Photo Credit: Bob Frid - USA TODAY Sports

Friedman: “I can see Vancouver Making an Increased Effort to Move Gudbranson”

In everyone’s favourite middle-of-the-week feature, Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman had a nugget about the Canucks and one of their prized potential assets ahead of the 2018 trade deadline.

Per Friedman’s 5th thought in his 31 Thoughts column, his hunch is that the Canucks might make a push to move pending unrestricted free agent defenceman Erik Gudbranson. In Friedman’s words:

Call it more of a hunch, but I can see Vancouver making an increased effort to move Erik Gudbranson. It’s unlikely they re-sign him to what he can get on the market, and there is little point to keeping him on the roster if he’s not part of their future. A fresh start would benefit Gudbranson, too. It just hasn’t worked out for team or player.

This comes just a day after Friedman was on friend of the blog Andrew Walker and Scott Rintoul’s show on Sportsnet 650 discussing the unfolding situation with the Canucks and Gudbranson. In that segment, Friedman suggested that if there are teams interested in acquiring Gudbranson, they might start calling Canucks general manager Jim Benning soon.

Friedman goes on to add that soon, in this instance, might mean that the process starts on the other side of the holiday roster freeze, when teams are free to make roster transactions.

This isn’t the first time Friedman’s hit the local airwaves to discuss Gudbranson’s future, but as he alludes to, the Ben Hutton part of this equation is a new wrinkle that likely speeds up the process for the Canucks too if they want to deal Gudbranson.

Canucks head coach Travis Green sat Hutton for last night’s game to facilitate Gudbranson’s return. It’s the first time Hutton’s been a healthy scratch in his NHL career, in this, his third season. It’s an ugly situation, all the way around.

Gudbranson, 25, is playing on a one-year deal signed this off-season with the Canucks for $3.5-million. Rumour has it, Gudbranson’s camp still have their sights set on a long-term extension north of the $4-million range, which might put him out of the Canucks price range, hence the trade speculation.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Aside from the logistics of the situation, there’s also the reality that the Gudbranson acquisition just hasn’t lived up to its expectations through its first year and a half. He’s been injured for significant chunks of time, but even when he’s been in the lineup, he’s been far from the minute-munching, hard to play against, rugged, stay-at-home defenceman that Benning sold him as upon acquiring him.

At the beginning of the season, reports suggested that the Canucks would wait until February to decide what to do with Gudbranson. At this rate, January is starting to feel more and more likely. And that’s probably for the best, for everyone involved.

  • Burnabybob

    That trade has not aged well. McCann, a second and a fourth for Gudbranson and a fifth. McCann is now showing promise in Florida. The second round pick was high- 33 overall. I don’t totally blame Benning for making that trade, as it seemed to make sense at the time, but it stings.

    • truthseeker

      Jury is still way out on McCann too though. I wouldn’t say he’s showed that much promise. Guy has 4 goals in Florida this season, and apparently hasn’t scored in 11 straight. Sure, all players go through slumps but he’s never shown any consistency to begin with. And it’s not like he hasn’t gotten opportunity there.

      And let’s not forget Pedan’s comments about him.


      It’s not often there are verifiable indications that a guy was not liked and not respected, in the room. But like Hodgeson, we have some pretty solid proof with McCann. Not too mention the way he whined about being drafted by the canucks on draft day on camera….lol.

      I’m quite willing to admit that he could become a very good center and turn this into an obvious loss of a trade for the canucks. He certainly has the skill. But a lot of guys have skill. Hodgeson had skill too. I’m going to guess that McCann is more like that. A lazy self entitled kid who thinks he’s owed more than he is because he has that skill. Unless he changes or has changed that attitude he’ll be out of the league in a few years with an average at best career behind him. Never having lived up to expectations.

      As you said, it made a lot of sense at the time. The team could ship a problem player out and get a young cost controlled D man with size who was at the time at least considered a good physical player with “leadership”. I’m not sure how you don’t make that trade, frankly. Especially considering the value of D men.

