Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Proposal] If Benning is only signing 1 more depth player—why not Schlemko?


Recommended Posts

- The Canucks have about 1.2M in cap space.

- They have 7 NHL defenseman.

- In May, Benning said he wanted 8 defenseman because he learned a lesson about the wear and tear on defense in the Western conference.

So, I think there's still a possibility for a move to create cap space, but if there isn't, I think David Schlemko would be a good last NHL signing.

Why?

- Schlemko played, with huge success, under Willie Desjardins in junior.

  • In 2005-2006, he came 2nd on the Tigets defense in points, only junior superstar Kris Russell had more than him.
  • In 2006-2007, he led the Tigers in assists (including forwards) and then had 16 points in 23 playoff games on the way to a WHL championship.
  • On playing for Desjardins, Schlemko says, "I’ve got to give him a lot of credit for kind of paving my pro career — I know he did a lot to get me a contract after my last year of junior as a free agent, so I only have good things to say about Will..He really cares about his guys. He expects, and he gets the most out of everyone it seems like. I know he got the most out of me, and I know he was really pushing with NHL teams to give me a chance.”

- Last year he proved he can play top-4 minutes if called upon. Under Dave Tippett, he played over 18 minutes in 9/20 games. Despite Calgary's depth on defense and being new to the team, by the playoffs he was playing about 15 minutes a night under Hartley.

- Though last year he never really played an offensive role and changed teams three times, he's known for his mobility and ability to play both ends of the ice, in 2011 he paced for 26 points and in 2014 he paced for 15. I think he has potential to be a 20-30 defenseman, which isn't bad for a guy the Canucks would pick up for depth.

- Although he isn't a super physical defenseman, at 6'1/190 pounds he's not tiny either.

- Because of his poor stat line, due to moving from team-to-team last year, and the fact that there's still some good FAs out there, his contract probably won't be much more than league minimum.

- Canucks need more defensemen and I'd rather see Schlemko than Biega as #7/#8.

Hamhuis - Tanev

Edler - Corrado

Sbisa - Weber

Bartowski, Schlemko

(Yikes).

My proposal: sign David Schlemko on a 1 year/650,000 contract IF there are no pending moves to create cap space for a top-4 defenseman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my two cents...

Schlemko is redundant on a team like the Canucks. He's undersized and is neither a top end PMD or a guy who plays with any physical presence. He was waived by the Coyotes and barely made any kind of impression with the Flames...at best he's a 7-8 d-man on any roster, including the Canucks.

He's like a passive Ryan Stanton.

If I'm JB, I'd sign him if he would take a league minimum in the NHL and $125K at the AHL level. I would keep him in Utica and use him only as a call up if the need arises out of injuries...but even at that, the Canucks will have Fedun, making Schlemko redundant in Utica as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have Taylor Fedun and Alex Biega. Fedun is still young and had success in short stints with Edmonton and San Jose. Slowed by missing a year to broken leg, underrated, 2 goals in 4 games the other season with Edmonton and 4 assists in 7 games last season with the Sharks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The Canucks have about 1.2M in cap space.

- They have 7 NHL defenseman.

- In May, Benning said he wanted 8 defenseman because he learned a lesson about the wear and tear on defense in the Western conference.

So, I think there's still a possibility for a move to create cap space, but if there isn't, I think David Schlemko would be a good last NHL signing.

Why?

- Schlemko played, with huge success, under Willie Desjardins in junior.

  • In 2005-2006, he came 2nd on the Tigets defense in points, only junior superstar Kris Russell had more than him.
  • In 2006-2007, he led the Tigers in assists (including forwards) and then had 16 points in 23 playoff games on the way to a WHL championship.
  • On playing for Desjardins, Schlemko says, "I’ve got to give him a lot of credit for kind of paving my pro career — I know he did a lot to get me a contract after my last year of junior as a free agent, so I only have good things to say about Will..He really cares about his guys. He expects, and he gets the most out of everyone it seems like. I know he got the most out of me, and I know he was really pushing with NHL teams to give me a chance.”

- Last year he proved he can play top-4 minutes if called upon. Under Dave Tippett, he played over 18 minutes in 9/20 games. Despite Calgary's depth on defense and being new to the team, by the playoffs he was playing about 15 minutes a night under Hartley.

