Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Bileur]

Tory Krug is way more physical than Brannstrom

Krug definitely has some big hits but Branny is younger and just getting started. In terms of volume it’s pretty close.

2.36 career hits/60 vs 2.38 career hits/60.

I think Brannstrom’s willingness to engage physically is significantly underrated. He’s getting pretty efficient at squeezing players off along the boards.

 

[Sweatred]

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.

I’m not sure what the primary goal of this franchise is - survival or to win a cup. We know more after new owner ship and a new building that perhaps gets past Chabot. Either way, you can’t prove that keeping EK type played is more likely to win a cup. He helped for 2 years and he’s a drag now for 6.

We just watched Winnipeg in a playoff race trade away Cobb. We traded Havlat and watched Chara leave before we couldn’t afford them. It happens naturally anyway, and you can get out in front of it and retain assets or over pay for the negative value years.

4 years from now the Sens will be limiting someone’s contract. It could be a 22 year olds who has years of team control and improved play or it could be someone approaching UFA.

 

[JD1]

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.

That season you're referencing is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison don't you think? Boston finished 3rd in goals for and won the President's Cup. 19 of his 40 points were on the PP. He only played 17.30 a night and was credited with 50 hits. And as a smaller guy, those were the peak goon years for Lucic and you had Chara and MacQuaid there. No one was going after smaller Boston D without fear of retribution. The situation was quite different.

At their respective age 22 seasons Brannstrom played higher level hockey all the way through. Maybe Brannstrom stops improving. Idk. But at age 22 he was certainly on par with Krug's rookie season

 

[Micklebot]

That season you're referencing is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison don't you think? Boston finished 3rd in goals for and won the President's Cup. 19 of his 40 points were on the PP. He only played 17.30 a night and was credited with 50 hits. And as a smaller guy, those were the peak goon years for Lucic and you had Chara and MacQuaid there. No one was going after smaller Boston D without fear of retribution. The situation was quite different.

At their respective age 22 seasons Brannstrom played higher level hockey all the way through. Maybe Brannstrom stops improving. Idk. But at age 22 he was certainly on par with Krug's rookie season

Krug played 19:37 mins a night and had 10 pts in 12 playoff games his rookie year, idk that it's fair to say they were on par. Certainly different context, and we'll never know how either would have done if their situations were reversed, but you got to give credit to Krug for what he actually accomplished, as opposed to what Brannstrom might have.

An wrt pts on the pp, yes, he got 19 from the PP, but his ES rate paced at close to the same as Brannstroms all situation rate.

 

[GCK]

Krug definitely has some big hits but Branny is younger and just getting started. In terms of volume it’s pretty close.

2.36 career hits/60 vs 2.38 career hits/60.

I think Brannstrom’s willingness to engage physically is significantly underrated. He’s getting pretty efficient at squeezing players off along the boards.

It has never been about Brannstrom’s willingness to engage, he’s a tough kid, it’s purely about his physical inability to do it.

 

[Alf Silfversson]

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.

Yeah I got something mixed up there. He turned 22 at the end of the previous year but played most of his rookie year as a 22 year old.

The fact of the matter is that he wasn't some physical beast at age 22. He's a smaller defenseman who learned to manage in the NHL being a smaller player. I see no reason why Brann won't evolve in the same way.

 

[Bileur]

It has never been about Brannstrom’s willingness to engage, he’s a tough kid, it’s purely about his physical inability to do it.

I quoted someone who said Krug is “way more physical than Brannstrom” I think that’s a direct comparison of mentality and willingness to engage.

 

[JD1]

Krug played 19:37 mins a night and had 10 pts in 12 playoff games his rookie year, idk that it's fair to say they were on par. Certainly different context, and we'll never know how either would have done if their situations were reversed, but you got to give credit to Krug for what he actually accomplished, as opposed to what Brannstrom might have.

An wrt pts on the pp, yes, he got 19 from the PP, but his ES rate paced at close to the same as Brannstroms all situation rate.

On a President's trophy winning team. On a team 3rd in scoring. It's simply not the same. I recognize the numbers, the situations are different.

Again the situations are different but Krug left Boston disgruntled because they never saw fit to give him a long term deal.

 

[Micklebot]

On a President's trophy winning team. On a team 3rd in scoring. It's simply not the same. I recognize the numbers, the situations are different.

Again the situations are different but Krug left Boston disgruntled because they never saw fit to give him a long term deal.

Ya, you definately bring up good points about their context, I think it's a very hard situation to compare. I personally still see Krug's season as ahead, but it's pretty hard to say how far apart.

 

[Hale The Villain]

Krug is a much better skater than Brannstrom, so it's not a good comparison.

Brannstrom's downfall is his skating. Just hasn't improved much since his draft year.

It takes an elite IQ to excel in the NHL as an undersized D without good skating, and he doesn't have that either.

 

[cudi]

Krug is a much better skater than Brannstrom, so it's not a good comparison.

Brannstrom's downfall is his skating. Just hasn't improved much since his draft year.