      I agree Gudbranson has been a pretty big disappointment, but there is no way I agree with all the people calling it a huge trade loss. It’s simply not. And McCann himself is the proof it isn’t a loss. At this point he’s really not that good either.

      • Holly Wood

        , I agree 100% with your assessment of McCann. Much like Hodgson, dick head in the room. The kind of guy that gets punched in the mouth by a teammate. Might become a player down the road but I doubt it

        • truthseeker

          What I remember most was Kesler taking quite a few huge angry runs at Hodgson when he returned for his first game. Hodgson looked at him like he was crazy after one of the hits….lol. If that wasn’t confirmation about his status in the room I don’t know what would be.

      • Dude, he’s 21. He’s already played over 100 games. He’s going to have a long career – the only question is whether he’ll develop into a top-6 player or if he’ll be more of a depth option. Trading a player like that, and a high-2nd-round pick, for 1.5 years of a third-pairing defenceman is a loss, no matter how you cut it.

        • truthseeker

          We’ll see.

          Most 2nd round picks don’t amount to squat, and looking at the list of guys picked around that particular pick, I’m not too worried that any of them are going to come back to haunt us. Hell, the best name in the 2nd round that year we have now from Ottawa anyway.

          And you’re using hindsight. At the time Gudbranson was more than a “3rd pairing” guy in Florida. He was still young. You can’t talk about McCann’s “potential” or the potential of a second rounder but then ignore the potential that existed with Gudbranson when we got him. That’s cherry picking and it’s not logical.

          Plus, again, the position of defense requires a premium cost. It’s not a “talent for talent” equation. So teams have to give up more talent from other positions to get lower talent at D. That’s just the way it is. And it has to be factored into trade discussions.

          A trade isn’t a “loss” if the other team gets no benefits either. It’s simply a bad trade all around.

          • Dirk22

            “I’m not sure how you don’t make that trade” – truthseeker.

            Tell me about it. Why Benning hasn’t trade Gaudette, Lind and a 4th for say an Oleksiak or Bortuzzo and a 5th is beyond me. You make that trade every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

          • Dirk22

            Oh and I’d watch guys like Jordan Kyrou, Kale Clague, Carter Hart or Dillon Dube or in the upcoming World Juniors if you want to take a look at that second round a little better. Better yet, go watch a Blackhawks game so you can see Debrincat and his 12 goals. Go watch Sam Girard for Colorado. All hindsight though right TS? Nobody knew those players would be any good!

          • truthseeker

            OK…fair enough…there are a couple of guys in the NHL and one of them has scored 12 goals. And yeah…that would be better than having Gudbranson or McCann. So you’re right there. Both the canucks and the panthers really blew it by not keeping/using that pick on DeBrincat.

            I’m sure we could butterfly effect that trade all the way back to the canucks not getting Gretzky.

            But the facts of the trade made at the time don’t change. And my argument is sound. You can’t say McCann has “potential” now and simply ignore that at the time of the trade Gudbranson had a much stronger reputation, was still young, and still had “potential” of his own.

            Or are you saying that is not true? See, it’s funny Dirk, how again when you reference “hindsight” back at me, you completely ignore the way in which I used the argument in the first place, and twist it to fit your new narrative about the 2nd rounders….lol.

            So how about addressing it in the context in which I used it?

          • Regarding “talent for talent”, you can say the same thing about centres. Centres and defence certainly carry a premium over wingers and goaltenders, but I don’t think one has been at a premium compared to the other over the past few seasons.

            Regarding “potential” – there is a world of difference between a 19-year-old who has played one season and a 25-year-old who has played five seasons (or even a 21-year-old who has played two-and-a-bit seasons). By 25, you know what a player is. Gudbranson may have been getting big minutes in Florida, but he was never better than a 3rd-pairing defenceman. This isn’t hindsight. Go back and look at articles being written at the time. I remember Dimitri Filipovic and Travis Yost talking about the Mitchell/Gudbranson pairing as the worst pairing in the NHL while Gudbranson was there. There were a number of CanucksArmy articles written at the time of the trade pointing out that Gudbranson was unlikely to make a positive impact – in his time in Florida, he couldn’t score, and he didn’t do a particularly good job of stopping the opposition from scoring either.

