Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

He's literally been "doing it" for the last few years, and has "done it" better than many other 3rd pairing dmen we've had on this team over the last ten years. Certainly better than anything JBD has shown so far, and he's only 8 months younger.

Anyway. This thread has once again turned into a bunch of size queens dismissing a small dman based on nothing but their lust for some 6'6'' hulking dman who would just stand back there like a pylon lol. It's frankly pathetic.

He's been "doing it" on a bad team that's been a tire-fire defensively. That doesn't mean he should keep doing it if we want to be a good team.

he's roster depth who has proven he can step up and play in the top 4. look at the results he's done it multiple times.

you seem to think of him as ahl fodder or something. he might not ever be a standout NHLer but he will be in demand for teams needing two way depth for low cap hit. that is valuable depth for bad teams and good capped out teams alike.

and yea i can see him not having a future here because of who we have and how much we could be spending on our LD. but there should be no rush to get rid of him before we upgrade on JBD and Hamonic. that's all im saying.

I mean injuries will hit. Chabot is frail, Chychrun is one of the most injured NHL D and Sanderson and Zub are no paragons of sturdiness.

So when the injuries happen and they will again, you want to have JBD, Hamonic, Kleven having to step up in the top 4 and most likely kill playoff chances or someone who has actually proven he can handle it?

a) He's done it (stepped up and played more minutes) but again, on a bad team. That doesn't mean he should be doing it. Zaitsev played top 4 minutes for years. But he shouldn't have been.

b) No, I don't want JBD and Hamonic having to step up. And I don't want Brannstrom doing it either. That's why this offseason, I think we need to add two NHL-calibre, good in their end, defensemen to this team. If I had my druthers, none of Hamonic, Brannstrom or JBD would be playing minutes for us next season.

Sanderson - Zub
Chabot - XXX
Chychrun - XXX

Those are two holes we need to fill.

I'm certainly not pencilling in Kleven either.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

He's been "doing it" on a bad team that's been a tire-fire defensively. That doesn't mean he should keep doing it if we want to be a good team.



a) He's done it (stepped up and played more minutes) but again, on a bad team. That doesn't mean he should be doing it. Zaitsev played the top 4 minutes for years. But h e shouldn't have been.

b) No, I don't want JBD and Hamonic having to step up. And I don't want Brannstrom doing it either. That's why this offseason, I think we need to add two NHL-calibre, good in their end, defensemen to this team. If I had my druthers, none of Hamonic, Brannstrom or JBD would be playing minutes for us next season.

the difference is that Brannstrom stepped up and had a positive impact. multiple times when our 8m #1 ld was injured and replaced the team barely had a drop off in play if any.

yea anyone can step in and play bad like Zaitsev, Hamonic, or JBD and Kleven. they key is to have depth that can step up and look good. that is good depth.

Also it's harder as a D to play well on a bad team that is a tire fire defensively. It's MORE impressive that Brannstrom was able to look good in the top 4 on a bad team.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

the difference is that Brannstrom stepped up and had a positive impact. multiple times when our 8m #1 ld was injured and replaced the team barely had a drop off in play if any.

yea anyone can step in and play bad like Zaitsev, Hamonic, or JBD and Kleven. they key is to have depth that can step up and look good. that is good depth.

Also it's harder as a D to play well on a bad team that is a tire fire defensively. It's MORE impressive that Brannstrom was able to look good in the top 4 on a bad team than less.

He was never "effective" in a top 4 role. That's just fiction. He played there because Dorion put together a poorly constructed team and we had no one else.

And last year with Chabot: 35-28-5
Without Chabot: 4-7-3

It has never been smooth sailing without Chabot.

If Brannstrom goes on the market, I doubt we get more than a 4th rounder for him. He's not a good defenseman. His career production averages out to 22pts per 82 games, which is pretty bad for an "offensive guy".

That's not to say he doesn't have strengths, he does, but they don't make up for his weaknesses on the back end. That's probably why he's not playing defense right now, but is a 4th line LWer.

