Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Burrowsaurus]

I don't see a point to keeping him around long term. Chabot and Sanderson will be without a doubt better offensively, and I'd rather have someone with better size and mobility filling in the bottom pairing.

I think having a guy that can handle top pairing minutes well, on the third pairing is good for us personally.

 

[OD99]

I didn't read much of the Bruins game thread but was it noted when he blasted DeBrusk into the boards and sent him flying?

I am cherry picking a play but it does seem to me Branny is figuring out his leverage much better and while it is used to hold off forecheckers he is also containing players better now than ever before.

We don't need him to be a star and he is proving he can play in the league. Hope he gets some puck luck over the last stretch and posts some decent numbers to increase his awareness around the league.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I think having a guy that can handle top pairing minutes well, on the third pairing is good for us personally.

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

 

[OD99]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

Its exclusive to about 1/2 the defenders in the league.

You believe Kleven could step in and be a top 4 D in the league right now?

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Although you're likely not wrong about his time coming to an end slowly. How weird is it that with Chabot out he's been the top guy and he's on his way out.

I think if he keeps playing the way he has over the last seven games, it'll make it difficult for PD to justify shipping him out.

And another reminder here that he's still just 22 YEARS OLD. He might not grow anymore in height, but it's obvious his physicality and shot continue to improve and he can absolutely be a top-4 dman in this league for a long while. There's no reason to trade him this offseason unless he can bring us back a legit top-6 forward. Still though, I'd rather trade a Thomson or a JBD before Branny.

If we don't find a top-4 D this offseason, I can very well see us succeeding with a lineup like this:

Chabot- Zub
Sanderson - Brannstrom
Holden - Hamonic
MDZ

Yes, Branny would play on his off side, but he's done it before and if he practices all preseason/training camp with Sanderson, I can see them developing some chemistry and making it work. This also gives us insane depth which we haven't had in years.

Keeping him around is a no-brainer.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

Being put into a top-4 role with very little insulation against top competition, and succeeding, is pretty rare yeah lol.

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

I would be.

 

[Bileur]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

Of course not, but judging by the guys the Sens management have hand selected to do so over the last few years I’d say yes.

 

[Micklebot]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

Right now? Kid hasn't even gone pro yet, bit early to be assuming he can play a top 4 role ...

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Right now? Kid hasn't even gone pro yet, bit early to be assuming he can play a top 4 role ...

Hence why I said "long term future". Brannstrom is a fine stop gap for now, but I don't think he's here when the team is contending. He brings nothing to the table, and I'm not sure why so many people on here think he's currently shining in a top 4 role at the moment. He's had some good games, but he's also had his fair share of awful. Selective memory I guess.

Not to mention I think it's hilarious all these people in here talking like Brannstrom is carrying the load, and don't think his recent improvement has anything to do with playing with Zub, who has shown that he has that effect on literally everyone he plays with.

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Do you think that trait is exclusive to Erik Brannstrom? I wouldn't be surprised if Kleven can handle top 4 minutes as well.

this kleven hype is a lil bizarre, even the Thomson and JBD hype relative to Brann is off.

When Brannstrom was their age he was performing better at higher levels. and right now he is playing borderline top pair minutes in the nhl and is a +. how is that nothing?

Kleven had a nice season but it wasn't standout. At the AHL level he will probably be even less standout. And at the NHL level where even the worst talent would be NCAA star players likely means Kleven gets picked apart in a top 4 role.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Being put into a top-4 role with very little insulation against top competition, and succeeding, is pretty rare yeah lol.

You and I have very different definitions of success. Brannstrom has been passable at best since Chabot went down. He's had good games, and he's had terrible games. Even in his good games he still makes major mistakes (he almost cost us the game against Boston because of a horrible giveaway at the blueline). One of the top things you need in a legit top 4 dman, is consistency, you need players that you can rely on to play at the same level every night. Brannstrom has never shown he can do that. All this talk of him "succeeding" in this role is pure recency bias.

