Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[DaveMatthew]

Brannstrom is a victim of unrealistic expectations due to the Stone trade, and the GM's comments afterward.

Remove that from the equation and judge him for what he is.

Is he a player you want in your top 4 (or even top 6) if you're a team contending for the Cup? Probably not.
Is he a player who's good enough to play on the bottom pairing of a team just trying to make the playoffs? Without a doubt.

No reason to trade him. The value he brings to the team, even in a small role, is bigger than what you'll get back. Priority has to be to get rid of Zaitsev and MDZ.

Chabot - Hamonic
Sanderson - Zub
Brannstrom - Holden
Thomson

Brannstrom and Thomson move in and out depending on matchups, injuries, and quality of play.

 

[TheNewEra]

The problem with PP2 is that apart from Brannstrom and maybe 15 games of Colin White, no one else on PP2 actually belongs on an NHL PP. Not Brown. Not Formenton. Not Ennis. Not Tierney. Not Paul. No one. How do you run a successful PP when only one guy on it has the skills to be there.

agreed if unit 1stays the same in the sense of

Tkachuk-Norris-Batherson-Stutzle-Chabot

Then Unit 2 can be
XXXX-Pinto-XXXX-Sanderson-Brannstrom

Just by adding in Pinto and Sanderson it should give the second pp unit a big boost based off who they would be replacing

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Are you going to blame Stutzle, Tkachuk, Norris and Batherson for Brannstrom's ineptness on the PP too?

Why would anyone do that? The PP was humming along nicely with Brannstrom in the #1 role.

Thomas Chabot had 13 points on the PP this year to Brannstrom's 6. Chabot played top PP unit for 59 games while Brannstrom played that role for about 20-21 games.

With a 5 on 4 PP Brannstrom scored 3.44 points per 60 minutes of play; that includes time on the 2nd unit for the majority of the year. Chabot averaged 3.36 points per 60 minutes of play, exclusively on the top unit.

Should we blame Chabot's lack of production on Stü, Brady, Norris and Bath too? Or should we perhaps acknowledge that our PP configuration is not conducive to defensemen racking up points?

 

[coladin]

Why would anyone do that? The PP was humming along nicely with Brannstrom in the #1 role.

Thomas Chabot had 13 points on the PP this year to Brannstrom's 6. Chabot played top PP unit for 59 games while Brannstrom played that role for about 20-21 games.

With a 5 on 4 PP Brannstrom scored 3.44 points per 60 minutes of play; that includes time on the 2nd unit for the majority of the year. Chabot averaged 3.36 points per 60 minutes of play, exclusively on the top unit.

Should we blame Chabot's lack of production on Stü, Brady, Norris and Bath too? Or should we perhaps acknowledge that our PP configuration is not conducive to defensemen racking up points?

They were both not very good, so I guess two wrongs don't make a right. But Chabot seemed to get his shot off more. In general, Brannstrom has amuch harder time to get his shot to the goalie, and MDZ proved that it was possible to do so

 

[JD1]

They were both not very good, so I guess two wrongs don't make a right. But Chabot seemed to get his shot off more. In general, Brannstrom has amuch harder time to get his shot to the goalie, and MDZ proved that it was possible to do so

I don't think getting that shot off from the D is what they're trying to do. If I had to guess I suspect Brannstrom might have been a touch reluctant to shoot given he was getting a trial in the role and they're trying to run the pp differently. It's not a good look if he's always shooting yet being asked to do something different

That aside, and apart from the numbers that @Alf Silfversson posted, the PP looked crisper to me with Brannstrom than it did with Chabot. Brannstrom seems to have more urgency to retrieve cleared pucks and move up the ice quickly with them. Actually I used to have the same frustration with Karlsson. He was an elite skater that came up the ice on the pp like he was out for a Sunday afternoon drive

 

[OD99]

They were both not very good, so I guess two wrongs don't make a right. But Chabot seemed to get his shot off more. In general, Brannstrom has amuch harder time to get his shot to the goalie, and MDZ proved that it was possible to do so

Don't move the posts now.

@Micklebot had posted some stats showing that Brann got his shot through just fine as well so maybe it is just perception he doesn't?

The PP does not involve the D shooting and has plenty of down low plays with 4 F touching the puck a ton so not a lot of point opportunities compared to other set ups.

