Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Micklebot]

A quick look at their cards, the difference in their rankings seems to boil down to primarily to one number, on ice GA. xGA is similar albeit with a slight advantage to Brannstrom, but their's a huge gap in actual GA/60.

Examining that a bit closer, and at 5v5, Chabot and Brannstrom are on the exact opposite ends of the scale when it comes to on ice Sv%, some of that can be explained with allowing fewer quality chances, but the gap is pretty large at .8825 on ice sv% vs .9198 respectively.

Using the xGA model and calculating an expected sv%, those numbers "should" be expected to land around .9013 and .9027 respectively. Is that a failing of the xGA model? Perhaps, it's certainly not perfect. It doesn't account for shooter talent (QOC?) differences in those on ice shots. It also has an imperfect proxy for what is a quality chance and what isn't.

I think it's pretty clear Chabot underperformed the last two seasons. He clearly has more upside than Brannstrom though, and if you're going to move on from him, you are running the risk of him making you look silly in the long run.

I'd like to see us get a partner for Chabot that makes sense. playing him with a gaff prone offensive Dman on his off side is clearly not in the team or his best interest. He had his best seasons playing with DeMelo and Zub, which makes sense, they compliment his skill set. If we commit to getting a guy like that to play him with, I'm fine with keeping him around, otherwise you'll never get full value out of him.

As for Brannstrom, he's a good option for an offensive minded third pair that can play middle pair in a pinch, but philosophically, I prefer having a third pair that eats some tough mins opening up opportunity for your skilled guys. I think Kleven will eventually be that guy but in the mean time, I'm fine with Brannstrom as a stop gap.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

facts are Chabot and Chychrun will be paid 4x what Brannstrom does.

Brannstrom is not the problem in this equation.

 

[Micklebot]

facts are Chabot and Chychrun will be paid 4x what Brannstrom does.

Brannstrom is not the problem in this equation.

We certainly need to get more value out of Chychrun and/or Chabot if we are to succeed. No argument there. That said, both clearly have significantly more upside than Brannstrom.

But the equation requires that all the pieces have a role and suit that role. I don't see a suitable role for Brannstrom long term, he's not a guy that can drive offense and he's not a guy that can play shut down mins.

To me, I want a top 4 that can play all situation hockey and a bottom pair that can specialize on the defensive side of things. The more you can eat the tough mins at a draw with that bottom pair, the more it opens up situations where your skilled guys can take advantage of matchups.

 

[Loach]

If the upside isn't used, what is it? Unfulfilled potential maybe. What if the upside is an illusion? What does 8m get?

 

[Micklebot]

If the upside isn't used, what is it? Unfulfilled potential maybe. What if the upside is an illusion? What does 8m get?

Well, the upside is based on past performance, two years ago, he looked very good playing alongside Zub. Before that, he earned the current contract by having an outstanding year with DeMelo,

With any big contract, there is risk they won't live up to it, the decision right now is do we buy our way out of that risk, or do we bet on him being able to return to his old form with a more suitable partner.

I'm not against moving on from Chabot and/or Chychrun, but if we do, we need to fill that spot with a suitable replacement, and imo, Brannstrom isn't it.

 

[Loach]

Well, the upside is based on past performance, two years ago, he looked very good playing alongside Zub. Before that, he earned the current contract by having an outstanding year with DeMelo,

With any big contract, there is risk they won't live up to it, the decision right now is do we buy our way out of that risk, or do we bet on him being able to return to his old form with a more suitable partner.

I'm not against moving on from Chabot and/or Chychrun, but if we do, we need to fill that spot with a suitable replacement, and imo, Brannstrom isn't it.

Upside is passed. He is what he is. Move both of the, yes. Brannstrom isn't it, yes.

 

[Micklebot]

Upside is passed. He is what he is. Move both of the, yes. Brannstrom isn't it, yes.

Ok, is he the player we saw this season or the one two seasons ago? Players have up and down years, this was certainly a down one. The upside is him playing to his capabilities which we've seen before.

Having said that, one year ago people were talking about Boeser the same way as you are of Chabot, this year he put up 40 goals. JT Miller was a ~50 pts player at around the same age as Chabot, he just put up a 100 pts season. Matheson was a 30 pts second pair dman for the Pens, just put up 60 two years later at 30 years old.

The biggest issue I see with Chabot is his health, I think if he can stay healthy, and we play him with an appropriate partner, we could see him return to what made him successful in the past.

 

[Loach]

Ok, is he the player we saw this season or the one two seasons ago? Players have up and down years, this was certainly a down one. The upside is him playing to his capabilities which we've seen before.

