Traded Erik Brännström - D - Part III

[Mookie McGee]

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last year.

 

[PatrickEaves]

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last year.

Who was he paired with? Qed.

 

[L'Aveuglette]

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last year.

Worst post I've seen on here in a while.

 

[GCK]

Worst post I've seen on here in a while.

Tend to agree with you. Complete lack of context.

 

[Icelevel]

Reminder
brannstrom just turned 23 last month.

 

[JD1]

Holden a lock ? I know he’s a roster lock but top 6 ?

I've heard DJ mention 5 names a couple of times with Holden being one of them.

The entire debate on D has to be thought of thru 3 lenses: even strength, pk, PP.

PP guys: Chabot, Brannstrom, Sanderson
PK guys: Holden, Zaitsev, Zub,
And then whatever even strength guys.

The PP is probably easier to sort thru guys and might make less of a difference in so far as they're pretty close.

But who PKs? You need 4 guys anyway and if you remove Zaitsev from the list, who replaces that ice?

 

[MJKW]

I've heard DJ mention 5 names a couple of times with Holden being one of them.

The entire debate on D has to be thought of thru 3 lenses: even strength, pk, PP.

PP guys: Chabot, Brannstrom, Sanderson
PK guys: Holden, Zaitsev, Zub,
And then whatever even strength guys.

The PP is probably easier to sort thru guys and might make less of a difference in so far as they're pretty close.

But who PKs? You need 4 guys anyway and if you remove Zaitsev from the list, who replaces that ice?

You forgot Hamonic for the PK.

Holden. Zub, Hamonic. with Chabot and Sanderson capable of providing some minutes on the back half of the PK. I think they'll be fine.

OR...you just keep Greig and you never have to worry about any shots getting through LOL.

 

[GCK]

I've heard DJ mention 5 names a couple of times with Holden being one of them.

The entire debate on D has to be thought of thru 3 lenses: even strength, pk, PP.

PP guys: Chabot, Brannstrom, Sanderson
PK guys: Holden, Zaitsev, Zub,
And then whatever even strength guys.

The PP is probably easier to sort thru guys and might make less of a difference in so far as they're pretty close.

But who PKs? You need 4 guys anyway and if you remove Zaitsev from the list, who replaces that ice?

I think Holden has his spot on the 3rd pair for sure but to me he’s getting pushed to the right side.

 

[Micklebot]

I've heard DJ mention 5 names a couple of times with Holden being one of them.

The entire debate on D has to be thought of thru 3 lenses: even strength, pk, PP.

PP guys: Chabot, Brannstrom, Sanderson
PK guys: Holden, Zaitsev, Zub,
And then whatever even strength guys.

The PP is probably easier to sort thru guys and might make less of a difference in so far as they're pretty close.

But who PKs? You need 4 guys anyway and if you remove Zaitsev from the list, who replaces that ice?

You missed Hamonic who certainly will PK and I suspect Sanderson will quickly establish himself as a PK option though I don't blame the team for not wanting to rely on him.

Interestingly, Brannstrom was used on the PK at times last year and had some of the strongest underlying metrics on the team, small sample of ~40 mins, but food for thought,

 

[coladin]

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last year.

An unpopular opinion. But I am on the same wavelength as you. Quality of competition , the Habs, and wow he looks good. I hope Arizona was watching.

He has to follow this up in the next game. He can’t be a star in one game and dreadful in the next. I am happy to see it, but I am not convinced

 

[Mark Stones Spleen]

Reminder
brannstrom just turned 23 last month.

And his D partner plays like he's 63.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

Holden a lock ? I know he’s a roster lock but top 6 ?

That's my assumption based on DJ interviews .. where the other guys being discussed are battling for spots

 

[HSF]

I've heard DJ mention 5 names a couple of times with Holden being one of them.

The entire debate on D has to be thought of thru 3 lenses: even strength, pk, PP.

PP guys: Chabot, Brannstrom, Sanderson
PK guys: Holden, Zaitsev, Zub,
And then whatever even strength guys.

The PP is probably easier to sort thru guys and might make less of a difference in so far as they're pretty close.

But who PKs? You need 4 guys anyway and if you remove Zaitsev from the list, who replaces that ice?