 

[Sweatred]

Our PP config isn’t based on the D at the top of the umbrella sliding or hammering pucks into the goal area. It’s a low scoring play with a high risk of a loss of possession.

More and more the PP will be running through where ever Timmy sets up. Brannstrom is as good as anyone at reading the play and executing the pass.

That point touch is always going to be 2-4 passes away from the ideal goal and those guys aren’t going to see a lot of points although they are often the first touch in a series of plays that leads to a goal.

Branny (or Chabot) need to be evaluated as part of the overall PP effectiveness and not on how many assists they get.

 

[operasen]

Brannstrom is a victim of unrealistic expectations due to the Stone trade, and the GM's comments afterward.

Remove that from the equation and judge him for what he is.

Is he a player you want in your top 4 (or even top 6) if you're a team contending for the Cup? Probably not.
Is he a player who's good enough to play on the bottom pairing of a team just trying to make the playoffs? Without a doubt.

No reason to trade him. The value he brings to the team, even in a small role, is bigger than what you'll get back. Priority has to be to get rid of Zaitsev and MDZ.

Chabot - Hamonic
Sanderson - Zub
Brannstrom - Holden
Thomson

Brannstrom and Thomson move in and out depending on matchups, injuries, and quality of play.

I think this pretty well nails it for next year. Even if we target one of the top RD in the draft.
Allows us to target UFA for Stutzle as well (Giroux, Forsberg type).

 

[Icelevel]

He doesn’t have a future here that’s why you trade him.
Sanderson and Thomson can both do what he does and will be able to do it better in every way by the end of their first nhl season. Guenette might even be a guy who can do similar things with extra size.

Future dmen to pick from and add to,
Chabot
Zub
Holden
Hamonic
Sanderson
Thomson
Kleven
JBD
Guenette

 

[Micklebot]

Don't move the posts now.

@Micklebot had posted some stats showing that Brann got his shot through just fine as well so maybe it is just perception he doesn't?

The PP does not involve the D shooting and has plenty of down low plays with 4 F touching the puck a ton so not a lot of point opportunities compared to other set ups.

I don't think we're an outlier in terms of shots from the point; Chabot shoots and shot attempts on the PP at a similar rate to the forwards, though slightly more are blocked. If you look at a team like TB, they very much focus on getting Kucherov the puck, while sometimes if feels like we are forcing the play to Norris, we don't see the same trend in the numbers, Norris is actually not even our top shot generator on the PP. Even the year Burns was over a point per game with SJ, he wasn't shooting at a higher rate relative to the forwards than Chabot for us this year, despite Burns being the focal of their PP system.

We don't create scoring plays of Chabot's shot, but instead he's filtering pucks for Brady to tip or create rebounds to keep opposition honest and open up plays to Norris. How that translates to points for D, idk, but we do get our share of shots from the D.

 

[Zorf]

I love Brannstrom on the PP, but watching the playoffs, I don't have a lot of faith that he'd be able to succeed at even strength. The knock on him now is his lack of foot speed and strength, and with the increase in speed, effort, and physicality in the playoffs, he'd get swamped.




edit....yes, I know the Sens aren't a playoff team. Hopefully next year they'll be challenging for a spot though

 

[Burrowsaurus]

Are you going to blame Stutzle, Tkachuk, Norris and Batherson for Brannstrom's ineptness on the PP too?

Brannstrom was putting up points just fine on the PP when he was with those guys tho lol.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

I love Brannstrom on the PP, but watching the playoffs, I don't have a lot of faith that he'd be able to succeed at even strength. The knock on him now is his lack of foot speed and strength, and with the increase in speed, effort, and physicality in the playoffs, he'd get swamped.




edit....yes, I know the Sens aren't a playoff team. Hopefully next year they'll be challenging for a spot though

Meh. The kid is young and has shown a willingness to battle.

Torey Krug has never been a problem in the playoffs. I'd bet a 24-25 year old Brannstrom won't be either.

 

[Zorf]

Meh. The kid is young and has shown a willingness to battle.

Torey Krug has never been a problem in the playoffs. I'd bet a 24-25 year old Brannstrom won't be either.

