Canucks trade Jared McCann, 2nd round pick and 4th round pick to Florida for Gudbranson and 5th round pick

With game 6 between the San Jose Sharks and St Louis Blues underway, the Vancouver Canucks have made a trade with the Florida Panthers.

The Canucks have traded 2014 1st round pick Jared McCann, along with 2016 2nd round pick (33rd overall) and 2016 4th round pick (93rd overall) for Erik Gudbranson and 2016 NYI 5th round pick (139 overall)

It was long rumoured that the Canucks had been shopping McCann for help on the backend, and there had been reports that Gudbranson was possibly a player that could be on the move in Florida. So it wasn’t crazy to suggest a connecting of the dots between the two teams but with that being said the Canucks adding a 2nd round pick and 4th round pick for this draft seems like an overpayment.

For a team looking to inject more youth and further supplement their pipeline with more prospects, the thought of the Canucks only picking 5th overall and then having to wait until 63rd to select again seems like a misguided step. Also moving a 20 year old and recent first round pick who made the team out of camp seems like another odd move, especially given that Gudbranson is 24 years old.

Ideally if the Canucks were in the market to move McCann and 33rd overall, they would’ve traded for a defenceman who was in their early twenties rather than their mid twenties. The Canucks also struggled to generate offence from the backend, so adding Gudbranson doesn’t help that aspect in any way.

Gudbranson had just recently signed a year contract extension worth $3.5 million. The Canucks will assume this full contract.

The Canucks now currently have 9 defenceman penciled in for next season, so something has to give. Unfortunately none of those players will hold the same value that McCann, 33rd and 93rd overall did. 

Canucks GM Jim Benning was on record after selecting McCann that he was getting calls for him immediately after he was chosen. So if they were wanting to shop him, it’s doubtful there wouldn’t have been at least a few suitors. A little patience likely would’ve reaped better rewards.

So no matter what happens over the rest of the summer, the initial optics of the deal don’t look great.

  • Almo89

    I think Jim will look long and hard at getting out of the fifth pick if someone in the top 12 is willing to give up a second rounder. I really do think that Jim has Jost pegged as Henrik’s replacement. If Edmonton picks Tkachuk, Montreal will give up a lot to draft Dubois as the next French hope.

  • Nucksrock

    It’s worth considering the uncertainty in the next year or two for McCann:

    If McCann had stayed in Vancouver, there is a good chance he would have been sent down to the AHL. That much was agreed upon, and the idea was to get him more playing time on the top line in the minors.

    But think about how that can play out. There is no guarantee that he goes down and lights the league on fire. Look at Virtanen when he was in the minors. Virtanen’s trip to the minors hurt his value, because he didn’t produce anything at all. Even Horvat hardly produced in his short stint in the minors. That’s what can happen.

    So imagine if McCann goes down and produces, say, 0.5 ppg this coming year. His value would plummet, and his future would be much more doubtful. Right now, you have a player who is “playing in the NHL at age 19”, which is a rare feat, and serves to inflate his value. But he was playing on an absolutely atrocious team, with the worst goal differential in the entire league. It’s not like he played a central role on a cup contender.

    At this time next year, will McCann still be considered a grade A prospect? Maybe, maybe not. But right now, he is, and the Canucks leveraged that to get a good player to fill an organizational need.

    • Almo89

      I don’t recall Virtanen being sent to the minors. He was ineligible to play in the AHL because of his age, so not sure what damage could have been done to his value. And Horvat never played in the minors.
      But yeah, your last paragraph.

  • Almo89

    Pre ’15-’16 season:
    0 first round draft choices in 2010

    After ’15-’16 season:
    2 first round draft choices in 2010

    Erik Gudbranson (3rd OVR)
    Emerson Etem (29th OVR)

  • Almo89

    I don’t mind this trade at all. It would have been nice if Guddy was a more rounded D-man but that may still come – he’s just 24.

    I guess this may knock Pedan down to the 7th D man which is too bad. I like his game.

    McCann was a tough loss but I don’t think he’s a #1 centre. He lacks size and isn’t great in the faceoff department.

    We dealt from a position of strength and had to add D. Guddy could turn into someone very good and maybe even a #2 D-man but, right now, he’s a #3 or 4 which is still good! He had the most TOI for D during the playoffs for FLA which speaks well of how he is relied on.

    The part which stings a bit is the 2nd round pick we had to give up. Not the end of the world but ouch. Maybe Hansen gets us a late 1st…?

    • Nucksrock

      I haven’t been in favour of trading Hansen, but for a late first? OK. Even a second depending who is still on the board (talking draft day trade) The only issue I would still have is replacing his goal production

      • Nucksrock

        Agree on moving Hansen, question is when is his value highest?

