Podcast: Why do the Penguins think Erik Gudbranson can help them? | TribLIVE.com
Breakfast With Benz

Podcast: Why do the Penguins think Erik Gudbranson can help them?

Tim Benz
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
The Canucks’ Erik Gudbranson takes out the Penguin’s Dominik Simon in the third period Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2018 at PPG Paints Arena.

Brian Metzer of the Penguins Radio Network joins me for our weekly Sided.co hockey podcast.

We recap Jim Rutherford’s moves at the trade deadline. Erik Gudbranson largely has flamed out in the NHL at this point. Why do the Penguins think he can help?

We dive into why the Penguins seem to think getting Gudbranson’s size and toughness is so important.

Also, Rutherford admits he is nervous about the franchise’s playoff prospects. We examine a crucial upcoming schedule which will tell us if he should be.

LISTEN: Why do the Penguins think they can fix Erik Gudbranson?

The Penguins kept their 2019 first-round draft choice. Is that wise? Or could the club have used that to procure better talent?

The mystery of Teddy Blueger continues as well.

Also, if you missed the Pittsburgh tour date for “The Struts,” we have that for you.

Top Sports Videos

Tim Benz is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tim at [email protected] or via Twitter. All tweets could be reposted. All emails are subject to publication unless specified otherwise.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.