Beyond the stats to the realm of eye test alone, EG visibly struggles with thinking the game.
There is an overt reliance on instinct and size/reach. Not enough read/react.

I think management was about to make the right call in dealing EG for Demers. I think they recognized EGs limitations and were in the process of rectifying their earlier mistake in pursuing him.

 

[Pavel96]

Data doesn't need to measure everything, it only needs to measure the pertinent thing. Shots for/against, scoring chances against, GA, GA/20 etc... all provide a good indication of what Gudbranson is doing on the ice.

When most of the stats are aligned against this player, that's not "cherry picking", it's a landslide.

Beyond the stats to the realm of eye test alone, EG visibly struggles with thinking the game.
There is an overt reliance on instinct and size/reach. Not enough read/react.

I think management was about to make the right call in dealing EG for Demers. I think they recognized EGs limitations and were in the process of rectifying their earlier mistake in pursuing him.

Erik "The Mistake" Gudbranson

 

[MS]

This has always been the conundrum about Gudbrandson.....the Corsi and Analytics crowd just hate him, but in terms of the 'eye test' he looks effective....a big, reasonably mobile d-man who sticks up for his team-mates, which is the reason by Jimbo traded for him in the first place and the Panthers recently tried to re-acquire him......sorry to disappoint the haters, but he's earning consideration for a contract extension with his play.

"I choose to wilfully ignore the mountain of evidence that this player is ineffective because hitz and fightz."

 

[stampedingviking]

No, you have that wrong.

There should be maximum negativity about any player not associated with Jim Benning and maximum negativity directed toward any fans who say a bad team is bad.

Then there must be nothing but sunshine and lollipops directed toward any player or anything associated with our Lord and Saviour Benning.

That's just stupid and you know it but, unfortunately, that attitude seems par for the course on these boards.

 

[rune74]

"I choose to wilfully ignore the mountain of evidence that this player is ineffective because hitz and fightz."

[MOD]

I think some of us have tried to discuss why we think some of the stats may be misleading.

 

[I in the Eye]

I think management was about to make the right call in dealing EG for Demers. I think they recognized EGs limitations and were in the process of rectifying their earlier mistake in pursuing him

I think management recognized that they aren't going to be able to re-sign him / he's going to test the ufa market... and they paid a high price for him so maybe they are trying to get some value out of him.

 

[MS]

[MOD]

I think some of us have tried to discuss why we think some of the stats may be misleading.

A mountain of evidence was presented and the poster basically replied with 'I choose to ignore that because my eye test says big + tough = good.'

Like, I'm not a big advanced stats guy. I understand their value in context but they far too often are taken out of context or in small sample sizes. But the evidence on Gudbranson is *overwhelming* over a period of years. He comes out on the wrong end of literally every advanced stat you can imagine - as well as every traditional one - despite playing soft-ish minutes.

And I have yet to see any sort of argument as to how a defender who contributes zero offence and can't move the puck while consistently bleeding shots and chances is somehow magically a good player.

The guy is a mediocre #6 defender with some PK utility. Period.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Wrong. He's been our 4th best defenseman so far this year.

He's hit 4 posts. Mainly gets used in a shutdown role against other teams top lines and provides the biggest deterrent we have to big physical players having their way with the front of our net and taking liberties. Ask Tkachuk Connolly Wilson and Vatrano how much they like playing against him.

Lets see how this goes before making **** up to try and discredit him from a nice start to the year. He's been solid and better than last year

Nope, you're wrong. He isn't matched up against the oppositions top defenders. Hitting 4 posts means nothing to me. Providing a deterrent? For what? The other team has the puck in our zone and generates shot attempts at a higher rate when he's on the ice than any other defenseman. That's not good. His controlled zone exits are among the worst on our team. That tells me all he does is skate around the defensive zone trying to hit people while the other team has the puck. Not a good defenseman.

But again, like I said, some people who are easily impressed by fighting and a big hit or two will not understand this.