Tory Krug is way more physical than Brannstrom

 

[Micklebot]

Are you going to blame Stutzle, Tkachuk, Norris and Batherson for Brannstrom's ineptness on the PP too?

Brannstrom was on the PP with those 4 for 31 mins and the team scored 6 PP goals, or 11.45 GF/60

Those for players were on the PP together without Brannstrom for 92 mins (87 of that was with Chabot) and scored 16 PP goals, or 10.37 GF/60

By contrast, the best PP in the league, the Leafs, ran a number 1 unit of Marner, Matthews, Tavares, Nylander, Reilly, scored 30 goals in 163 mins, or 11 GF/60

So why exactly was Brannstrom inept on the PP?

 

[coladin]

Brannstrom was on the PP with those 4 for 31 mins and the team scored 6 PP goals, or 11.45 GF/60

Those for players were on the PP together without Brannstrom for 92 mins (87 of that was with Chabot) and scored 16 PP goals, or 10.37 GF/60

By contrast, the best PP in the league, the Leafs, ran a number 1 unit of Marner, Matthews, Tavares, Nylander, Reilly, scored 30 goals in 163 mins, or 11 GF/60

So why exactly was Brannstrom inept on the PP?

Not sure. I guess I have to look beyond myself and figure out why. Haha

Anyways, watching the games I feel that his refusal to shoot hinders the PP. And even strength he has a hard time getting the puck on net. The bill of sale for Brannstrom was an offensive defenceman, and I am not seeing it. Maybe if he can get one early next year, he can get confident. But I don't see a role for him on this team in the future because Sanderson will most likely push him down. And Dorion going out of his way to praise him is disconcerting

 

[Agent Zuuuub]

Not sure. I guess I have to look beyond myself and figure out why. Haha

Anyways, watching the games I feel that his refusal to shoot hinders the PP. And even strength he has a hard time getting the puck on net. The bill of sale for Brannstrom was an offensive defenceman, and I am not seeing it. Maybe if he can get one early next year, he can get confident. But I don't see a role for him on this team in the future because Sanderson will most likely push him down. And Dorion going out of his way to praise him is disconcerting

this will sound mean but its cuz you dont even know what to look for.

Brannstrom is a puck moving d-man.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

Tory Krug is way more physical than Brannstrom

At age 22 Torey Krug was mostly an AHL player and not overly physical. He plays a more physical style but that's not the point. The point is whether people playing physical on him is a problem and by age 23-24 it was not. I could see Brannstrom playing out like that.

 

[coladin]

this will sound mean but its cuz you dont even know what to look for.

Brannstrom is a puck moving d-man.

It's ok, I can handle it. I don't like the player and he doesn't fit. But you are free to campaign for him. It's all good. It's like how I think Hamonic is good and others say he is shit. Or Watson is an important piece.

He moves the puck between blue lines, but he is not good in the offensive zone, or good enough for me anyways

 

[Senator Stanley]

Not sure. I guess I have to look beyond myself and figure out why. Haha

Anyways, watching the games I feel that his refusal to shoot hinders the PP. And even strength he has a hard time getting the puck on net. The bill of sale for Brannstrom was an offensive defenceman, and I am not seeing it. Maybe if he can get one early next year, he can get confident. But I don't see a role for him on this team in the future because Sanderson will most likely push him down. And Dorion going out of his way to praise him is disconcerting

I really think this was strategic/coaching. Even when it was Chabot, the defenceman on that first PP unit was not a shooter. Their job was to quarterback things, usually working towards a set play like the Norris one-timer or that down-low to slot one-timer. In that role, I thought Brannstrom was very effective.

 

[Sweatred]

He doesn’t have a future here that’s why you trade him.
Sanderson and Thomson can both do what he does and will be able to do it better in every way by the end of their first nhl season. Guenette might even be a guy who can do similar things with extra size.

Future dmen to pick from and add to,
Chabot
Zub
Holden
Hamonic
Sanderson
Thomson
Kleven
JBD
Guenette

It’s unpopular but this market should be ready move some of its elite aging players when the time comes for EK trade type hauls.

Branny easily replaces what Chabot provides on the PP and ideally Sanderson would pick up the slack.

