The re-signing of Erik Gudbranson has been polarizing, to say the least. I’m not a fan of polarization; I’m a middle of the road kind of guy. I tend to avoid extremes on either side. Except when I’m driving. I find it works best to pick a side when I’m driving. Here’s a tip: if you’re in North America, pick the right side. It’s the safest bet.
When it comes to Gudbranson, however, there really is no middle ground. Is he a gritty leader who will help protect and lead the young kids into battle? Or is he an anchor on a sinking ship, dragging down everyone around him? If you’re truly a fan of this team, chances are you’ve chosen a side. And if you’re anything like me, you’ve probably chosen your own dramatic metaphor.
On Tuesday, Daniel Wagner suggested that the Gudbranson signing essentially shows that Benning has not learned from past mistakes, and continues to sign players based on who he hopes they will be, rather than who their performance suggests they really are.
He makes some good points, but in the end, I disagree. I think Benning has grown as a GM since he started in Vancouver, and I don’t think this signing is as bad as the blogosphere makes it out to be. Am I playing devil’s advocate here? Yes, absolutely, and not just the pinball game. But let me tell you why I think this signing works.
First of all, like the Cylons from Battlestar Galactica, Jim Benning has a plan. Ignore for the moment that it has since been revealed that the Cylons did not, in fact, have a plan, because Benning definitely does. While some might suggest that Benning doesn’t know what he’s doing, it’s probably more accurate that you don’t like what he’s doing. And Erik Gudbranson fits into Benning’s plan.
This contract is far from an albatross. While it probably is an overpayment, it’s not the kind of overpayment that sinks a team. The Canucks are in a major transitional period. In the next three years of Gudbranson’s contract, we should expect to see several prospects get their shot at making the NHL, including Olli Juolevi, Adam Gaudette, Elias Petersson and Thatcher Demko.
We should, barring a Jagr-like defying of age, see the Sedins retire. Sure, Brock Boeser and Troy Stecher will need to be re-signed in that period, but cap space should not be an issue. This is a team that is still building, and to some extent discovering, its core. Gudbranson’s contract allows him to prove he belongs in that core. But if he doesn’t fit, the Canucks aren’t locked in for long term or excessive money.
Daniel is quite right to argue that Gudbranson’s results suggest that he is a third pairing defenseman in the long run. His play of late has been promising, but Benning is probably mistaken if he thinks he is signing a number 3 or 4 defenseman. But are we sure he thinks that way? Maybe he thinks, at this stage of the team’s development, that it’s worth making an overpayment for a number 5 or 6 defenseman. That fits into his plan to keep the team competitive while bringing in young players. Conveniently, if Gudbranson is a third-pairing defenceman, he doesn't take a roster spot away from a young player deserving of playing on the first or second pairing.
It’s clear that Gudbranson wants to be in Vancouver. His comments after the signing made it clear that he’s the kind of guy who values stability. As fans, and especially as fans who value the numbers, we can underestimate the value of someone who really buys into the team and its vision for the future. Gudbranson said several times that he is excited about the kind of team Benning wants to build. This is a guy who is motivated to be a part of a team in transition. Why is it such a bad idea to take a gamble on a player who has draft pedigree and is motivated to prove himself on a team that doesn’t offer much hope of winning a cup in the next three years?
Many who oppose the signing point to Benning’s statements in the press. They take particular issue with this passage:
Erik is an important part of our team and provides a physical element to our blueline," said Benning. "His leadership qualities help us as we continue to integrate younger players in our lineup. He is a quality person, a great teammate, outstanding in the community and we are excited to have him as part of our team moving forward.
Notice the word Benning didn’t use? It’s something the Canucks need a whole lot more of: skill. Benning values Gudbranson for his leadership, his character and his presence “in the room,” as hockey people like to say. I prefer to say “in the preparation chamber,” but so far it hasn’t caught on.
Critics are right to point out that Gudbranson doesn’t bring the kind of skill that the Canucks need. But context is key here. What other options do the Canucks have right now, barring a blockbuster “hockey trade”? Benning is locking up a relatively known quantity rather than taking a riskier gamble on a pick or a prospect he doesn’t know in a trade. Some may disagree with that move, but it’s not necessarily wrong.
The bigger question here is about leadership. How do you quantify leadership? Ideally, you find players who have skill in addition to leadership, but sometimes that’s not an option. The Sedins are getting close to retirement and the roster is going to be getting younger in the next few years. Clearly this will be Bo Horvat’s team when the Sedins go, but does it hurt to have another player who believes in the team, takes initiative to implement the coach’s system, and does what he can to help younger players along?
I don’t see anything wrong with that. Leadership with skill is always best, but leadership on its own, as an “intangible,” is undervalued by the media and fans. The team is more than a collection of skills and weaknesses. It is a collection of people who have a particular goal (winning games) and a particular set of values to which they adhere. I think Gudbranson helps this team find its identity. If he can do that and play at a high enough level not to hurt them on the ice, he is bringing a valuable, albeit intangible, component to the team.
I’ve heard it said that it takes three to five years to really get comfortable in a new job, especially where a significant element of leadership is involved. I think we’re seeing a more confident Benning than we did when he started his tenure here. I may not like every move he makes, but I’m more willing now than I was then to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not all of his signings and trades are going to be home runs, but overall he is trending in the right direction. He can still make moves at the deadline and stockpile some picks and/or prospects, and I think he will.
You may not like the Gudbranson signing, but be patient. Let’s see what Benning does at the trade deadline and the draft before we decide his extension was a mistake.