 

[sting101]

Nope, you're wrong. He isn't matched up against the oppositions top defenders. Hitting 4 posts means nothing to me. Providing a deterrent? For what? The other team has the puck in our zone and generates shot attempts at a higher rate when he's on the ice than any other defenseman. That's not good. His controlled zone exits are among the worst on our team. That tells me all he does is skate around the defensive zone trying to hit people while the other team has the puck. Not a good defenseman.

But again, like I said, some people who are easily impressed by fighting and a big hit or two will not understand this.

It's important to understand roles and responsibilities of players, how it affects their production and how that would also affect their fancy stats. In your desire to see your assertions right you are seeing what you want to see. Or cherry picking stats to support an argument that is false.

Travis Green is deploying him with the 4th highest ice time. That would support his opinion that he see's him as his 4th most valuable defensive asset. I too see EG as the Canucks 4th best defenseman this season and i've watched every game and have a coaching and playing background.......i know you probably don't care about this so i will go on.

You say he isn't matched up against other teams top lines? every game i have watched they have tried to match him up against a top6 line, usually the 1st but not always depending on the opponent's composition and line matching, last change etc.. That's been his role do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

Corsi is a flawed stat without taking into consideration a player's role, linemates, zone starts, quality of competition. The Sedin's have the best Corsi on the Canucks right now and by my accounts are the 9th and 10th best forwards to date this year. EG is deployed to generally negate the threat of a scoring line, bending but not breaking is his role. Using Corsi to evaluate his game is flawed.

Having a physical component whether you like it or not has value. In a game that players can impose physical will having no push back or answers for mitigating the damage others can do to our best most talented players and your goaltender hurts your team. There is no way to measure this value and mostly it exists in the culture of your team, the pleasure of your Coaches and the fans who get to witness someone who won't stand for knocking over your goalie, slashing your top scorers hand and running a smaller talented player into the boards. These types of plays left unanswered can have a negative cumulative effect on a team. Having a goon that can't play is useless but having a tough player that can is a bonus.

i can touch on the zone exits in the next post.

 

[Pavel96]

i seriously doubt that you ever played the game if you can't understand roles and responsibilities of players how it affects their production and how that would also affect their fancy stats. In your desire to see your assertions right you are seeing what you want to see. Or cherry picking stats to support an argument that is false.

Travis Green is deploying him with the 4th highest ice time. That would support his opinion that he see's him as his 4th most valuable defensive asset. I too see EG as the Canucks 4th best defenseman this season and i've watched every game and have a coaching and playing background.......i know you probably don't care about this so i will go on.

You say he isn't matched up against other teams top lines? every game i have watched they have tried to match him up against a top6 line, usually the 1st but not always depending on the opponent's composition and line matching, last change etc.. That's been his role do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?

Corsi is a flawed stat without taking into consideration a player's role, linemates, zone starts, quality of competition. The Sedin's have the best Corsi on the Canucks right now and by my accounts are the 9th and 10th best forwards to date this year. EG is deployed to generally negate the threat of a scoring line, bending but not breaking is his role. Using Corsi to evaluate his game is flawed.

Having a physical component whether you like it or not has value. In a game that players can impose physical will having no push back or answers for mitigating the damage others can do to our best most talented players and your goaltender hurts your team. There is no way to measure this value and mostly it exists in the culture of your team, the pleasure of your Coaches and the fans who get to witness someone who won't stand for knocking over your goalie, slashing your top scorers hand and running a smaller talented player into the boards. These types of plays left unanswered can have a negative cumulative effect on a team. Having a goon that can't play is useless but having a tough player that can is a bonus.

i can touch on the zone exits in the next post.

If Gubranson wasn't drafted 3rd overall (say he was smaller pre-draft year and had a growth spurt like Tanev) - he'd be considered nothing more than a goon now. If the Coaches get so much pleasure from a player like Guddy then the management must see huge value in him- so why did the Canucks try to trade him for a dman like Demers, could you touch on that?