            As for Florida not getting a benefit – what are you even talking about? McCann is on the team, and will be for the foreseeable future. Maybe he’s just a third line centre going forward, but he’s a young, cost-controlled third-line centre. Maybe he ends up being more. But in addition, Florida took that 2nd, traded down, and took one player who just up up 100 points in 65 games in the OHL, and another who has been playing defence against men in the SHL since he was 17. They did NOT get no benefit.

          • truthseeker

            Between center and D I would say for sure D has the premium over centers. The only exception being franchise centers like McDavid who basically never get traded.

            Look at the Duchene trade. The thing Sakic wanted most, a top young NHL D man with future potential, he didn’t get. Not a single team would give him that level of D for his “#1” center. Nor should they. Duchene is not worth that. He’s worth a lot obviously. That was a good return Sakic got, but the best D piece he could manage was a young “maybe” type potential guy from the Preds.

            OK but Canucks Army and Yost are not the only source of information. And not everyone believes that their analytic approach to player evaluation is the end all be all. So if you’re staking your claim to what this website wrote about Gudbranson, that’s fine, but you still need to admit there are other view points out there that believed Gudbranson was a solid D man. And many of those voices were NHL scout type opinions.

            Canucks Army were also the same people writing about Horvat’s potential as being only 3rd or 2nd line and a weak skater….lol. Again, cherry picking when they are right about a player to fit your argument is nothing more than conformation bias.

            A lot of guys are “on NHL teams”. You sure you want to make that your criteria of success? Let’s say for the sake of argument that the canucks could have had McCann as a “young cost controlled player”…..OK….and then what? Who cares if he’s a warm body filling a position if the team isn’t winning? You’re happy with mediocre?

            Again…I’m not saying it was the right move, I’m simply saying I don’t mind a GM who’s willing to take a chance and move on from a guy who was a locker room cancer and so far someone who doesn’t contribute to a team’s success in a significant way. And as for OHL and other leagues…yeah…that’s great. But they haven’t done anything in the NHL yet. When one of the assets florida has as a direct result of the Guddy trade, starts lighting it up in the NHL, then I will gladly admit we lost this trade.

            He took a shot on Guddy to keep growing his game and become more than what he was. It didn’t work out.

            It’s going to happen sometimes. If you expect perfection from a team’s management every single time, your going to put yourself through a lot of unnecessary stress.

          • Dirk22

            TS – Can’t say I’m surprised you’re still defending this trade as someone who still defends the Virtanen pick! Sometimes you just have to take the losses.

            Good dmen cost a lot – no one questions that. Underachieving, slow defencemen do not. See the recent Oleksiak trade – a big former first round pick for a 4th.

            Also, why not bring up the Jones for Johannson deal as a comparable along with the Duchene deal – y’know for someone who hates cherry picking.

          • truthseeker

            You’re missing the point. It has nothing to do with “defending the trade”. I can’t defend something I haven’t even made up my mind about.

            What I’m arguing, is the interpretation by the Benning haters that the trade is some colossal “loss”, when it CLEARLY isn’t as I have proved with a logical argument which none of you seem to address. You can’t loose a trade when the other team has shown no benefits from it at the NHL level as well. As I said before, if and when one of the players the panthers got from the trade starts having NHL success then I will call it a loss (provided Guddy continues to be bad or we don’t end up with anything decent for him ourselves). But until then it has been a trade of 2 bad players for each other with some maybe draft picks thrown in.

            And yep…you’re right. Which is why I made the comment before about J.D. predicting a 1st and a prospect as ambitious to say the least. I agree, right now even with a premium on D Guddy is probably not worth much. But this wasn’t about that, until you just brought it up.

