Player Discussion The Bad Granlund Phenomenon Part 4 (mod warning post #393)

[Kryten]

Granlund, do we really want him?

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Granlund, do we really want him?

When there is no Canuck news,..someone can always revisit the Marcus Granlund thread..It never disappoints.

 

[Kryten]

When there is no Canuck news,..someone can always revisit the Marcus Granlund thread..It never disappoints.

View attachment 124469

Agreed unfortunately. I wish this thread could stop being needlessly bumped after being idle for weeks/months unless theres something substancial to talk about. Like in a few weeks he may get a new contract and we can all get back on the pile then

 

[Fire Benning]

Granlund, do we really want him?

Granlund, do we really need him?

 

[Wo Yorfat]

Granlund has some ability. We have no depth at all. No reason not to have him in the lineup. Maybe he ends up on a line w decent chemistry and maybe get some value at the tdd. Off season I don't imagine we get any pick for him.

 

[RobertKron]

When there is no Canuck news,..someone can always revisit the Marcus Granlund thread..It never disappoints.

View attachment 124469

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with this post. It’s not like the poster you quoted was bumping this thread. You were engaged in the conversation earlier today so you know this.

Are you trying to say that Hargraves was somehow wrong to have asked about Granlund’s value heading into the draft, with Benning having said he’s going to try to acquire more picks, and Granlund looking like one of the few somewhat redundant players in the system? If that’s what you’re saying, please elaborate on your logic.

 

[CanaFan]

I’ll say this much in favour of Granlund. I’d much rather keep him and play him as the 2C next season rather than pay what it would take to acquire ROR. I don’t think he’s a big part of this team’s future but I’m fine to keep him around for the time being.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I don’t get what you’re trying to say with this post. It’s not like the poster you quoted was bumping this thread. You were engaged in the conversation earlier today so you know this.

Are you trying to say that Hargraves was somehow wrong to have asked about Granlund’s value heading into the draft, with Benning having said he’s going to try to acquire more picks, and Granlund looking like one of the few somewhat redundant players in the system? If that’s what you’re saying, please elaborate on your logic.

No..,I didn't check to see if Hargreaves was wrong......Yes.. ,I was on the thread earlier....Yes..It was just a throwaway blanket statement I made about discussing the throwaway Granlund topic (the poster I replied to agreed on the redundancy of the thread)...Just shoot me..

Do you ever take time off from policing the threads.?

 

[RobertKron]

No..,I didn't check to see if Hargreaves was wrong......Yes.. ,I was on the thread earlier....Yes..It was just a throwaway blanket statement I made about discussing the throwaway Granlund topic (the poster I replied to agreed on the redundancy of the thread)...Just shoot me..

Do you ever take time off from policing the threads.?

I'm just trying to get a sense of what you're talking about.

Anyway, as for Granlund, I think he's probably not worth much more than a mid or later round pick. It's also an interesting spot that they're in, though, where the combination of the lack of depth at nearly every position along with the weird strategy of trying to make hockey trades at the deadline (when picks are probably at their cheapest and hockey trades are less a priority) and then trying to pick up extra picks leading into the draft (when the price for them is likely highest) leaves them with very few options for ways to pick up those picks that Benning says he wants to acquire.

Of the bunch of Granlund, Goldobin, Leipsic, etc. I think Granlund is the most likely to go.