As well, hopefully us 'getting into the playoffs' doesn't come down to the last game - because I'm not sure how many times a season a top 4 dman pretty much single handily derails a game by using their 'toughness'.

 

[absolute garbage]

Corsi is a flawed stat without taking into consideration a player's role, linemates, zone starts, quality of competition. The Sedin's have the best Corsi on the Canucks right now and by my accounts are the 9th and 10th best forwards to date this year. EG is deployed to generally negate the threat of a scoring line, bending but not breaking is his role. Using Corsi to evaluate his game is flawed.

Just like Tanev - the difference just being that Tanev has amazing numbers doing it while Dudbranson's are absolute shit. Also Tanev's deployment has been much more difficult in terms of zone starts (40% for Tanev, the lowest on the team vs 50% for Dudbranson, 3rd highest after Stecher and Pouliot - I'd also recommend actually reading this thread, your concerns are all answered here).

Dudbranson plays "tougher" minutes by definition because he generally plays way more than the largely sheltered Pouliots and Stechers, but for example against Ottawa (the only team Canucks have faced twice), he had 75% and 80% zone starts against his two most played against opposition forwards (Turris and Hoffman). Only one (1!) defensive zone faceoff against those players in two games, that presumably being the one same faceoff(?). Tanev on the other hand had 33% zone start (10 defensive zone faceoffs!) against his most common opposition Stone.

If your only use is to try and not get scored against and fail at that, you have a pretty shitty defenseman.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

If Gubranson wasn't drafted 3rd overall (say he was smaller pre-draft year and had a growth spurt like Tanev) - he'd be considered nothing more than a goon now. If the Coaches get so much pleasure from a player like Guddy then the management must see huge value in him- so why did the Canucks try to trade him for a dman like Demers, could you touch on that?

As well, hopefully us 'getting into the playoffs' doesn't come down to the last game - because I'm not sure how many times a season a top 4 dman pretty much single handily derails a game by using their 'toughness'.

He is defn not a goon. He never starts fights it is the other team responding to getting hit. It is impossible to measure if he lowers the other team physicality. I think he does allowing our skilled players more room and putting the potential of danger in their skilled players mind. He has made a lot of good passes out of the zone this year. He has no points though Stecher and Hutton only have 1 a piece with pp time. I think he serves a purpose. GM traditionally overvalue players like him that does not mean he does not have value.

 

[Pavel96]

He is defn not a goon. He never starts fights it is the other team responding to getting hit. It is impossible to measure if he lowers the other team physicality. I think he does allowing our skilled players more room and putting the potential of danger in their skilled players mind. He has made a lot of good passes out of the zone this year. He has no points though Stecher and Hutton only have 1 a piece with pp time. I think he serves a purpose. GM traditionally overvalue players like him that does not mean he does not have value.

Still am wondering why they attempted to trade him for a player that does not have Guddys main skill (being tough I guess). It's not that just some GM's overvalue him - it's that if he turned down 18M/4years then the GM that signs him would be signing him to a horrible contract.

Just because he has value does not mean we have to severely over value him (we clearly did that with Erikkson).

And it's not that he's a traditional hockey fighting goon, Im sure he's above that. It's that his main and pretty much best attribute is being 'big n tough'. Also wasn't this the guy that has a "fit of rage" that led him to threaten Martin last year?

 

[sting101]

Zone exits?