            And yep…the Jones/Johansen trade is somewhat more balanced. I don’t have any problem admitting that. It still doesn’t balance out all the other ones. And it most certainly is nowhere close to a better quality D man bringing back a lower quality C. I think it’s fair to say that at the time of the trade Johansen was a better C than Jones was a D. So you STILL had a better forward bring back a lower quality D even in that trade, though granted Jones’ potential was/is very very high to make it a closer to even trade.

            Hardly think it comes anywhere near to proving a point for you.

          • Aaron Tam

            Truthseeker these arguments are too nuanced for this comments section. Try to dumb it down a little please. In the meantime we’ll keep hitting you with bricks until you bend.

          • sloth

            Daniel Sedin said McCann was “embarassing” mid-season. Bartkowski’s mom slammed him on the radio. Pedan said he was a jerk after they traded him. It was clear he didn’t want to be a Canuck and had no future with this team. NHL players and execs hear lots of rumblings about what’s going on around the league and there’s no doubt in my mind that the situation was somewhat known by all prospective trade partners, and his trade value was hurt by this.

            I also think fans/media also artificially inflated his trade value because he got a few points in a small sample, but was probably actually playing more than he deserved in the NHL on a weak team under a rookie coach who has now proven to have significant blind spots in his player evaluation and deployment. Florida and other interested teams probably saw this too, and were rightfully not as high on McCann.

            In terms of comparables, Gaudette and Lind have not created untenable situations in the NHL dressing room… Oleksiak’s pedigree is simply not as strong as Gudbranson’s at the time of the trade – look at draft position, games and minutes played, salary, and Florida fan/media reaction to the trade (not happy either). Bortuzzo is completely incomparable. And the Duschene and Johanssen/Jones trades are completely irrelevant as well – McCann was/is nowhere near the level of those players and has never even projected to be close, and the returns were different accordingly. I don’t think there is really much disparity in value between a 19-yo late-first-rounder who projects as a middle-six C and a 24-year old former 3rd-overall who projects as a top-4 shutdown D, especially given the other variables in the trade.

            Did Benning overpay with the draft picks? Maybe on paper, but looking at the context where Benning was a motivated seller due to the known lockerroom issues and McCann was probably already overvalued by media and fans based on his single season of stats and deployment, and given the premium paid for defenders in today’s NHL I don’t think it’s far off fair value.

            Did it work out for the Canucks? Nope, not really. Did it work out for the Panthers? Nope, not really. Should we still be moaning about it? Nope, not really.

          • Dirk22

            Sloth – the Jones-Johannson deal was in no way supposed to be a comparable to the McCann deal. It was just a better representation of how similar aged and pedigree centres and defencemen are valued. Much better than Duchene who’s obviously had his value shrink over the last couple of seasons.

            As for McCann’s character – does sound like there were issues. I wonder how people will feel when “Trump Tuesday” Gaudette gets here.

            How are Oleksiak and Bortuzzo that far off from Gudbranson? Would love to hear that. Can’t be counting stats. Can’t be fancy stats. Must be something about ‘in the room’ or ‘handsomeness.’

            We’re going into tonight’s game with Gagner, Burmistrov and Gaunce/Granlund as the 2-4 centres and people are still saying this wasn’t a bad deal.

            Also, for TS. How is it that you can say Gudbranson was worth that amount when they paid for him (“how could they not make that deal”) and then 1+ seasons (50ish games later) you don’t think he’s worth that much? Is 50 games your gauge for potential? Lol or something right?

          • truthseeker

            So….you’re looking at tonight’s roster as an example of why a trade in May of 2016 was a mistake? Ignoring all the other factors? Come on Dirk. Now you’re just being ridiculous. And even if we give you that argument? What the hell is 4 goal McCann going to do? Granlund has more goals. Gagner has as many goals and more points. The only ones McCann is “better” than is Burmistrov, and only by 2 goals and Guance. McCann is just more of the same. A weak center with a low work ethic who doesn’t help his team win. At least Guance works hard every night and doesn’t whine.

