Would this scenario assume a Pinto hold out?

It’s hard to see navigating our current cap situation and seeing this line-up in 24-25.

Just curious tbh.

Have Pinto at 2x$2.75M bridge deal

It’s not an unrealistic number, Sens would not be cap compliant in 23-24 under those circumstances with the Sokolov deal (under those same circumstances) with that roster. JBD would also be lost on waivers.

Dump Brannstrom somewhere else, Edmonton's not interested. They don't have the cap space or the roster space, and they don't do undersized defensemen.

Brannstrom would easily be one of your best D-man defensively and could even put interesting offensive numbers with a bit of PP time

This trade would likely become a steal for Edmonton.

Fail comment. Brannstrom is very underrated defensively and simply doesn't have a shot behind Chabot/Sanderson on the left side in Ottawa. Now, since Edmonton clearly doesn't have any defensemen of Brannstrom's caliber, I figured they could use the help

I agree. Tarasenko was a poorly-timed signing in my opinion, Pinto takes priority and then work with the cap you have left

Edmonton has Nurse and Ekholm on the left side. Plus Broberg and Kulak.

You're overvaluing Brannstrom by a lot.

I have seen you use stats and advanced stats a lot in the past. In this situation, they "overvalue Brannstrom by a lot"?

Its more that he wouldn't make the team over Nurse, Ekholm, Broberg or Kulak on the LH side.
I like Brannstrom but he doesn't fit Edmontons needs.

I don't understand your question actually.

But the stats show that he plays 3rd pairing comp and puts up decent numbers in limited minutes. They also show he's 5'10 / 185 and Holland has built a defense corps where the smallest player is 6'2 / 210.

You're projecting him WAY to hard at this point. Maybe he becomes what you think he will (doubtful, given his physical limitations) but in any case Edmonton doesn't have the space to fit him in and develop him. Broberg is younger and putting up better stats, they're better off developing him instead.

It's true that Edmonton has really worked on their Defense depth recently, adding Ekholm really changed a lot of things.

Ekholm - Bouchard
Nurse - Ceci
Broberg/Kulak - Desharnais

Effectively, not much spot for Brannstrom right now, even if he is better than Broberg/Kulak at the moment, Broberg was a high pick and needs to be developed

But seriously, my post had nothing to do with the Oilers needs though, more when CD said "Dump Brannstrom" and "You're overvaluing Brannstrom by a lot"


The question is simple, if you use advanced stats often, why would they not be valid in this instance? Which would make your statements about Brannstrom dubious

I'm not talking about your team needs, if you like his size or not, etc. I am talking about you using the words "dump" and "overvaluing a lot"

Brannstrom was literally one of the best #5 D-man in the NHL last season. On multiple occasions when Chabot was injured in the past, he has stepped up and looked even better posting 22+ minutes per game

And what do you mean "Broberg is younger and putting up better stats"?

Brannstrom is less than 2 years older, already has 121 more NHL games and has paced for 24 pts per 82 games the last 3 seasons (since 21 y/o). Broberg paced for 14 pts last season

But as I said above, agreed Oliers need to continue developing him.

Yea sometimes people on this site try to give over reactions to trades that realistically aren't that bad but just dont fit one of the teams needs.
I dont think Brannstrom gets a 2nd, seeing as Durzi got a 2nd, but it's fairly close to his value (maybe a third?); Edmonton just wouldn't be the right team to send him to.

I don't use what I consider "advanced stats" at all, actually. I look at the raw data instead. And it shows that Brannstrom did well but against 3rd pairing comp, which isn't overly impressive for a 24 year old.

Your take was that "Brannstrom would easily be one of (Edmonton's) best D-man defensively and could even put interesting offensive numbers with a bit of PP time" which is pretty crazy since he wasn't trusted to play above 3rd pair on a non-playoff team and didn't get results on a much worse PP. The odds that he gets PP time in Edmonton would be zero.

Really have to differentiate the 2, it is two DISTINCT points : trade value and team needs/context. People constantly mixes them up so the logic quickly gets lost in translation

Brannstrom is better than Durzi and I think NHL teams know that, at least those with an advanced metrics department. Durzi got 22 pts at ES, Brannstrom got 17, Durzi just had the PP opportunity Brannstrom didn't have but he is much better overall. He is also a year older and so far looks like a PP specialist who racks secondary assits


lol of course, and Brannstrom turned 24 y/o last week by the way...

The only reason Brannstrom "wasn't trusted to play above 3rd pair on a non-playoff team" is because there is Thomas Chabot and Jake Sanderson in front of him on the depth chart. When Chabot was injured, he did and looked pretty good.

Edmonton has Nurse and Ekholm, plus Kulak and Broberg.

So again, your take that "Brannstrom would easily be one of (Edmonton's) best D-man" is just dumb.

It's not dumb, it's about having the maturity and mental capabilities to be able to read correctly

I said "one of your best D-man defensively"

Then I discussed with another poster who was much more reasonable and agreed with him that it's not in the cards for the Oilers to acquire Brannstrom

Because he wouldn't be one of their best defensively!

If they could add a top defensive defenseman for just a 2nd round pick, they would. But he isn't, so they decline.

Make sense now?

So who is better defensively? Ekholm and?

Over the past 3 years no player in the entire league has faced more minutes v Elites than Nurse has. In fact it's not particularly close - he's almost 100 minutes more than the #2 player.

Despite this he has posted a 52.59 GF%, a 52.73 xGF% and a 54.20 HDCF% over that span.

It's pretty funny that you think a 3rd pairing D who plays sheltered minutes on a non-playoff team would be an upgrade.

Did I say that he would be an upgrade? I said "Ekholm and?" so you could fill out the rest

You seem to have troubles with reading comprehension

The implication was clear.