Confirmed with Link: [VAN/FLA] Canucks acquire Erik Gudbranson, 2016 5th for McCann, 2016 2nd, 2016 4th

[The Drop]

Neither did Pronman. He was very "meh" on Gudbranson and basically squashed the 1040 guys' attempts to get him to agree that Gud still had untapped offensive potential.

There's def a line drawn here with the old school thinking media personalities vs the stats nerds.

I thought what Kypreos said on Live TV was ridiculous.

Also think Cherry will say he loves this trade for Vancouver. That 33rd pick is going to be interesting to follow going forward.

 

[Bad News Benning]

No of course not that's why we are called a rebuilding team. We have young players, Hutton, Tryamkin, Tanev, and now Gudbranson who are all young and full of potential to be better. In 2-4 years if they live up to their potential they will be a top 4 that's good enough to contend with.

You're so glued to the idea that we needed a puck moving dman, but really we needed someone who can watch Hutton's back and not throw this young and extremely raw player to the wolves.

Rebuilding team? that keeps trading away picks/prospects? I wish we were rebuilding but this is more like an unsuccessful retool that will fail. Even if Tryamkin and Gudbranson "live up to their potential" where is the offense going to come from? We badly need offense/puck moving defenseman and it's been that way since Ehrhoff left and Edler's offense regressed. You can't contend if don't generate offense and this defense as structured will never be good enough to contend without a significant puck moving presence added.

 

[CanaFan]

We have that second rounder, if we means the Pens.

The Pen's 3rd rounder??

 

[Fat Tony]

Neither did Pronman. He was very "meh" on Gudbranson and basically squashed the 1040 guys' attempts to get him to agree that Gud still had untapped offensive potential.

When MacKenzie was asked what wowed him about EG, he hemmed and hawed. =\

 

[dwarf]

And that's an opinion that you're absolutely entitled to have. It's just not shared by all. It's not up to me to judge whether it's informed or not. but these Boards lean very heavily towards everything that Benning does being bad. I have not heard one media Pundit say the Gudbranson trade was bad for the Canucks ( a sample of probably 12). Yet, the overwhelming reaction on these boards was that it was horrible. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark....

http://www.tsn.ca/panthers-take-advantage-of-canucks-in-lopsided-trade-1.496247

Nevermind, this has been beat to death.

 

[VanillaCoke]

No Ferraro said that Gudbranson is a number 4 and also said that he would like the deal for Vancouver if they find a way to recoup picks in another trade.

You don't lose trade A if you can make and not lose a totally unrelated trade B.

Ok got it thx.

 

[CanaFan]

When MacKenzie was asked what wowed him about EG, he hemmed and hawed. =\

Didn't catch that one but that just adds more to the pile. Thx

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

I respect Pronman but his prejudices are well known..

 

[The Drop]

That I agree with, this is the first trade Henning has made that I actually agree with. I agree he has been bleeding picks and value out his butt. But his past moves doesn't make this a bad move. This move actually fills a massive hole in the organization. Yea.. it would have been better if Gudbranson was a puck mover and more offensive, but then we would have had to pay an even steeper price.. or were Canuck fans here really happy about the idea of having Weber or Larsen instead.

It sounds a lot more like some people here wanted to have their cake and to eat it too..

Like Canafan stated, it would have been ok if we actually had more picks if Benning had done his job at the deadline and acquired picks for expiring contracts like so many teams did.

The problem is that he has created a pattern in his trades of overpaying and that remains the case in this trade too.

I don't have a problem of overpaying, but make sure you can afford it.

And this franchise cant at this stage

 

[m9]

Exactly. It's amazing that more people don't recognize this. If Sbisa gets top4 ice, is he a top4 Dman? TOI is just one marker to determine the quality of a player. There are others like quality of competition, QoT, GA20, CorsiRel etc...

How are you determining this?

And he became this way because he became more efficient at what he does, or he was just given top4 ice? Please read CanaFan's comment above.

There's nothing vague about it: They needed a top4 Right-Side D (not necessarily a Right shot D) and Gudbranson has not performed like a top4 right side D. This would be an easier discussion if you placed anything in possession metrics.

What changed? We're not talking about trading Luongo's contract (what it was made out to be by the league) for an ELC D prospect.

The point about DET is that they pay their premium contracts to players that generate points first and foremost. Kronwall and Green. Benning is just about to make Gudbranson the highest paid Dman here, hence, the contrast.