            Here’s why Dirk. Because it’s clear he’s been struggling in the 50 games he’s played here. Maybe he didn’t have the fancy stat support, but in Florida he had a reputation for at least decent 3rd pairing play if not slightly higher. Even that level is slipping here. Plus injuries are going to affect his value. Teams are now going to see him as someone who’s not that durable. In Florida he played over 60 games each year, and didn’t have the tag of “injury prone”. Now he’s getting that tag. That will lower his value from that time. 50 games is a short time, and maybe he can bounce back. I don’t know. But in his games with the canucks it’s seems to me it’s like he never shows any strong potential. He never has seemed to have had a game where you go “yeah….that’s the kind of player we were expecting”. Even Hutton has had a bunch of those kind of games. Plus Dirk, his contract is an issue which doesn’t allow us to be more patient with him unless we resign him. That also has an effect on his value. I don’t think he’s a player that makes sense at almost any contract value. Maybe 1.5 million for a single year. But his camp won’t take that guaranteed. And the canucks know that. And the rest of the NHL knows that. And that affects his trade value in a huge way compared to 2016 when we brought him in. Pretty simple really. That’s why I don’t think we can recoup what we paid. Good enough for ya?

          • sloth

            Dirk, fair about the centres and exchange rates, I was just getting a bit wound up.

            Bortuzzo is 3 years older, a 3rd round pick, who broke into the league the same year as Gud, and at this point has played 120 less games and averaged 2:30 less ice time per game.

            Oleksiak is a year younger, so his recent trade is more comparable based on context, but there are key differences between the players in terms of how they are evaluated.

            Oleksiak is a left shot, not a righty like Gudbranson, and right-shot D do cost a bit of a premium. Oleksiak is also 2 inches taller and 35 lbs heavier. So while they might fill a similar niche in a lineup, they play different positions with different body types.

            Oleksiak played a career high 41 games last season, currently sitting at 141 games total over 6 seasons, averaging 14:45 per game with 51% oZS, and 50%FF and -2FFrelTM.

            Gudbranson had played over 300 games over 5 seasons at the time of the trade, and has averaged 18:00 per game with a career 47%oZS (in his last 2 years in FLA those OZone start numbers were 43% and 41%, averaging 18:30 and 20:00 min/gp). He has a career 48%FF, -3FFrelTM.

            So looking at games and minutes played, deployment, and shot attempt metrics, we can see that these players have been given very different levels of responsibility over their careers. It would be interesting to compare their quality of competition (and transitional stats, perhaps Mr. Keeping can help us with this?), but I don’t have access to those metrics quickly. I’d assume based on minutes and zone starts that Gudbranson has been asked to shoulder a more significant defensive load (consistent with his billing as an effective defensive player) and his career possession metrics are really not that terrible based in this context.

            You can’t say it was a loss just because the team’s centre depth is exposed with two of their top 3 injured at the moment, especially because McCann is not really an upgrade even on Gaunce at this point…

            I don’t really like Gud as a Canuck and am definitely supportive of moving him. But I don’t think the trade necessarily was a bad one based on the context in which it was made, especially given that hindsight doesn’t point to a clear winner at this point (really 2 losers…). Looking back at all the times we’ve fleeced Florida I’m definitely ok if this trade is a bit of a net loss (draft picks) on 2 marginal players, because it means we have a score to settle with one of the worst management groups in the league haha. Too bad we didn’t get in on that Marchessault deal. Maybe they’ll trade us Barkov to take Luongo back or something?

            And what the heck is the “Trump Tuesday” Gaudette reference? Can’t find any mention of anything on the internet, could you please enlighten?