It took Martin all of a couple of weeks to make him the odd man out.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

He was never effective in a top 4 role. That's just fiction.

And last year with Chabot: 35-28-5
Without Chabot: 4-7-3

It has never been smooth sailing without Chabot.

If Brannstrom goes on the market, I doubt we get more than a 4th rounder for him. He's not a good defenseman.

That's probably why he's not playing defense right now, but is a 4th line LWer.

That's more because when Chabot goes down we have guys like Hamonic being tasked with more minutes as well. But the difference in play between Brannstrom and Chabot in the top 4 wasn't 6-7 mill.

Lots of stats and frankly the eye test show that Brannstrom has been an effective NHL D for quite a while now. If you think he's a bad defenseman he should be out of the NHL by this or next summer, I think he will play until he's 30+.

lets see who is right.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

That's more because when Chabot goes down we have guys like Hamonic being tasked with more minutes as well. But the difference in play between Brannstrom and Chabot in the top 4 wasn't 6-7 mill.

Lots of stats and frankly the eye test show that Brannstrom has been an effective NHL D for quite a while now. If you think he's a bad defenseman he should be out of the NHL by this or next summer, I think he will play until he's 30+.

lets see who is right.

I never said he should be or will be out of the NHL.

I said he's a roster filler on a bad team. There are 6-7 bad teams every year. For the last 6 years, we've been one of them. That's why he's played.

But our goal is to become a good team, and when that happens, I don't see a spot for Brannstrom. If I'm building a playoff team, I'm not putting Brannstrom on it.

That doesn't mean he can't go play for another bad team, though.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I never said he should be or will be out of the NHL.

I said he's a roster filler on a bad team. There are 6-7 bad teams every year. For the last 6 years, we've been one of them. That's why he's played.

But our goal is to become a good team, and when that happens, I don't see a spot for Brannstrom. If I'm building a playoff team, I'm not putting Brannstrom on it.

That doesn't mean he can't go play for another bad team, though.

5 ft 10 (or 5 ft 8) bad nhl defenceman do not stay in the league for long even as roster fillers, you have to be good. If he is a bad NHL defenceman he should be out of the league soon since it is hyper competitive and the league clearly has a size bias so at best he would get beat out by another bad 6ft+ defenceman.

and it just seems like you think we are a bad nhl team because we have Brannstrom as our depth d and we play him regularly.

the reason we are a bad NHL team is because our high paid guys aren't holding up their own end of the bargain.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

5 ft 10 (or 5 ft 8) bad nhl defenceman do not stay in the league for long even as roster fillers, you have to be good. If he is a bad NHL defenceman he should be out of the league soon since it is hyper competitive and the league clearly has a size bias so at best he would get beat out by another bad 6ft+ defenceman.

and it just seems like you think we are a bad nhl team because we have Brannstrom as our depth d and we play him regularly.

the reason we are a bad NHL team is because our high paid guys aren't holding up their own end of the bargain.

There are lots of reasons why we are bad.

Poor depth on the back end is one of those reasons. I think we need to find upgrades on all of Brannstrom, Hamonic and JBD.

But I'm curious as to why you think Jacques Martin has made Brannstrom the odd man out?

Here you have a new coach, with loads of experience, who's known as a defensive specialist (he was responsible for Pitt's D during their cup runs), who doesn't have any loyalty to anyone on the roster, and he's already put him on the wing.

Is he wrong?

 

[L'Aveuglette]

That has nothing to do with size though.

But you are right. Branny is harder than Chabot. But Chabot can take hits much better than brannstrom, because of his size.

I've seen Chabot maybe get nailed like 3-4 times I can remember, and he plays 50% more than brannstrom.

Brannstrom has gotten leveled 100 times. Even this year he almost looked dead from a pretty routine hard hit on the boards.

Which one of the two has been more injured than not the last few seasons?