- Though last year he never really played an offensive role and changed teams three times, he's known for his mobility and ability to play both ends of the ice, in 2011 he paced for 26 points and in 2014 he paced for 15. I think he has potential to be a 20-30 defenseman, which isn't bad for a guy the Canucks would pick up for depth.

- Although he isn't a super physical defenseman, at 6'1/190 pounds he's not tiny either.

- Because of his poor stat line, due to moving from team-to-team last year, and the fact that there's still some good FAs out there, his contract probably won't be much more than league minimum.

- Canucks need more defensemen and I'd rather see Schlemko than Biega as #7/#8.

Hamhuis - Tanev

Edler - Corrado

Sbisa - Weber

Bartowski, Schlemko

(Yikes).

My proposal: sign David Schlemko on a 1 year/650,000 contract IF there are no pending moves to create cap space for a top-4 defenseman.

Good call Garth!

Course I would so much rather have had the money to spend on a more premium guy...

In the role as you described, and noting Benning himself has suggested its best to be as deep as 11 guys on D > Its a good signing IMO?

Just my two cents...

Schlemko is redundant on a team like the Canucks. He's undersized and is neither a top end PMD or a guy who plays with any physical presence. He was waived by the Coyotes and barely made any kind of impression with the Flames...at best he's a 7-8 d-man on any roster, including the Canucks.

He's like a passive Ryan Stanton.

If I'm JB, I'd sign him if he would take a league minimum in the NHL and $125K at the AHL level. I would keep him in Utica and use him only as a call up if the need arises out of injuries...but even at that, the Canucks will have Fedun, making Schlemko redundant in Utica as well.

How is a 7th or 8th D man redundant? :huh:

Edler Tanev

Hamuis Bart

Sbisa Corrado

Weber

Biega.

Is Fedun a legit callup? Pedan? I suppose, but not exciting at this stage. Maybe Pedan can still be with more development? I reckon its fair to call Schlemko a better depth guy. Most likely better than Biega as well?

Yes near league min, but I would suggest a little fatter, more premium AHL wage. In part because the Comets could use a good vet. And in part to keep others from claiming him if he is sent down.

I'm ok with it (signing Schlemko) as long as it does not detract from us giving a Jake Virtanen a good shot. It might mean carrying 13 forwards and 7 D to start the year...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good call Garth!

Course I would so much rather have had the money to spend on a more premium guy...

In the role as you described, and noting Benning himself has suggested its best to be as deep as 11 guys on D > Its a good signing IMO?

How is a 7th or 8th D man redundant? :huh:

Edler Tanev

Hamuis Bart

Sbisa Corrado

Weber

Biega.

Is Fedun a legit callup? Pedan? I suppose, but not exciting at this stage. Maybe Pedan can still be with more development? I reckon its fair to call Schlemko a better depth guy. Most likely better than Biega as well?

Yes near league min, but I would suggest a little fatter, more premium AHL wage. In part because the Comets could use a good vet. And in part to keep others from claiming him if he is sent down.

I'm ok with it (signing Schlemko) as long as it does not detract from us giving a Jake Virtanen a good shot. It might mean carrying 13 forwards and 7 D to start the year...

You honestly have to ask a question about redundancy? Okay, I'll spell it out for you...Schlemko is redundant because there are other players in the organization that can do what he's capable of doing. You want a little non-redundancy for a cap hit of league minimum? Bring in players who add a different attributes to the roster while fitting into the system.

And it's a 23 man roster most NHL teams carry...the 21st skater will be either a 14th forward or 8th d-man. But in the Canucks' case, it'll most likely be a player on short term injury list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You honestly have to ask a question about redundancy? Okay, I'll spell it out for you...Schlemko is redundant because there are other players in the organization that can do what he's capable of doing. You want a little non-redundancy for a cap hit of league minimum? Bring in players who add a different attributes to the roster while fitting into the system.

And it's a 23 man roster most NHL teams carry...the 21st skater will be either a 14th forward or 8th d-man. But in the Canucks' case, it'll most likely be a player on short term injury list.

Spell out what? :wacko:

Who among our depth players, tagged to play 7th or 8th man, is better than Schlemko? Weber? Better shot, but I'm not sure better as a whole. OK, maybe Corrado? Probably > but I have him pegged out as our 6th guy, 3rd pairing RHD. I am trying to fill out behind him. If Corrado or Bart gets hurt, Schlemko slots in.