        • Silverback

          You Don’t know if It’s a loss until you know what you get back for Gudbranson. Furthermore McCann’ s trajectory is nothing more than 2-3 years in the NHL and another couple of years in the Swiss league. After that selling cars in his home town. My opinion only…

      • Puck Viking

        We could really use that 33rd overall pick in the system right now. Hopefully we can get the 1st back(McCann) and just call it a loss. If we hit on the pick we get back then no it wont be. I understand why we made the trade but almost every trade JB has made to speed up the rebuild has bit us in the ass as he is reaching and you can tell. His rebuild type trades have been great(burrows and hansen) even if the prospects dont hit because we lost nothing and tried to get better for the future.

        • truthseeker

          If the Baer and Granlund trades have “bitten us in the ass” then I hope we get bitten like that a few more times.

          Sorry, but some have missed, like Vey and some have been pretty great. Like the two above. Implying that every trade he’s made for a younger “NHL ready” player was wrong, is just completely false. If anything, given the percentage of players who are failures, Benning has done remarkably well with those types of deals. Pouliot looks like he might be one more to count with Sven and Gran.

          And we did lose something on those trades. We lost Hansen and Burrows. So if someone like Goldy doesn’t work out, it is most certainly a loss. Hansen had several years of good value left in him. Burrows too, although a lot less. Not saying those were bad trades. I’d make both of them again in a heartbeat. But your reasoning does not follow.

      • Moderated Post

        Except you just made the case that McCann was a bad draft pick. Entitlement issues don’t just suddenly appear when you’re the youngest guy on a pretty good hockey team. Either draft guru Benning didn’t identify them or misvalued them when he chose McCann over Pastrnak, a guy he’d been scouting while with his former employer.

      • Doodly Doot

        I agree with you truthseeker. It’s just the media again working to make fire from smoke. The Army has argued to move him effectively based on his numbers, but Guddy is going to fetch something from someone. The deal made more sense in the Willie D era than it does now. That doesn’t get written about much. Green’s style of play is an uphill battle for him.

        While it’s true that McCann is good, and he was initially brilliant in Penticton at Young Stars, his career and future is unclear. Do any of you know whether the Canucks were actually regretting the pick and wanted to move him anyway?

  • Freud

    Acquiring Gudbransen was a bad move on numerous levels.

    It was a move contrary to what a rebuilding team should make.
    It was a move for a defensive defenseman at a time when successful teams were adding mobile puck movers.
    It was a move for an overrated defenseman that had warning signs all around.
    It was a move for a player approaching UFA.
    It was a move that relinquished a 2nd round pick during a strong, deep draft year in which a number of younger, cheaper, better, more offensive defenseman were chosen.
    If the return is likely a Demers type player, as it was in the summer, then Gudbransen was also bought high and will be sold low.

    For every step forward with prospects, poorly thought out and planned moves like Gudbransen is a step back. Stanley Cup favourites are not built by continually taking a step forward and then a step back.

    • Burnabybob

      It would have made sense if Gudbranson developed into a solid top 4 defenseman. He was only 25 at the time of the trade, still in his prime and could have been part of the rebuild. Too bad.

    • Puck Viking

      You also forgot to mention that at the time he wanted to get paid 6 million a season for 6 years. At no point was he ever worth that and he turned down a similar deal in florida so why bother acquiring him for a rebuilding team in the first place.

      Not to mention his playing time last season could have gone to Tryamkin who still might be here if he played more. You know the player who is bigger, skates better, moves the puck better and is 3 years younger.

  • TheRealPB

    I don’t particularly like Gudbranson; he hasn’t really improved much and I think I lost any interest in him as a “team” guy when he threw Hutton under the bus last year. That said he still commands a lot of interest — including in Florida which tried to reacquire him (and likely would still be interested with Tallon back in command). I get the handwringing about the cost in picks and prospects but honestly I think that’s the cost of business in a salary-cap league. McCann has looked better but still not as good as he did at the beginning of his time in Vancouver. He is mostly living right now on the Panthers fourth line and given their depth up front it’s hard to see him breaking through for a whole lot more. Ang is doing well enough but not really that much more impressive than Candella as both are 19 year olds in the OHL and Candella’s scoring as a D is probably equivalent to Ang. Actually I think the prospect who’s the most impressive is one who wasn’t involved in the initial deal at all — Mascherin, who Florida acquired when they flipped the Asplund pick as part of the Kulikov deal.