Yes, he became more efficient at what he does. Or got better, whatever you want to call it. He's developing.

Gudbranson is going to be the 4th highest paid defenseman on the team next year. I really don't understand your point with bringing up Detroit. They pay Kronwell, we pay Edler. If we paid Tanev a million more then that's bad because he doesn't get points? I'll take Tanev over Green every day of the week. And you completely gloss over all of the Detroit guys who don't score points that the team has invested high draft picks and loads of money into.

You don't think Gudbranson is a top four defenseman, I do. Because of that, I think the trade value is average (not great) and you think it's bad. We both agree bleeding young assets is a bad way to build the team. That's it, those are the relevant parts of the deal.

 

[kanucks25]

So Kypreos is disqualified? Who else should be disqualified? But the posters on these Boards should be qualified?? Seems odd to me.
There were a number on 1040, and a few articles but you know that. Yes, probably about a dozen. I just found it strange that none of these were trashing the trade and the majority on here were. As I've said I didn't go looking for the negative opinions but, since I also didn't go looking for the positive opinions, it certainly showed the difference.

When Tanev scored his first NHL goal, Kypreos said something like, "I'm surprised it took an offensive guy like him that long to get his first."

I think that shows you how much he knows about players outside the Leafs. For a guy that works a lot of games around the league he sure says some dumb things when it comes to player evaluations.

I think he's a great insider but hockey analysis? amongst the worst.

 

[CanaFan]

There's def a line drawn here with the old school thinking media personalities vs the stats nerds.

I thought what Kypreos said on Live TV was ridiculous.

Also think Cherry will say he loves this trade for Vancouver. That 33rd pick is going to be interesting to follow going forward.

The fact that Kypreos and Cherry like it speaks just as much as Pronman and Ferraro being "meh" about it. It's like having Donald Trump endorse your wall building policies. You probably wanna go have a re-think if that ever happens.

 

[canwincup]

You don't lose trade A if you can make and not lose a totally unrelated trade B.

Ok got it thx.

I wasn't saying that we won the trade, I was telling him what Ferraro said......

 

[Bonham]

You have to give to get.. and we desperately needed.
And it was fairly comparable with the current price tag of similar trades.

Why should there be any desperation?

The Canuck's were the third worst team in the league with a shallow prospect pool and only trending downwards. Their best players are 36 years old heading into next season with little offensive depth coming up the pipeline. The main goal should be to add picks and prospects not subtract from an already thin group. Now once again, a team sorely lacking young talent is left with 2 picks in the top 140(ish) spots in the draft. Virtually every team surrounding the Canuck's in the standings have added picks while Benning trades them away like they're nothing.

Some posters act like it's no big deal, but when you deal away countless future assets like McCann, Shinkaruk, Forsling, high picks, etc. It's going to come back to bite you sooner rather than later. And this is all in a vain attempt to remain 'competitive' when they should realize the current state of affairs, bite the bullet, and commit to a proper rebuild. I don't know how anyone could watch the Canuck's this season and think they're anywhere close to being a contending team. All this is doing is setting back the inevitable.

This is just another move on a long list of many that continues to prove that management is completely out of touch with where this team is.

 

[canwincup]

The fact that Kypreos and Cherry like it speaks just as much as Pronman and Ferraro being "meh" about it. It's like having Donald Trump endorse your wall building policies. You probably wanna go have a re-think if that ever happens.

I think the original point was about the Canucks taking a huge loss in this trade which just isn't true, and I don't think anyone outisde of the analytical community think that it was a huge loss.

This trade should've been McCann + 3/4th for Gudbranson.

 

[CanaFan]

I respect Pronman but his prejudices are well known..

I have my issues with Pronman too but he was very articulate in his assessment of Gudbranson. Didn't just stop at the shallow "he's a top 4 D so he must be great" analysis that seems to be the limit for many. He actually looked at Gudbranson's style and tendencies - says he saw the guy a ton as he is from the area - and stated he doesn't love guys who play Gud's style of hockey (I'm massively paraphrasing here - apologies).

You can disagree with him no doubt but his "prejudices" are no less valid than yours or mine. At least he backs it up with frequent viewings and an honest attempt to explain his views.

 

[Bleach Clean]

You know, I could probably live with this trade if Benning had had a consistent plan for this team back in February and got off his ass and managed to deal Hamhuis - the proverbial "Top 4 D" that I've heard so much about in this thread being worth giving up so much to acquire - for a couple of 2nd round picks like any half decent GM should do when their team is outside the playoffs and they have a 34 year old UFA.