It takes an elite IQ to excel in the NHL as an undersized D without good skating, and he doesn't have that either.

honestly wouldnt be shocked if he settled in to a Kris Russell type role eventually. Guy is fearless and might realize that becoming a shot block beast/really good dzone player over the PMD style is the best way to stay in the league.

 

[Ice-Tray]

I’m not sure what the primary goal of this franchise is - survival or to win a cup. We know more after new owner ship and a new building that perhaps gets past Chabot. Either way, you can’t prove that keeping EK type played is more likely to win a cup. He helped for 2 years and he’s a drag now for 6.

We just watched Winnipeg in a playoff race trade away Cobb. We traded Havlat and watched Chara leave before we couldn’t afford them. It happens naturally anyway, and you can get out in front of it and retain assets or over pay for the negative value years.

4 years from now the Sens will be limiting someone’s contract. It could be a 22 year olds who has years of team control and improved play or it could be someone approaching UFA.

Ideally you lock in a championship caliber core to long term deals that cover their prime years, and then fill around them with cheaper deals on vets and ELC’s to get the right winning combo.

Hockey is as much a game of culture and consistency as it is anything else. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s a winning strategy. Finally we are starting to see long term signings at the start of a players prime, instead of reward contracts after that end up being anchors.

We have a few bad contracts, but not a single anchor, especially if we’re able to build up to the cap now that ownership looks to be changing.

 

[Sweatred]

Ideally you lock in a championship caliber core to long term deals that cover their prime years, and then fill around them with cheaper deals on vets and ELC’s to get the right winning combo.

Hockey is as much a game of culture and consistency as it is anything else. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think it’s a winning strategy. Finally we are starting to see long term signings at the start of a players prime, instead of reward contracts after that end up being anchors.

We have a few bad contracts, but not a single anchor, especially if we’re able to build up to the cap now that ownership looks to be changing.

Sure, I don’t disagree - but it goes both ways. I’m hoping the future Greig’s, Lassis, and 2022 7OA are worthy of $8 mill too. We can’t probably afford 8+ big contracts and at some point someone may have to go.

Do you let the 28 year old go who wants 8 more years like EK or Stone or do you keep the next Norris/Sanderson type player. Time will tell.. lots of time to figure it out.

 

[Ice-Tray]

Sure, I don’t disagree - but it goes both ways. I’m hoping the future Greig’s, Lassis, and 2022 7OA are worthy of $8 mill too. We can’t probably afford 8+ big contracts and at some point someone may have to go.

Do you let the 28 year old go who wants 8 more years like EK or Stone or do you keep the next Norris/Sanderson type player. Time will tell.. lots of time to figure it out.

I totally agree with this, but I think we’ll see less massive later deals with guys who got huge early deals. At least that’s my hope.

I am happy that we didn’t give Stone or EK those deals. Pay them their due early, and then pay them their due when they’re older as well. Kind of shift away from the idea that they are owed money for past performances, and pay based on what they are likely to actually achieve.

That would prevent a lot of vet boat anchor long term deals.

 

[aragorn]

I am having a tough time rationalizing the comments about Brann as not even sticking around as a depth D because of Hamonic or MDZ or whoever.

A team doesn't have their 7th D play the most minutes or run the #1PP.

Even with Chabot back he has had the 2nd most minutes by a D a few times.

While I am not beholden to Advanced stats either the eye test tells me he is playing well and keeping the puck out of our end for the most part and the analytics show the same.

I can only assume the standard bias on size is the main reason keep shuffling him down the lineup. As of this very moment he is out #2 LD and while I expect Sanderson to come in and look like a top 4D it would be extremely foolish to not keep Brann.

He is behind only Chabot at the moment and the fact he may be able to play RD also makes him more valuable.

It's about Hamonic, Holden, Zaitsev & maybe MDZ being on the team next season, they will also be trying to insert JBD & Thomson throughout the season to get them climatized to the NHL. I'm guessing they will buy out MDZ if they can't trade him over the summer but they might not either. Sanderson most agree will most likely play full time on D next season & this also does not take into account if they pick up another NHL D vet for next season.

All that to say, the future of this team on defence IMO is going to be Chabot, Sanderson, Zub, Thomson, JBD, Kleven & maybe someone new. That does not take into account if they draft a good defenceman this yr who could also be added to this group.

IMO Brann will be fighting with Holden, Zaitsev, Thomson & JBD for playing time next season not to mention any new D being acquired. Chabot, Sanderson & Zub IMO should be permanent fixures on D next season. Hamonic & Chabot could be partners, Zub & Sanderson could be partners & Holden & Zaitsev could be the shutdown tandem next season. Brann could be the 7th/8th D along with MDZ & Thomson & JBD will be injury callups.

Zaitsev, MDZ, Holden & Hamonic could be traded by next yr's TDL, MDZ & Zaitsev could be bought out before that. There is going to be a lot of competition on D for next season.

Chabot - Hamonic
Sanderson - Zub
Holden/Zaitsev/Brann/Thomson/JBD/Kleven/draft pick/vet

 

[TheDebater]

Sanderson might have elite pedigree but he has zero NHL experience and nothing should be just handed to a young unproven kid. As of right now, Brannstrom has proven himself at the NHL level and has shown he is capable of playing in our top four.