If we wait we will just lose Chabot anyway and suffer with attracting talent to this city. Our primary source of talent in the org will always be the draft and trades. Drafting late and not making trades will put us in another lengthy rebuild which is more painful than losing a top dman (which wasn’t painful at all, other than the misplaced fan criticism).

One way or another we need to ID the right players to keep the cupboard stocked. Chabot in his $10 million years is a prime candidate.

 

[Korpse]

At age 22 Torey Krug was mostly an AHL player and not overly physical. He plays a more physical style but that's not the point. The point is whether people playing physical on him is a problem and by age 23-24 it was not. I could see Brannstrom playing out like that.

At 22 Torey Krug played 79 NHL games scoring 14 goals and 40 points on the team that won the presidents trophy. Krug was further ahead at the same age. He had shown he can consistently contribute on a top team in the NHL. Perhaps Brannstrom would benefit from playing on a better team though it's not a guarantee he would be a regular on a better team. It's definitely too early to suggest Brannstrom can't hit another level, he will be 23 in September with just 116 GP but for me the discouraging part is that outside of little details I'm not sure there has been much development. In terms of creating offense, there still isn't a lot there outside of the occasional stretch pass. His mobility allows him to aid on the cycle but when it comes to attacking and making a play he hasn't been effective. In a lot of ways his NHL development reminds me of Patrick Wiercioch, there's still the possibility he is able to take that next step which Wiercioch never did.

 

[otown]

Brannstrom can play regular season hockey but does not come as billed. b As Methot says the playoffs are "heavy hockey", it is a different game.
Can see Brannstrom getting pounded and forechecked to death in the post season should the Sens ever get there. If and when they do all this is null and void because he is going to be replaced by up and comers!

 

[Zorf]

It’s unpopular but this market should be ready move some of its elite aging players when the time comes for EK trade type hauls.

Branny easily replaces what Chabot provides on the PP and ideally Sanderson would pick up the slack.

If we wait we will just lose Chabot anyway and suffer with attracting talent to this city. Our primary source of talent in the org will always be the draft and trades. Drafting late and not making trades will put us in another lengthy rebuild which is more painful than losing a top dman (which wasn’t painful at all, other than the misplaced fan criticism).

One way or another we need to ID the right players to keep the cupboard stocked. Chabot in his $10 million years is a prime candidate.

I could not possibly disagree more. At some point, the team needs to stop trading guys away and has to go for it. Do you want to be in a perpetual rebuild?


Brannstrom absolutely cannot replace what Chabot does on the PP. You can give me his assist stats, and I don't care. Want to know why? Because my grandmother has just as dangerous a shot as Brannstrom.

Brannstrom is great, legitimately great, at passing the puck on the PP. He gets assists because of it. But he poses almost no threat to score. That alone is why he can never replace what Chabot brings to the PP.


Sanderson hasn't played a single second of NHL hockey, and you're saying he can replace Chabot's even strength minutes? You don't know that.


One way or another, the team needs to ID the right players? Since when have they done that consistently? Dorion fell ass first into a glorious haul for Karlsson. At the time of the trade, we all shit our pants at a 3rd line prospect in Norris, and what we all thought would be a 20-25 range 1st round pick.


Your post is all pie in the sky. Nothing but high hopes. Need to sprinkle some reality in the mix.

 

[Ice-Tray]

It’s unpopular but this market should be ready move some of its elite aging players when the time comes for EK trade type hauls.

Branny easily replaces what Chabot provides on the PP and ideally Sanderson would pick up the slack.

If we wait we will just lose Chabot anyway and suffer with attracting talent to this city. Our primary source of talent in the org will always be the draft and trades. Drafting late and not making trades will put us in another lengthy rebuild which is more painful than losing a top dman (which wasn’t painful at all, other than the misplaced fan criticism).

One way or another we need to ID the right players to keep the cupboard stocked. Chabot in his $10 million years is a prime candidate.

You keep pushing this, but you will never see a hockey team win a cup in this way. This isn’t baseball, and a team full of talented rookies will not win in the playoffs.

Unlike baseball, a hockey team relies on chemistry between players, and lockeroom cohesion because of this. Trading away leaders and best players at a time when the team is poised to win, just to get a bunch of young assets that won’t help the team win immediately is a terrible idea.

Hockey is not like baseball in any way shape or form.