Having said that, one year ago people were talking about Boeser the same way as you are of Chabot, this year he put up 40 goals. JT Miller was a ~50 pts player at around the same age as Chabot, he just put up a 100 pts season. Matheson was a 30 pts second pair dman for the Pens, just put up 60 two years later at 30 years old.

The biggest issue I see with Chabot is his health, I think if he can stay healthy, and we play him with an appropriate partner, we could see him return to what made him successful in the past.

Ok. I don't agree. Time for him to go. In three years he'll be an 8m$ 3rd pair.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

We certainly need to get more value out of Chychrun and/or Chabot if we are to succeed. No argument there. That said, both clearly have significantly more upside than Brannstrom.

But the equation requires that all the pieces have a role and suit that role. I don't see a suitable role for Brannstrom long term, he's not a guy that can drive offense and he's not a guy that can play shut down mins.

To me, I want a top 4 that can play all situation hockey and a bottom pair that can specialize on the defensive side of things. The more you can eat the tough mins at a draw with that bottom pair, the more it opens up situations where your skilled guys can take advantage of matchups.

sure but so many people here like to pretend that Brannstrom is THE reason we are bad, that he is THE reason our D is soft. that is BS.

I like the outline of your d core but that is the is the elite of the elite though. how many times in our history have we had that, how many teams in the league have that?

A 3rd pairing d that can handle tough assignments is hard to find, and would soon become expensive if they are able to do it successfully. for most teams you have a 3rd pair that can handle 15-17 minutes a night and you are lucky if they can step up and look good with more minutes.

20-22 min offensive/two way pair
20-22 min matchup pair
15-17 min two way/utlity pair

seems more achievable to do.

 

[Golden_Jet]

sure but so many people here like to pretend that Brannstrom is THE reason we are bad, that he is THE reason our D is soft. that is BS.

I like the outline of your d core but that is the is the elite of the elite though. how many times in our history have we had that, how many teams in the league have that?

A 3rd pairing d that can handle tough assignments is hard to find, and would soon become expensive if they are able to do it successfully. for most teams you have a 3rd pair that can handle 15-17 minutes a night and you are lucky if they can step up and look good with more minutes.

20-22 min offensive/two way pair
20-22 min matchup pair
15-17 min two way/utlity pair

seems more achievable to do.

Think you’ll find most 3rd pairs are in the 12-15 range.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Think you’ll find most 3rd paid are in the 12-15 range.

maybe but that means they are a bad 3rd pair if they are getting such low minutes.

ideally you want to be able to trust all 3 of your pairs. gives you flexibility and also keeps everyone fresh so they are able to play harder for longer and are better able to avoid injuries.

 

[GCK]

maybe but that means they are a bad 3rd pair if they are getting such low minutes.

ideally you want to be able to trust all 3 of your pairs. gives you flexibility and also keeps everyone fresh so they are able to play harder for longer and are better able to avoid injuries.

I want the 3rd pair to be hard in their own zone, not require Ozone starts and be good on the PK.

 

[Micklebot]

sure but so many people here like to pretend that Brannstrom is THE reason we are bad, that he is THE reason our D is soft. that is BS.

I don't think anyone is doing that? People want to address toughness on the backend, he's obviously the easiest piece to change to get that done. Lots of people, myself included, don't see him as the right fit for what they want out of a bottom pair dman, and don't see him as a top 4 guy on a winning team.

I like the outline of your d core but that is the is the elite of the elite though. how many times in our history have we had that, how many teams in the league have that?

I'm not saying the top 4 have to be elite, they just shouldn't ideally be specialists.

A 3rd pairing d that can handle tough assignments is hard to find, and would soon become expensive if they are able to do it successfully. for most teams you have a 3rd pair that can handle 15-17 minutes a night and you are lucky if they can step up and look good with more minutes.

I'm not asking for a third pair to shut down McDavid, just a third pair that you aren't actively trying to shelter. We had a bottom pair of DeMelo and Boro not to long ago. Admittedly, I'd have rathered we play DeMelo with Chabot that year,

I want guys like Holden (his first year here, he fell off a cliff year two), Gudbransson and Boro for my bottom pair, it's not popular, but I thought Boro was a perfect bottom pair Dman that went largely underappreciated. Dirt cheap and you always got an honest effort and knew what to expect.

20-22 min offensive/two way pair
20-22 min matchup pair
15-17 min two way/utlity pair

seems more achievable to do.

Yeah, I don't necessarily want a two way pair for the bottom pair, I'd rather specialists. Penalty killing guys that take tough mins away from the skilled guys. If you have a bottom pair that bends but doesn't break under pressure, it pays dividends to the rest of the lineup, even if it looks ugly while they are on the ice.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

I don't think anyone is doing that? People want to address toughness on the backend, he's obviously the easiest piece to change to get that done. Lots of people, myself included, don't see him as the right fit for what they want out of a bottom pair dman, and don't see him as a top 4 guy on a winning team.