    As one of the better CA articles from this year argued, Gudbranson is a sunk cost so we should stop wasting our time rehashing the past and focus on the now. He’s not in any way worth what he’s going to command for a new contract (as odd as that seems to me). What we recoup for him shouldn’t be measured by what we paid; if we can get a 1st for him I’d absolutely jump at that (for what it’s worth I don’t actually think he’s worth more than a 2nd and 5th, rather than the late 1st, high 2nd and high 4th we gave up for him).

    • argoleas

      My expectation is exactly this. Now that he has returned, play him regularly, build up any possible bidding war, and trade him before the next injury. At this point, 2nd and 2nd-tier prospect is probably best we can hope for.

  • wojohowitz

    This situation reminds me a bit of Brian Burke who worked his way thru 6 goalies in 6 years. Rather than refuse to admit to himself that a trade was not working out he had no problem bringing them in for a look see and then shipping them out. Benning has to admit to himself that Guddy was a mistake and move on. Depth is a problem but both Wiercioch and Holm could fill that hole.

    • Holly Wood

      They could fill that roster spot but have different skill set, I like what Guddy is supposed to bring but admit it’s not at the level I was hoping for.

    • canuckfan

      I think Benning has been trying to trade him but then he got injured remember how scouts were coming t the Canuck games but since he has been out the scouts have not been watching the Canucks

    • Puck Viking

      We are one of the worst teams in the league. I am not worried about the depth for this season. Like you said either of the players can fill the hole. Just roll with the 6 guys who were playing prior to the Guddy injury and hopefully we move MDZ at the deadline and bring up one of the 2 you mentioned for the duration of the season.

    • Nuck16

      I think Bull Dog deserved to play. I’m OK with sitting Hutton one game and see how he responds…give him a mental break…but I’d be pissed if they play stop-gaps like MDZ over future core pieces (hopefully)…or we could end up with another Tryamkin come contract time.

  • I was young once

    I wonder how much Value a guy like Guddy has at the moment. I wonder if JB can work his magic the way he did last trade deadline. I’m sure there’s a team out there that honours leadership and grit over analytics n stats. If JB can recoup a 2nd I’d be happy but I’m sure a true contender might even give up a first ( depending on how scouts view this draft ) or a prospect ranging from a B- to A- potential. I may be over exaggerating the cost and reward, but hey it’s the NHL, theres the chance we fleece a team

    • Freud

      Why wonder? Benning was ready to trade him this summer for Demers, but Demers refused. Benning wasn’t working much magic over the summer if this is the return.

      If no one was offering a 1st or a 2nd five months ago, what has Gudbransen done since the summer that teams would offer that now?

  • jaybird43

    I’m a JB fan for his overall body of work with the Canucks to date. Having said that, Gudbranson hasn’t worked out and doesn’t look like a good defenceman for the Canucks system. It’s time to salvage what can be gotten out of a trade. That’s as simple as it gets …

    • Bud Poile

      I compiled these stats Nov.2nd when Guddy was healthy.
      31 NHL teams/188 top-6 NHL d-men
      I cherry picked these stats but they show defensive d-man traits in the top 20-50% of the NHL’s top-6/188:
      #42 of all NHL d men-SH Hits
      #81 of all NHL d-men SH Blocked Shots
      #102 of all NHL d-men SH TOI
      #37 of all NHL d-men in Hits-leads Canucks d-men
      #28 of all NHL d-men Hits/GP-leads Canucks d-men
      #79 of all NHL d-men BS per GP
      #97 of all NHL d-men Shots per GP
      6’5″ 220 lbs.

      Fights,hits,clears the crease and keeps the opposition on notice.

      Readers (many with CA Gudbranson fatigue) have weighed in,now we’re going to see how the managers of NHL men value such an individual.