Gudbranson shift by shift vs Winnipeg.
1st period:
1- Edler to Gudbranson by own net. Clean pass to Horvat who makes a bad pass at blueline and turns it over. Checks Laine team recovers and skates it out. (2 good plays that look like a negative in zone exits)
2- Twice moves puck around boards to winger. Virtanen fumbles one and on 2nd attempt Eriksson passes out of zone.
3- hinges with MDZ. passes to Horvat who loses it (lost possession that Horvat couldn't control)
4- Perreault gets behind him for a scoring chance on a nice feed from Scheifele. Jets maintain possession and Morrissey scores off MDZ skate. He has Perreault tied up at side of net.
5- Pass to MDZ. Pass to MDZ to winger who dumps in.
6- Breaks up play just inside blueline, passes to Baertschi who dumps in. Pass to Gagner on half boards who passes to sutter who skates it out.
7- Hutton to EG behind his net. skates it out passes to Eriksson at Jets blueline who tips in. Tanev to EG just inside Van Blueline passes to Eriksson at Jet line almost springs him for breakaway. Eriksson loses control.
8- DZS- Jets win faceoff, shot goes wide EG recovers puck. Dumps high and out. Jets dump to EG's corner Dano in pursuit of puck EG lays him out recovers puck moves to Van F and Van comes out with possession. Keeps puck in at Jet blueline chopped to corner with no time. Back for puck pass to Hutton who dumps to center.

2nd period
9- non event shift
10- PK. Blocks shot. Sends stretch pass to Sutter for a 2 on 1. Sutter misses wide. Breaks up pass in Van zone ices puck. (excellent shift)
11- OZS. shot attempt blocked partially. keeps puck in at Jet line. No time dumps to corner. Breaks up Jet attempt to exit zone. MDZ to EG. Turns puck over. Shot from wing boards. (under pressure but bad play)
12- Knocks Dano off puck. Moves puck to Vanek who makes a weak play and passes back to EG's corner putting him in a terrible spot. Dano in pursuit again EG strips Dano. Vanek trying to help again loses puck to Jets.
13- Does a nice job closing out Ehlers. Ehlers drops to Enstrom who EG rocks into end boards after making a hurried weak pass which EG forced.
14- offensive zone. Eriksson around boards to EG. EG back to LE behind net.
15- non event shift
16- OZS- Jets score goal off rush. Little button hooks and passes to Laine in high slot who rips it top corner. EG is positionally sound. Dorsett collapsed on Little in corner and MDZ doesn't read the high slot quick enough to close on Laine.
17- Hutton to EG just inside Van zone passes to Boeser in neutral zone.

3rd period: (doesn't play much as Canucks need goals)
18- dumps to Jet blueline. Granlund waves at it as it goes to Jet defenseman. Hutton to EG to Hutton to dump to neutral zone.
19- 4v4. contains Little in Van corner
20- Dorsett to EG back to Dorsett who skates it out. keeps puck in at Jet blueline wires a rocket that hits post. unlucky, nice shot.
21- Ehlers is hard pursuit in neutral zone. EG dumps to Jet bench. EG to Sutter in neutral zone. Sutter bobbles puck (good pass out Sutter should have controlled)
22- EG to Gagner in neutral zone who dumps. Knocks Little off puck in Van zone and moves to Gagner who passes to Hutton to Sutter in a nice breakout. Hutton to EG to H.Sedin who sloppily turns it over at Canuck blueline.
23- non event shift.

So there you have it. A pretty solid game matched mostly against Winnipeg's top line trying to contain Scheifele and Ehlers and did a good job of it. At the end of this game numerous posters took a run at Gudbranson said he sucks and also was even criticized for the goals against which he had nothing to do with. Hope this helps Y2K.....maybe you can remove the bias from your assertions.

 

[sting101]

Still am wondering why they attempted to trade him for a player that does not have Guddys main skill (being tough I guess). It's not that just some GM's overvalue him - it's that if he turned down 18M/4years then the GM that signs him would be signing him to a horrible contract.

Just because he has value does not mean we have to severely over value him (we clearly did that with Erikkson).

And it's not that he's a traditional hockey fighting goon, Im sure he's above that. It's that his main and pretty much best attribute is being 'big n tough'.

i think it's because JB thinks his biggest need is a RD that can run a PP and still be a good 5v5 player

 

[Pavel96]

i think it's because JB thinks his biggest need is a RD that can run a PP and still be a good 5v5 player

Who was in that role when they traded for Guddy to begin with?

 

[sting101]

Who was in that role when they traded for Guddy to begin with?

Weber and Larsen who stunk 5v5