Hamonic and Sanderson would play the PK

I suspect is Brannstrom makes the team he will be on the 2nd PP. They can give Sanderson time on the PK2 unit. If you are in the top 4 you will have to do some heavy lifting

 

[Micklebot]

That's my assumption based on DJ interviews .. where the other guys being discussed are battling for spots

So if 6 guys outplay Holden you think DJ would still force him into the top 6?

I always took DJs comments about Holden being in the group of locks as he's at worst an ideal #7 that can come in and out, play either side and give you safe reliable play, no chance we are waiving him. Zaitsev has seen his play decline so he's at the stage where he could be waived. Brannstrom needs to show he can take the step towards consistent play, and Sanderson is a rookie with no pro experience.JBD and Thomson are waiver exempt. Locks to me just mean to not get cut,

 

[Union2017]

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last year.

Just last week I said I think Branstrom has no spot in this team, but if we look just at the last game then I was wrong. Did you watch the game? I was in the arena and he was excellent. +/- is irrelevant considering who he was playing with. He was skating and carrying the puck, making plays and creating stuff every shift. I was honestly glad to see how he played, since I almost gave up on him. If he can keep it up, then he will be a good player for us. DeBrincat scored 2 and he was 0 in +/-, Giroux 3 assists and still 0 at +/-. Are they both busts then for us as well? That means Giroux was on the ice for 3 habs goals and Cat was on for 2 as well.

 

[Sens of Anarchy]

So if 6 guys outplay Holden you think DJ would still force him into the top 6?

I always took DJs comments about Holden being in the group of locks as he's at worst an ideal #7 that can come in and out, play either side and give you safe reliable play, no chance we are waiving him. Zaitsev has seen his play decline so he's at the stage where he could be waived. Brannstrom needs to show he can take the step towards consistent play, and Sanderson is a rookie with no pro experience.JBD and Thomson are waiver exempt. Locks to me just mean to not get cut,

that's not what I said. My understanding was Holden was a lock for a spot in the top 6 based on what DJ said in interviews more than a week ago.
It meant to me he had a spot based on who was competing for a spot , where he was not. One of us could be wrong with what he meant.

I expect to see Holden with a spot in the top 6 as he was not competing for a spot . And they had discussed him possibly playing the right side,
I think he is a lock in the top 6 based on my interpretation of what was said. You think he meant a lock to be on the roster while he was in competition for a top 6 spot. I did not get that from the comments.

Why would Holden ever not be a lock to be on the roster? and Why mention that if its a given?

 

[Micklebot]

that's not what I said. My understanding was Holden was a lock for a spot in the top 6 based on what DJ said in interviews more than a week ago.
It meant to me he had a spot based on who was competing for a spot , where he was not. One of us could be wrong with what he meant.

I expect to see Holden with a spot in the top 6 as he was not competing for a spot . And they had discussed him possibly playing the right side,
I think he is a lock in the top 6 based on my interpretation of what was said. You think he meant a lock to be on the roster while he was in competition for a top 6 spot. I did not get that from the comments.

Fair enough. I think him being able to slide over to right gives him a huge advantage, and it will take being clearly outplayed for him to end up outside of the top 6, but I have a hard time believing anybody outside of Chabot and Zub are locks for the top 6 going into camp, probably Hamonic too given the lower competition on the right side.

As for the why mention Holden is a lock for the roster if it's a given, we'll it's more about who isn't a lock, Zaitsev was notably absecent, the rest were guys who'd yet to establish themselves as regulars.

 

[Mookie McGee]

DeBrincat scored 2 and he was 0 in +/-, Giroux 3 assists and still 0 at +/-. Are they both busts then for us as well? That means Giroux was on the ice for 3 habs goals and Cat was on for 2 as well.

Errr Union, this may come as news to you, but being on the ice for/participating in powerplay goals does not give you a +. So no, Giroux was not on the ice for 3 habs goals against, etc..

For context, Denis Hamel was a point a game player, including 56 goals in 77 games one year, with the Binghamton Senators 2003-2006 playing against AHLers, and when brought up he scored 0.2 points a game for Ottawa against NHLers. That's what Saturday night Brann was; beating up on low level scrubs, but still losing out in his own end.

 

[scallionjj11]

Errr Union, this may come as news to you, but being on the ice for/participating in powerplay goals does not give you a +. So no, Giroux was not on the ice for 3 habs goals against, etc..