      • Puck Viking

        Canucks one of the worst teams in the league since hes been here. If he is so good then why is the team so bad.. LOL like you said cherry picked these stats.

        • Holly Wood

          You really can’t have 6 puckmoving (sweetheart type)defencemen on your team, grit has to come from somewhere, unless you believe that intimidation or protection is no longer a part of the game. Many on here were upset That puckmoving Ben Hutton and his 4 assists were in the press box last game while others criticize him for lack of physical play. We can’t have it both ways

        • Bud Poile

          The Canucks were 5 games above .500 a month ago.
          Guddy was playing 20 + minutes ATOI with Edler out.
          Guddy was playing 17-22 ATOI during the winning streak of Oct/Nov.
          Both Guddy and the team are competitive.

  • Big D, little d

    The thing that should probably be remembered is the coaching/systems change that has occurred since Gudbranson was acquired. In Dejardin’s defence first system, someone like Guddy made a lot of sense. In Green’s aggressive “defense through offense” approach, Gudbranson is no longer playing to his strengths. He’s being asked to play a game he’s not suited to.

    Just because Gudbranson isn’t working out in Vancouver doesn’t mean he won’t have value to a team playing a different style.

  • The key to getting out of this situation is to figure out the teams that are prepared to (over)pay Gudbranson in the summer. Get one of them to bite by offering them first mover advantage, that team will have him signed before the season is done. Not as big a premium as getting him when he was an RFA but it should help offset his acquisition cost. Anyone want to take a stab at which teams that will be?

  • defenceman factory

    Good debate on the Guddy trade. Trading for a big physical Dman entering his prime was a reasonable move. It was a piece the Canucks needed. McCann was an expendable chip in that trade.
    Guddy has not performed as advertised leaving many if not most disappointed. Analytics accurately predicted this. Guddy did bring some some valuable traits but is just too poor and getting the puck out of his own zone.
    Changes have been made in the pro scouting staff since. No idea if this is related but Pouliot has been traded for since.
    Guddy needs to be traded. Sooner the better. Do not re-sign him.
    Guddy may yet return something decent but unlikely what was given up for him. That return could minimize what has to be considered a poor read on Guddy’s value to a rebuilding team.

  • Frasier Crane's Voice

    Gudbranson? Why, that’s what Dad says to me every time we serve him his favourite fibre enriched cereal for breakfast! Hahahahahaha! Oh, what a zinger. Niles, Niles, did you hear what I said about that hockey player Dad was going on and on about? The name is “Gudbranson” and I said, “Gudbranson? Why that’s what Dad says to me every time we serve him his favourite fibre enriched cereal.” Hahahahahahaha!! I do relish an excellent quip. Sherry, anyone?

  • speering major

    Ship him out. The Canucks Have acquired Pouliot, Stetcher, have Juolevi on his way, and are positioned to draft high in a D heavy draft year. Tryamkin could also come back in a couple years or be trade bait but thats a bit of a longer shot.

    Gudbranson’s puck moving ability is abysmal. He would be a faster version of Hatcher and a stud if it were the 80’s, but it’s not.

    I think there will be interest in Guddy based on his draft position and the fact he has the physical tools for someone to take him on as a project. The Canucks should be looking to move Guddy, Vanek, and Tanev imo. I know moving Tanev is a bit controversial but I think he will bring a lot back in return and this is a deep draft on D. This is in fact a rebuild. I also think they should move Gagner but I don’t think teams would take his contract, never mind give up an asset for it. Moving those 3 would also help with a tank. With 2 or 3 first rounders (trade up with a second) in this years draft by moving those 3, the Canucks could be well positioned on the blue line.

    Juolevi + 2018 first rounder (20% chance at Dahlin?)
    Edler + stetcher
    Hutton + Del zotto
    Biega + Pouliot

    + Tryamkin, 2018 first rounder (acquired, Tanev should command that +), Chatfield, Briesbois, and Holm. That seems like good prospects and depth for a rebuilding team.