If anything, Brannstrom has earned a spot next season and it is up to the other guys to take him down and win a spot:

Chabot- Zub
Brannstrom- Holden
Sanderson- Hammonic

Until further notice.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

Sanderson might have elite pedigree but he has zero NHL experience and nothing should be just handed to a young unproven kid. As of right now, Brannstrom has proven himself at the NHL level and has shown he is capable of playing in our top four.

If anything, Brannstrom has earned a spot next season and it is up to the other guys to take him down and win a spot:

Chabot- Zub
Brannstrom- Holden
Sanderson- Hammonic

Until further notice.

Still need a better dman than Holden in the top-4, either as a partner for Chabot or for Branny, for us to actually aim at the playoffs in 2023.

 

[JD1]

Personally I don't see any scenario next year where Holden is playing top 4 minutes on anything other than an emergency basis.

On the left side I think Chabot Sanderson and Brannstrom are all ahead of him.

 

[TheDebater]

Personally I don't see any scenario next year where Holden is playing top 4 minutes on anything other than an emergency basis.

On the left side I think Chabot Sanderson and Brannstrom are all ahead of him.

I see a scenario where Dorion cannot find a top 4 dman and we have no choice but to give Holden minutes until there is a logical replacement.

 

[JD1]

I see a scenario where Dorion cannot find a top 4 dman and we have no choice but to give Holden minutes until there is a logical replacement.

I personally don't see a scenario where Holden plays top 4 unless Dorion starts trading players for prospects

 

[Burrowsaurus]

I see a scenario where Dorion cannot find a top 4 dman and we have no choice but to give Holden minutes until there is a logical replacement.

Well management still believe Hamonic is really really good. And they may be right. So as of right now I think Holden plays bottom pair

 

[Ice-Tray]

Well management still believe Hamonic is really really good. And they may be right. So as of right now I think Holden plays bottom pair

Yeah Holden will play with a young player, either EB, Tompson, or JBD.

I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the kids forces their way into the lineup out of camp. I hope so anyways. We could use a Tompson type player with Holden perhaps.

 

[OD99]

It's about Hamonic, Holden, Zaitsev & maybe MDZ being on the team next season.

2 of those guys are RD but not 1 of those players should be the reason we dump a 22 year old D who clearly made big strides this season.

Each of them have a foot in retirement and Brann has barely begun.

It would be incredibly shortsighted to move Brann because GMPD made a boneheaded move in giving 2 years to MDZ.

 

[Micklebot]

I personally don't see a scenario where Holden plays top 4 unless Dorion starts trading players for prospects

So, I think our biggest challenge is going to be dressing a D group that covers all the required roles.

Holden was our top penalty killing D this year, the next closest LD on a per game level was Mete at almost 1/2 the PK TOI/G

So, if we opt to dress Chabot, Sanderson, and Brannstrom, we either scratch our top penalty killing D and play somebody that average less than a min a game as our top LD on the PK, or play a LD on the right side. My hope is we do the latter and scratch Zaitsev (though to be fair, and consistent with the above, we'd be scatching our 2nd top PK D but at least Zub and Hamonic are also competent penalty killers).

If we do keep Holden in the lineup, I think top 4 D will be a bit of a misnomer; we'll have a top unit (hoping Chabot and Zub but it could be something else) and then we'll have a bottom 4 that may be pretty interchangeable.

Sanderson-Hamonic
Brannstrom-Holden

Or

Sanderson-Holden
Brannstrom-Hamonic

Either way, I don't see one pairing being clearly the 2nd pair and the other clearly being the bottom pair. Not a bad problem to have if you ask me.

 

[JD1]

So, I think our biggest challenge is going to be dressing a D group that covers all the required roles.

Holden was our top penalty killing D this year, the next closest LD on a per game level was Mete at almost 1/2 the PK TOI/G

So, if we opt to dress Chabot, Sanderson, and Brannstrom, we either scratch our top penalty killing D and play somebody that average less than a min a game as our top LD on the PK, or play a LD on the right side. My hope is we do the latter and scratch Zaitsev (though to be fair, and consistent with the above, we'd be scatching our 2nd top PK D but at least Zub and Hamonic are also competent penalty killers).

If we do keep Holden in the lineup, I think top 4 D will be a bit of a misnomer; we'll have a top unit (hoping Chabot and Zub but it could be something else) and then we'll have a bottom 4 that may be pretty interchangeable.

Sanderson-Hamonic
Brannstrom-Holden

Or

Sanderson-Holden
Brannstrom-Hamonic

Either way, I don't see one pairing being clearly the 2nd pair and the other clearly being the bottom pair. Not a bad problem to have if you ask me.

I don't see Zaitsev going anywhere. He was the top pk Rd. The pk was good. Brannstrom started PKing regularly towards the end of season. Idk, maybe Dorion packages him up somewhere if the feeling in Belleville is one or both of JBD and Thomson are ready

I see Holden as a perfect 7th D on a pre retirement contract