Also, yeah, Branny gets hit a lot like every dman and rarely gets injured, so once again this is a weird argument to make from you size queens.

 

[Tuna99]

5 ft 10 (or 5 ft 8) bad nhl defenceman do not stay in the league for long even as roster fillers, you have to be good. If he is a bad NHL defenceman he should be out of the league soon since it is hyper competitive and the league clearly has a size bias so at best he would get beat out by another bad 6ft+ defenceman.

and it just seems like you think we are a bad nhl team because we have Brannstrom as our depth d and we play him regularly.

the reason we are a bad NHL team is because our high paid guys aren't holding up their own end of the bargain.

Brannstrom was drafted #15 overall - he could decide to be impact if he could be. The Stone failed trade is a reason the rebuild was slow. If Brannstrom actually was impactful or a legit top 4 like Torrey Krug this team would be much better.

I’m a Brannstrom fan but he’s not impact

 

[frightenedinmatenum2]

You can't take listed heights seriously for NHL players. Especially for legitimately short players. You watch the games with your eyes and you can see which guys e-stat.

The guy is undersized. He plays much bigger than his size, which is a fantastic trait, but it is still going to be an uphill battle for him, especially during the playoffs.

Size is going to be less of an issue on the wing than it would be as the retrieval guy on the backend, where he has to contend with the forecheck against him. A winger is still going to have to battle and leave themselves open to being dominated in scenarios where they have possession in deep or against the boards, but the dynamic is different when you're the one attacking on the forecheck, vs the one defending. Add in that he considers himself a left-handed RHD, and it's really an uphill battle in the d-zone.

The NHL is too fast and too big for that, especially in the playoffs. I am baffled by the notion that size isn't important to win in the playoffs. It's not an absolute, where a smaller player cannot be successful, but as a general rule size is still very important in the NHL on defense. That isn't the same as saying an undersized player has never dominated in the playoffs, only that if a player is undersized they need to be absolutely elite and on top of their game, or they need a team built around them with size elsewhere.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Which one of the two has been more injured than not the last few seasons?

Also, yeah, Branny gets hit a lot like every dman and rarely gets injured, so once again this is a weird argument to make from you size queens.

Is Jacques Martin a size queen? Or is he a realist who's coached over 1000 NHL games and was responsible for coaching a D corps that won a Stanley Cup?

There's a reason why Brannstrom has been identified as the odd man out on D.

 

[UglyPuckling]

I get that people want upgrades on D. But, bigger and better at less than $2 m isn't going to be easy to accomplish.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Is Jacques Martin a size queen? Or is he a realist who's coached over 1000 NHL games and was responsible for coaching a D corps that won a Stanley Cup?

There's a reason why Brannstrom has been identified as the odd man out on D.

Well he’s better than hamonic and jbd and this isn’t the Stanley cUp playoffs

Brannstrom was drafted #15 overall - he could decide to be impact if he could be. The Stone failed trade is a reason the rebuild was slow. If Brannstrom actually was impactful or a legit top 4 like Torrey Krug this team would be much better.

I’m a Brannstrom fan but he’s not impact

Well to be fair we’ve had a legit top 4 under DJ and we were still among the leagues worst.

Brannstrom could be Quinn Hughes and we still would have been bad.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Well he’s better than hamonic and jbd and this isn’t the Stanley cUp playoffs

He plays LD, they play RD.

They're irrelevant to him.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

He plays LD, they play RD.

They're irrelevant to him.

Well not really since d on their off side happens. We’ve actually seen it here.

Not ideal. But when there’s the gap like we have. Just play brannstrom there.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

Well not really since d on their off side happens. We’ve actually seen it here.

Not ideal. But when there’s the gap like we have. Just play brannstrom there.

Some elite players, like Heiskanen and Theodore, can make it work.

Brannstrom cannot. There’s a reason why JM put him at LW before even trying him at RD.