And really, really honestly, isn't having 4 ''redundant'' guys capable of playing a 7th man the definition of depth?

True redundancy is when you have multiple guys who all do the same thing. And you cannot give them all ice time. So they sit on the bench when you really actually need someone else who has something different to offer. But paying them means you cannot go out and pay the guy you need.

Paying Schlemko the league min will certainly not put us in that position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What big ugly, physical, crease clearing bastard, capable of skating and playing a regular shift is available? That's one of our needs. And for league min because that is pretty much what we have? Without being stiff that everyone walks around...

They are not available.

What PP QB is available?

Again not to be found. Even for Franson's asking price.

True PMD...

K > go next tier. Tanev is on our first pairing. I don't dispute Franson on a wish list. Franson at 6'5'' and not as good defensively as Tanev, but sheltered by Hamhuis on a 2knd pair would be great. Some size. A HUGE shot and he hits. Would really help our 2knd PP, maybe even our first. As a shot, not a QB btw. Does not solve all, needs to be put in the right situations. But a nice Top 4 addition. I'd like Franson.

But we could not / can not afford him.

Or Ehrhoff to be a QB.

We did not even have the $1.5 mill he got guys?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree signing another NHL tested defenseman would be a smart move. It would not be unusual to have one of our guys sustain an injury who was pencilled into the top 6 and have another under-perform in the pre-season. Even a Pro-try-out deal would make some sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spell out what? :wacko:

Who among our depth players, tagged to play 7th or 8th man, is better than Schlemko? Weber? Better shot, but I'm not sure better as a whole. OK, maybe Corrado? Probably > but I have him pegged out as our 6th guy, 3rd pairing RHD. I am trying to fill out behind him. If Corrado or Bart gets hurt, Schlemko slots in.

And really, really honestly, isn't having 4 ''redundant'' guys capable of playing a 7th man the definition of depth?

True redundancy is when you have multiple guys who all do the same thing. And you cannot give them all ice time. So they sit on the bench when you really actually need someone else who has something different to offer. But paying them means you cannot go out and pay the guy you need.

Paying Schlemko the league min will certainly not put us in that position.

There you go. Schlemko would be just another guy who does exactly what others in the organization would do. Redundant and unnecessary.

EDIT: If I'm JB, I'd take that $650K and sign a guy like Mark Fraser. Big, tough, mobile, and with some NHL experience. Canucks don't have a single d-man with these attributes as a 7th/8th guy on the depth chart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- The Canucks have about 1.2M in cap space.

- They have 7 NHL defenseman.

- In May, Benning said he wanted 8 defenseman because he learned a lesson about the wear and tear on defense in the Western conference.

...

And then after the Sutter deal he said he was happy going with 14 forwards and 7 defenceman. I don't think he's looking to sign anyone else at this point. Maybe a trade if something comes along or a waiver pickup, but I doubt he looks at any more free agents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is August 23, and he's not signed yet....

Haha..well..one can hope.

Good call Garth!

Course I would so much rather have had the money to spend on a more premium guy...

In the role as you described, and noting Benning himself has suggested its best to be as deep as 11 guys on D > Its a good signing IMO?

I'd rather see a top-4 guy come in, and I hope Benning has something up his sleeve.

I agree signing another NHL tested defenseman would be a smart move. It would not be unusual to have one of our guys sustain an injury who was pencilled into the top 6 and have another under-perform in the pre-season. Even a Pro-try-out deal would make some sense.

Agreed. Even sending him down to Utica through waivers would be better than nothing, the Canucks need more depth (and quality, too) on defense.

There you go. Schlemko would be just another guy who does exactly what others in the organization would do. Redundant and unnecessary.

EDIT: If I'm JB, I'd take that $650K and sign a guy like Mark Fraser. Big, tough, mobile, and with some NHL experience. Canucks don't have a single d-man with these attributes as a 7th/8th guy on the depth chart.

I think Mark Fraser would be a good choice too.

I like Schlemko as a depth option, but Benning had a chance to claim him on waivers last season and passed. Doubt he'd be interested in signing him.

Fair observation. Maybe at half the cap it's more tempting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...