The reality is this season he's been worse offensively than 4 other dmen (Chabot, Zub, Holden, and Del Zotto have all contributed more and at a higher rate offensively). He takes an absurd amount of penalties due to getting caught out of position. And he gets outworked in every single battle in the corners due to his size. The only reasoning to keep Brannstrom around long term is because he was supposed to provide a level of offense that other dmen can't. But when 4 other dmen on the team are outproducing you (and two of them are known more for their defensive role), then you're not doing that. So what exactly is the benefit to trying to compete with a slow, 5'9 defenseman with poor gaps, and questionable decision making with the puck? I'm sorry, I wanted the Brannstrom experiment to work, but it's evident that he isn't, nor will he ever be an impact player in this league.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

this kleven hype is a lil bizarre, even the Thomson and JBD hype relative to Brann is off.

When Brannstrom was their age he was performing better at higher levels. and right now he is playing borderline top pair minutes in the nhl and is a +. how is that nothing?

Kleven had a nice season but it wasn't standout. At the AHL level he will probably be even less standout. And at the NHL level where even the worst talent would be NCAA star players likely means Kleven gets picked apart in a top 4 role.

Thomson got called up and had more glimpses of a top 4 player than Brannstrom has had in his entire time with the team.

Brannstrom is a -17 on the season. And he should be performing at a higher level than Thomson and JBD, he has more NHL experience. But if he does nothing with that experience, then it doesn't mean anything. Alfredsson wasn't drafted until he was 22, is Daigle the more impressive player because he made the team when he was 19?

 

[Micklebot]

Hence why I said "long term future". Brannstrom is a fine stop gap for now, but I don't think he's here when the team is contending. He brings nothing to the table, and I'm not sure why so many people on here think he's currently shining in a top 4 role at the moment. He's had some good games, but he's also had his fair share of awful. Selective memory I guess.

You don't trade a guy that can play in your top 4 now because you have a prospect that might be able to in 3 years from now...

Trade him if and when he gets pushed out our top 6, what's the rush?

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Thomson got called up and had more glimpses of a top 4 player than Brannstrom has had in his entire time with the team.

Brannstrom is a -17 on the season. And he should be performing at a higher level than Thomson and JBD, he has more NHL experience. But if he does nothing with that experience, then it doesn't mean anything. Alfredsson wasn't drafted until he was 22, is Daigle the more impressive player because he made the team when he was 19?

I like Thomson and how he plays so im not gonna shit talk him but come on.

if you do not see the value in a young defenceman taking over for Chabot and the team still being able to play competitive winning hockey than idk what to say.

we value depth and hockey sense in different ways.

 

[Micklebot]

Thomson got called up and had more glimpses of a top 4 player than Brannstrom has had in his entire time with the team.

Brannstrom is a -17 on the season. And he should be performing at a higher level than Thomson and JBD, he has more NHL experience. But if he does nothing with that experience, then it doesn't mean anything. Alfredsson wasn't drafted until he was 22, is Daigle the more impressive player because he made the team when he was 19?

Aside from +/- being a terrible stat, it's funny you bring it up then talk up Thomson who's plus minus is actually worse when you account for games played.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

You don't trade a guy that can play in your top 4 now because you have a prospect that might be able to in 3 years from now...

Trade him if and when he gets pushed out our top 6, what's the rush?

I will say it again, for the 3rd time now. I don't see him as a part of the long term future of this team. He is a fine stop gap. I am not saying to trade him now.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

I like Thomson and how he plays so im not gonna shit talk him but come on.

if you do not see the value in a young defenceman taking over for Chabot and the team still being able to play competitive winning hockey than idk what to say.

we value depth and hockey sense in different ways.

I do see the value in it, but I see hockey beyond surface value and can understand what having an elite partner can do for a player. The reason Brannstrom has looked good as of late is almost entirely because of the guy in your username. Zub has had this effect on literally everyone he's played with. He turned Mike Reilly from a guy who looked like he belonged in the ECHL into a legit top 4 dman.

Aside from +/- being a terrible stat, it's funny you bring it up then talk up Thomson who's plus minus is actually worse when you account for games played.

I didn't bring up +/-, the guy I replied to did, claiming he was a + player.

I think it's funny you talk up Brannstrom as someone with an impressive offensive game when he's being outscored by two defensive dmen and has a lower point per game than Thomson too.

 

[Micklebot]

I didn't bring up +/-, the guy I replied to did, claiming he was a + player.