If he then dealt one of THOSE picks along with McCann for Gud - rather than our only hard earned 2nd - I wouldn't be nearly as critical of this deal.

But because he didn't want to move Hamhuis until the last minute (can't send a bad message to the team lol) he got nothing for him. Now he's decided to give up prime assets that we can't afford to give up to replace Hamhuis with a less talented albeit younger "top 4 D" all while now deciding to let Hamhuis walk for nothing.

If asset management 101 were an actual course in high school, Benning would be pulling in solid D minuses for his work so far.

The 2nd rounder added to the deal represents a 'win more' proposition to the deal to me. The heart of this deal is still McCann, and what trading an quality ELC prospect for a mid-aged, mid-to-bottom pair Defensive Dman represents.

 

[kanucks25]

Why should there be any desperation?

The Canuck's were the third worst team in the league with a shallow prospect pool and only trending downwards. Their best players are 36 years old heading into next season with little offensive depth coming up the pipeline. The main goal should be to add picks and prospects not subtract from an already thin group. Now once again, a team sorely lacking young talent is left with 2 picks in the top 140(ish) spots in the draft. Virtually every team surrounding the Canuck's in the standings have added picks while Benning trades them away like they're nothing.

Exactly.

It really pisses me off every time I hear something like "yeah we overpaid but we needed a D-man so whatever." Why? Why the hell do we need a D-man so desperately that we're willing to give away young assets that we do actually desperately need.

We need to overpay for a 4/5 D-man so we can finish 6th last instead of 3rd last? Really? It's just asinine.

How I envy Toronto's management and organizational direction. They are doing the rebuild right; they have and will continue to have young assets coming out of their backside while we bleed them away one by one with every lost trade.

**** Benning.


Listened to the radio all day and almost wanted to puke listening to callers like 50 year-old construction worker Rick from Port Moody who probably watches 6 NHL games a year loving the trade 'cause of how badly we need that tall, rugged, bearded, old-school, tough crease-clearing D-man.

It's sickening.

 

[Scygen]

Why should there be any desperation?

You might be ok with the idea of throwing Hutton to the wolves, but I'm not.

 

[CanaFan]

I think the original point was about that the Canucks took a huge loss in this trade which just isn't true, and I don't think anyone outisde of the analytical community think that it was a huge loss.

This trade should've been McCann + 3/4th for Gudbranson.

Define "huge" for me.

It is a loss. Yes we have a tangible asset at the end of the day and there is some value in that asset, but it is poor value, will be a huge financial liability in 12 months, essentially shows Hamhuis the door, and is the type of D that, even if he truly is a "top 4" guy, is the most limited and least useful type.

I don't know if it's a "huge" loss either but it is a loss IMO and we have been piling them up with nearly every trade (or non trade) that Benning has made.

 

[CanaFan]

The 2nd rounder added to the deal represents a 'win more' proposition to the deal to me. The heart of this deal is still McCann, and what trading an quality ELC prospect for a mid-aged, mid-to-bottom pair Defensive Dman represents.

Gotcha. I wouldn't like it either, but I'd definitely hate it less.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree. I don't see this as old school vs. new school. Shutdown defensemen like Gudbranson have value regardless of one's philosophy in team building. But not to a team in the Canucks' position and not for the price they paid.

Shut down Dmen have value. Even a progressive thinker like Gillis signed Hamhuis. But the philosophy on team building definitely has an impact on which GMs choose to pay for assets like Defensive Dmen, compared to other assets.

 

[CanaFan]

You might be ok with the idea of throwing Hutton to the wolves, but I'm not.

What does that actually mean?

 

[kanucks25]

You might be ok with the idea of throwing Hutton to the wolves, but I'm not.

What does this even mean?

I don't know if it's a "huge" loss either but it is a loss IMO and we have been piling them up with nearly every trade (or non trade) that Benning has made.

Benning has lost most of the trades he's made but none of them have been "huge" losses. The problem is they've almost all been significant and like you said, it's piling up.

 

[iceburg]

When Tanev scored his first NHL goal, Kypreos said something like, "I'm surprised it took an offensive guy like him that long to get his first."

I think that shows you how much he knows about players outside the Leafs. For a guy that works a lot of games around the league he sure says some dumb things when it comes to player evaluations.

I think he's a great insider but hockey analysis? amongst the worst.

Yeah. I agree that Kypreos isn't the best Pundit but when we start only selecting opinions that support our opinions...