For context, Denis Hamel was a point a game player, including 56 goals in 77 games one year, with the Binghamton Senators 2003-2006 playing against AHLers, and when brought up he scored 0.2 points a game for Ottawa against NHLers. That's what Saturday night Brann was; beating up on low level scrubs, but still losing out in his own end.

Wow, another horrible take. You're on fire lately in this thread.

 

[Union2017]

Errr Union, this may come as news to you, but being on the ice for/participating in powerplay goals does not give you a +. So no, Giroux was not on the ice for 3 habs goals against, etc..

For context, Denis Hamel was a point a game player, including 56 goals in 77 games one year, with the Binghamton Senators 2003-2006 playing against AHLers, and when brought up he scored 0.2 points a game for Ottawa against NHLers. That's what Saturday night Brann was; beating up on low level scrubs, but still losing out in his own end.

OK fair enough, my bad. I always trusted more in my eye test than +/-, so I missed that...

However, here is just one of the comments this weekend, and many ex hockey players agree with this assessment:

 

[Micklebot]

Errr Union, this may come as news to you, but being on the ice for/participating in powerplay goals does not give you a +. So no, Giroux was not on the ice for 3 habs goals against, etc..

For context, Denis Hamel was a point a game player, including 56 goals in 77 games one year, with the Binghamton Senators 2003-2006 playing against AHLers, and when brought up he scored 0.2 points a game for Ottawa against NHLers. That's what Saturday night Brann was; beating up on low level scrubs, but still losing out in his own end.

1st goal against he made a good pinch to keep the puck in play in the OZ end, Greig fell back into his spot to cover but when the puck came back around and hopped over Zaitsev's stick Greig failed to get back defensively creating the two on none,

Second goal, he got into a board battle after the draw, got the puck up to Reinhardt who was providing some support, Reinhardt promptly gave it away in a failed clear attempt, the Habs point flipped it over Kastelic and Evans tipped it in.

Third goal was setting up as a two on one so he played it that way until the back checker got in place and the 2nd MTL player peeled of, at which point he moved over to challenge the shooter who got the shot off on before he could get over.

Of the three goals against he was on the ice for, only the third could reasonably be attributed to any degree to how he played it, but even there, it wasn't some terrible misplay on his part. Using his plus minus as evidence of his performance defensively is just plain misleading.

 

[JD1]

Fair enough. I think him being able to slide over to right gives him a huge advantage, and it will take being clearly outplayed for him to end up outside of the top 6, but I have a hard time believing anybody outside of Chabot and Zub are locks for the top 6 going into camp, probably Hamonic too given the lower competition on the right side.

As for the why mention Holden is a lock for the roster if it's a given, we'll it's more about who isn't a lock, Zaitsev was notably absecent, the rest were guys who'd yet to establish themselves as regulars.

I also understood Smith's comment to mean holden wasn't competing for a spot to play, he's in the group of 5

 

[L'Aveuglette]

An unpopular opinion. But I am on the same wavelength as you. Quality of competition , the Habs, and wow he looks good. I hope Arizona was watching.

He has to follow this up in the next game. He can’t be a star in one game and dreadful in the next. I am happy to see it, but I am not convinced

He did the same multiple times last season down the stretch with Chabot out.

Brannstrom haters are in denial.

 

[ottawah]

He did the same multiple times last season down the stretch with Chabot out.

100% agree.

But where does he fit into the team with Chabot (and Sanderson for that matter) in the lineup is the question. It is not a matter of if he is good enough, its if he can play the role required if he cannot supplant Chabot as the number 1 ......

 

[Burrowsaurus]

The Habs have an NJL

That was the Habs AHL team last night.

Brannstrom wasn't even a plus against that roster. Doesn't matter until he looks at least average in both ends against NHLers, the guys he was -17 against last ye

100% agree.

But where does he fit into the team with Chabot (and Sanderson for that matter) in the lineup is the question. It is not a matter of if he is good enough, its if he can play the role required if he cannot supplant Chabot as the number 1 ......

Kind of a wierd take. He’s either #1 d or nothing?

He’s a third pairing d man that has shown he can play up the lineup. Which is good news since one of our top 4 d is Hamonic.