I'm not saying the top 4 have to be elite, they just shouldn't ideally be specialists.


I'm not asking for a third pair to shut down McDavid, just a third pair that you aren't actively trying to shelter. We had a bottom pair of DeMelo and Boro not to long ago. Admittedly, I'd have rathered we play DeMelo with Chabot that year,

I want guys like Holden (his first year here, he fell off a cliff year two), Gudbransson and Boro for my bottom pair, it's not popular, but I thought Boro was a perfect bottom pair Dman that went largely underappreciated. Dirt cheap and you always got an honest effort and knew what to expect.


Yeah, I don't necessarily want a two way pair for the bottom pair, I'd rather specialists. Penalty killing guys that take tough mins away from the skilled guys. If you have a bottom pair that bends but doesn't break under pressure, it pays dividends to the rest of the lineup, even if it looks ugly while they are on the ice.

boro killed momentum for us because when he was on the ice we were hemmed in our own zone stuck in survival mode. sure he would plaster guys in the corners, and then throw the puck up to the pointmen for a free shot or constantly ice the puck killing the teams flow.

good teams bring it to the other team all the time, they are confident all the time. they don't have players that treat the puck like a grenade.

3rd pair still needs to be able to make a pass and facilitate two way play. especially since injuries will happen and if you have to rely on Boro/Hamonic stepping into your top 4 your season is done.

I liked Holden too, ideal third pair guy, cheap, could defend and make a pass, didn't treat the puck like a grenade.

I'm not saying not to have physicality on the 3rd pair. but they have to have a base level of talent.

Sutton type would be a great 3rd pair, even a Matt Carkner, it's the Boros you have to shelter.

 

[JD1]

Amazing the hoops people need to jump thru sometimes

Anyone looking at Chabot's play the last two years would be looking for a way out of his contract. JM saying a 27 year old needs to hit the gym.... that's just f***ing embarrassing.

A 50 dollar pail of pucks. We'd be lucky to get that to be rid of him.

 

[mysens]

I saw him leaving over the weekend. He had a wrapped pack of about a dozen sticks and a limo van that picked him up with his fiancé. Is he playing in the worlds?

 

[Senator Stanley]

Kleven-Brannstrom as a third pair to start the season sounds perfectly fine to me.

I understand the desire for a bigger, stronger shut down guy as the third pairing RHD, but with the scarcity of right shot options and the amount we have to spend, the most likely alternatives are going to be "shut down" defenceman like Travis Hamonic - defensive liabilities who can't move the puck and can't play up the lineup, but who physically fit the description of the classic stay-at-home defenceman.

 

[GCK]

We can’t afford Brannstrom

 

[Micklebot]

We can’t afford Brannstrom

I think we can afford a 2 mil bottom pair D, I'm just not convinced if we're going to spend that, he's the guy I want, similar to how Chychrun isn't a bad player but he isn't the right for for what we need right now imo.

 

[GCK]

I think we can afford a 2 mil bottom pair D, I'm just not convinced if we're going to spend that, he's the guy I want, similar to how Chychrun isn't a bad player but he isn't the right for for what we need right now imo.

He’s not a 2M dollar player, I’d be worried that his advanced stats in a sheltered role would get him 2.5M+ in arb. Offer him 3 x 1.5M and if he says no walk away.

That contract was another Dorion blunder.

 

[PlayOn]

He’s not a 2M dollar player, I’d be worried that his advanced stats in a sheltered role would get him 2.5M+ in arb. Offer him 3 x 1.5M and if he says no walk away.

That contract was another Dorion blunder.

Offering Brannstrom 3 years is crazy. If Staios can’t upgrade in that timeframe we’re in trouble.

 

[GCK]

Offering Brannstrom 3 years is crazy. If Staios can’t upgrade in that timeframe we’re in trouble.

Brannstrom is a nice depth piece. 1.5 will be curable in 2 years.

 

[Micklebot]

Offering Brannstrom 3 years is crazy. If Staios can’t upgrade in that timeframe we’re in trouble.

At 1.5 you just slide him into the 7 spot, no big deal. Depth is a good thing after all

 

[Tuna99]

Brannstrom has to go even though lots of us like him, it’s culture change time and that means finding people who can seal up the holes in front of the net.

I don’t think we start next year with a single Dman who can’t defend his position for an entire 60 Minute game and is 6’0 tall.

 

[PlayOn]

At 1.5 you just slide him into the 7 spot, no big deal. Depth is a good thing after all

Brannstrom is trying to prove he’s an every day defenseman, and won’t necessarily be thrilled with that.

And beyond that, depth is good, locking yourself into players that don’t fit your needs today, let alone 3 years from now, isn’t.