I think it's funny you talk up Brannstrom as someone with an impressive offensive game when he's being outscored by two defensive dmen and has a lower point per game than Thomson too.

Well, first off, I didn't talk up Brannstrom as someone with an impressive offensive game, and second, if I were to talk about his offensive game I'd go deeper than his point production in a 45 game sample and actually look at what he does out there, and whether it's likely to produce results going forward.

 

[Erik Alfredsson]

Well, first off, I didn't talk up Brannstrom as someone with an impressive offensive game, and second, if I were to talk about his offensive game I'd go deeper than his point production in a 45 game sample and actually look at what he does out there, and whether it's likely to produce results going forward.

Okay so then do it. Talk about what he does out there, because I don't see it. He's got a good shot from the point (that he doesn't really use, and Ottawa doesn't really have their dmen taking a lot of shots anyway). He can move the puck well enough. But I don't see what's in his game that will produce results in the future, when they don't produce results right now.

 

[Micklebot]

Okay so then do it. Talk about what he does out there, because I don't see it. He's got a good shot from the point (that he doesn't really use, and Ottawa doesn't really have their dmen taking a lot of shots anyway). He can move the puck well enough. But I don't see what's in his game that will produce results in the future, when they don't produce results right now.

He moves the puck up ice very well, out of the DZ and in the NZ, as you said has a good shot he could use more, I find he tends to hit the shot blocking forward too often. Has good vision on the PP, should be a good 2nd unit option.

Put him in a top 4 role on a regular basis with pp time and he's probably going to be good for 30-40 pts a year at his peak .

 

[OD99]

You and I have very different definitions of success. Brannstrom has been passable at best since Chabot went down. He's had good games, and he's had terrible games. Even in his good games he still makes major mistakes (he almost cost us the game against Boston because of a horrible giveaway at the blueline). One of the top things you need in a legit top 4 dman, is consistency, you need players that you can rely on to play at the same level every night. Brannstrom has never shown he can do that. All this talk of him "succeeding" in this role is pure recency bias.

The reality is this season he's been worse offensively than 4 other dmen (Chabot, Zub, Holden, and Del Zotto have all contributed more and at a higher rate offensively). He takes an absurd amount of penalties due to getting caught out of position. And he gets outworked in every single battle in the corners due to his size. The only reasoning to keep Brannstrom around long term is because he was supposed to provide a level of offense that other dmen can't. But when 4 other dmen on the team are outproducing you (and two of them are known more for their defensive role), then you're not doing that. So what exactly is the benefit to trying to compete with a slow, 5'9 defenseman with poor gaps, and questionable decision making with the puck? I'm sorry, I wanted the Brannstrom experiment to work, but it's evident that he isn't, nor will he ever be an impact player in this league.

What are these terrible games you are referencing?

Also how is it somehow a condemnation of Brann that he plays well with Zub? He carried Brown and Zeitsev before they started throwing him out with Chabot to create offence (hence why people bring up offence with Brann).

Zub is a little more free now that he is playing with Brann as well since the puck moves better and there is more time in the offensive zone. They compliment each other well.

 

[Golden_Jet]

What are these terrible games you are referencing?

Also how is it somehow a condemnation of Brann that he plays well with Zub? He carried Brown and Zeitsev before they started throwing him out with Chabot to create offence (hence why people bring up offence with Brann).

Zub is a little more free now that he is playing with Brann as well since the puck moves better and there is more time in the offensive zone. They compliment each other well.

Zub plays well with every partner.
Next year Zub will be back with Chabby.

 

[OD99]

Zub plays well with every partner.
Next year Zub will be back with Chabby.

Is anybody disputing Zub is very good and is easy to play with?

Not sure Zub will be with Chabot. If Sanderson looks like a 2nd pair player he may get Zub as a partner to help support him.

Need to spread out the depth when you don't have a ton of it. Hamonic will help if he can partner with Chabot.

 

[Micklebot]

Zub plays well with every partner.
Next year Zub will be back with Chabby.

Wasn't DJ talking about wanting to try Hamonic with Chabot? Idk that it's a given Chabot plays with Zub, I just hope they don't play him with Zaitsev