        Offseason/Draft or Deadline. I would think the deadline (assuming he has another solid year-which he always does, very consistent player).

        That being said, if you can somehow move him for a late first I think you do it, particularly if there is a player they know they want.

        Another player I love but smart time to move him after a career year, low contract and really only 3-4 years left in him (ie he won’t be around for the next run)

        The addition of Gubradson helps lessen the leadership loss there as well if they move him.

  • orcasfan

    Wow! I haven’t seen this much action here since GMMG was fired! I like this hockey trade. That’s not to say that I wouldn’t like to see how McCann develops in the next few years as a Canuck. But with e real hockey trade, both sides bleed a little!

    With this move, GMJB reveals much more of their plan to rebuild this team. Like so many other GM’s, he believes that the best way to build a contender is from the goalie first, then the D, and then the Centres. (He repeated that strategy this morning on 1040). The D needed a transfusion! They needed a proven (and, preferably, young) top 4 guy who could log big minutes and protect the goalie. They also need more offense from the D. Well, Gudbranson certainly fills the first hole. (Luongo apparently hates this trade!). Not only can he be the anchor on the second pairing, but he can also take the pressure off Edler and Tanev by logging big minutes in the D zone. Yeah, it would be great if Tryamkin and/or Pedan developed into top 4 guys…but there’s no guarantee on that, let alone them becoming even top 6 guys!

    We still need more scoring/offense from the back end. Can we get another D via trade to be a real PP QB, or is it going to come via committee…Edler regaining his offense, or Hutton developing. That is still up in the air.

    What it also tells us is that the #5 pick will be even more likely Dubois or Tkachuk. That is certainly going to help with the fans next season. I have a suspicion that JB is not done trading yet. It may be for more draft picks (I’m sure he would love to get a 2nd or 3rd rounder). But, unlike Dave Pratt, I do not see this particular draft as being a deep one. It seems that the consensus is that it all becomes a total crapshoot after the 20th pick or so. And not because there are so many quality prospects, but the opposite. (I can’t figure out if Pratt is just stupid, or just so very lazy…).

    BTW, I imagine that this trade has been cooking for a while. Is it just a coincidence that Florida inked Gudbranson to a one year deal 2 weeks ago? Perhaps a condition of the trade going forward? And, Gudbranson is still an RFA next year!

  • ikillchicken

    Before the trade line folks were sayig that Hamhuis would be signed by the Canucks , giving Hamhuis leverage and thus making it hard to get him to ok a deadline deal .. So now the Canucks dont want him , and he walks , the Canucks get squat..Bad stuff , again.Hunter Shrinchuk given away for a maybe 3 to 4 line center . Hunter could have been packaged with Hamhuis for something substantial.That would have been an action plan , instead of a reaction plan they sae in now.This trade , great short to mid term. McCann is a fierce competitor with skill , I hope he wins a cup with someone.

  • Almo89

    So I was right about Benning trading McCann to score the #3 pick. I guess I should have specified which draft year a bit more clearly…

    So, we gave up quite a few assets (McCann, a 34% chance of getting 100 games of bottom-6/bottom pairing performance with pick #63, and a 16% chance at getting a bottom of the roster guy at pick #123) to score a second-pairing 24 year old RD whose stats compare pretty nicely with Mitchell’s. Oh, and a 5th rounder.

    If Gudbranson had been a LD, I don’t think that he would have cost more than McCann. Then again, if he were a LD, I don’t think this trade happens.

    So, do we like this trade a little more if Benning flips the #5 to Ottawa for Wiercioch?

  • Nucksrock

    Don’t forget Canucks have another second round pick – maybe this year – coming from CLB for the Torts signing – we find that out next week – if its this year or 17/18

    • Cageyvet

      CLB would be nuts to give us that pick this year, they finished ahead of only 3 teams. Unless they plan on being even worse next year, which is highly doubtful, everyone expects them to finally start getting better, they’re hanging on to this year’s pick.

  • ikillchicken

    Checked out a bunch of hits by Gudbranson on Youtube. Some fierce hits but quite a few by “Gubby” were cheap shots to deliberately injure. Jumping off the ice, hitting from behind close to the boards, deliberately targeting the head. But I guess you guys are so desperate to relive 2011, no matter how low you need to go…

  • redslumber

    See, here’s my problem with this:

    Canucks team ranking 2015/2016, all situations:

    Goals For: 29th
    Goals Against: 23rd

    Corsi For: 27th
    Corsi Against: 20th

    I’m not saying the Canucks have a stellar defense, but it wouldn’t appear to be the most pressing problem. The Canucks already have a pop-gun offense; trading away players expected to chip in goals for more defensive minded players doesn’t seem to address this. As a one-off it’s not a concern. As part of an emerging pattern it’s worrisome.