 

[JD1]

He's been "doing it" on a bad team that's been a tire-fire defensively. That doesn't mean he should keep doing it if we want to be a good team.



a) He's done it (stepped up and played more minutes) but again, on a bad team. That doesn't mean he should be doing it. Zaitsev played top 4 minutes for years. But he shouldn't have been.

b) No, I don't want JBD and Hamonic having to step up. And I don't want Brannstrom doing it either. That's why this offseason, I think we need to add two NHL-calibre, good in their end, defensemen to this team. If I had my druthers, none of Hamonic, Brannstrom or JBD would be playing minutes for us next season.

Sanderson - Zub
Chabot - XXX
Chychrun - XXX

Those are two holes we need to fill.

I'm certainly not pencilling in Kleven either.

But you can't allocate that amount of salary to LD in a cap world. To your top 3D? Sure. But not if all of them can only play the left side.

So that leaves you wondering next season whether you go with Kleven or Brannstrom in that 3LD spot and which of Chabot or Chychrun are you moving

 

[JD1]

Is Jacques Martin a size queen? Or is he a realist who's coached over 1000 NHL games and was responsible for coaching a D corps that won a Stanley Cup?

There's a reason why Brannstrom has been identified as the odd man out on D.

I think that reason is he's not as good as the other 3 LD, Martin wants LD/RD combos playing their strong side and the reason he played forward is because we're in cap hell

Given salary I'm not surprised he isn't as good as the other 3. Expectations are relative to salary. Brannstrom is exceeding his. The Athletic wrote an article about player rankings the other day. The two guys exceeding their salary the most on this team ? Joseph and Brannstrom

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Some elite players, like Heiskanen and Theodore, can make it work.

Brannstrom cannot. There’s a reason why JM put him at LW before even trying him at RD.

They should play their proper side as long as they’re better. But. They’re not.

If hamonic wasn’t playing so terribly I would agree man

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

They should play their proper side as long as they’re better. But. They’re not.

If hamonic wasn’t playing so terribly I would agree man

I don’t think JBD or Hamonic are good. But they’re better on the right side than Brannstrom would be. Teams would absolutely feast on him. Dump it onto his backend and crush him.

Methot has said this numerous times. And now, seemingly, JM and Staios (a 1000 game d-man) agree. I’d trust them.

In reality, we need to replace all 3. Hopefully that happens next summer.

 

[Ralph Malfredsson]

I was impressed with how loose Branny looked on wing.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Is Jacques Martin a size queen? Or is he a realist who's coached over 1000 NHL games and was responsible for coaching a D corps that won a Stanley Cup?

There's a reason why Brannstrom has been identified as the odd man out on D.

I don't know what his thinking is but the difference between you and me is I base my argument in reality while you base it on size bias.

 

[jbeck5]

Which one of the two has been more injured than not the last few seasons?

Also, yeah, Branny gets hit a lot like every dman and rarely gets injured, so once again this is a weird argument to make from you size queens.

How am I a size queen?

Chabot getting injured has nothing to do with size. Lindros was injured half the time.

You know what size does do? Allow you to take hits without going flying on your ass every other game. I don't see Chabot getting leveled every week.

Again, size queen? What?!

Please back up why you called me a size queen.

 

[Ghost of Jody Hull]

I don't know what his thinking is but the difference between you and me is I base my argument in reality while you base it on size bias.

Size bias?

I'd be happy to have Alexandre Carrier on this team. He's small (5'11, 174) and even though he doesn't put up points, he's a good, safe, positionally sound defender and PKer who'd fill a need (a right-shot who can effectively complement a partner who's the primary puck carrier, like Chychrun).

The problem with Brannstrom is that he doesn't drive offense (8pts in 26 games as a D this year), is a below-average defender and PKer, and plays a position where we already have Sanderson, Chabot and Chychrun.

That's the reality. That's why he's playing as a forward, again, tonight.

 

[bicboi64]

Love Branny on LW, incoming 20g season.

He's going to pull off a Brent Burns while being half the size but much more handsome.