Stecher's Role when Tanev returns

[Lancaster]

2 hours ago, alfstonker said:

 

Except Sbisa had a very good game against Stars.

 

He may be good... but only as a bottom pairing.  He's never gonna be a top-4, at least not on a long-term basis.  While he's still young, he's been in the NHL for 7+ years now... so chances are he's as good as he's ever gonna be.  

 

Very serviceable, but easily replaceable IMO.  

[wallstreetamigo]

4 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

Pretty much the way I see it as well.

 

The first lineup probably uses our best players right now and likely puts them in their best position to succeed (although I might consider swapping Gudbranson and Tanev if Hutton-Gudbranson continue to struggle).

 

But Sbisa needs 13 more games to fulfill our minimum D requirements for expansion. So probably makes sense to keep playing him while he's healthy.

 

And if Sbisa stays in the lineup, then only one of Stecher and Tryamkin can play. Stecher can still develop and stay fresh in Utica. Tryamkin can't do that in the press box. So Tryamkin gets the spot.

 

Once Sbisa hits 70 games (over the last two seasons), I'd sit him down when we're healthy and bring Stecher up for the remainder of the season. And send Biega down.

 

I would much rather see Stecher getting huge minutes in Utica and Tryamkin in our lineup if it is, as it seems, impossible to have both in a healthy lineup due to Sbisa needing games or any other reason. Both need to play and I think both should be in our lineup.

 

Having said that if there is one thing we can count on like death and taxes it is that we will have an injury to one or more of those top 6 defense soon enough as we are never fully healthy for long.

 

Avoiding losing an asset to a waiver claim would actually be the most prudent move in the meantime although it is tough to justify demoting Stecher based on his play and the fact that we apparently want to ice the best lineup to get the win. But I can understand the protectionist type justification for it. Even losing one asset on waivers is tough for the Canucks at this point.

[The Big Luongo]

16 hours ago, Fanuck said:

When Tanev returns we trade Edler to Mtl for McCarron and keep Stecher in the lineup. 

Trading Edler would be the best move. Although he's not as valuable as Tanev we'd be complete idiots to trade a great defenseman like Tanev he's our best!

 

I honestly think if we traded Edler, Miller and our 1st rounder for a younger scoring forward and a back up goalie there's absolutely no way we'd finish out of the playoffs with that lineup and  especially with the wall Markstrom in net so the 1st round pick isn't anywhere as good as people think it would be.

 

Those are the best moves for the future I have no doubt that's a team that would make the playoffs and put a real scare in any opponent.

[CanucksFanSince98]

16 hours ago, Lancaster said:

Stecher with Edler. 

Who knows how long Stecher can keep up this level of play, or maybe if he's the real deal.  Currently, he's filling the hole that Ehrhoff left... something Tanev can't do.

 

Tanev can stabilize any defensive pairing.... so maybe have him with Tryamkin?

You took the words right out of my mouth lol

[coastal.view]

4 hours ago, SergioMomesso said:

How about dangle Tanev for a blue chip prospect or first rounder. Maybe see if Colorado is up for a Tanev plus 2017 2nd for Jost? Or see what Hutton is worth on the market? 

how about we accept we are in a rebuild

for all those on here who want the nucks to rebuild or tank or more.. patience

the d looks reasonably good.. tanev is part of the reason

do not strip it down, it takes longer to rebuild

let's do a trade not involving anyone from our top 4 on d

offense can be more easily fixed in the draft

and it develops faster..

if we are rebuilding or pseudo tanking.. the team will have weaknesses

or it would not need to do more than tweak the roster

progress is being made.. all the holes cannot be plugged in a year or 2

 

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, Hutton Wink said:

One problem with moving Tanev or Edler now is expansion.  It means we'd end up protecting Sbisa as our 3rd D (after the other and Gudbranson) and exposing another forward of likely better value.

We could still leave Sbisa exposed and protect Edler/Tanev, Gudbranson, plus any one of Larsen, Biega, or Pedan (technically even Billins, McEneny, or Nilsson) as the third D. 

 

As for "exposing another forward of likely better value," do you mean whoever we acquired in trade?

 

Otherwise, our forward protection list would be unchanged.

 

It's true that acquiring a veteran forward of quality (who we'd want to protect) would necessitate leaving another forward (Baertschi, Granlund, Hansen, etc) exposed. But maybe we can avoid that risk by demanding a young, high end player who's expansion exempt, or futures like picks and prospects.

[wren223]

Send him back down. Let him play big minutes in a big role. Grow and develop and gain endurance for a grueling season. He'll be called up at some point anyways.

 

Keep Sbisa and Larsen playing, getting minutes, eating time and going on audition. Sbisa needs more games to be expansion elligable. Also, advertise him and Larsen for a trade because maybe they're someone we move at the deadline and bring in some draft picks. No one will trade for them if they aren't playing or getting points. Stecher is a keeper and the future of this team, so play these other guys and maybe, just maybe we turn them into some good draft picks and move them out and make room for Stetcher next year. A stronger, better, more refined Stecher.

[CanuckinEdm]

I think Stecher allows us to trade a dman to get a forward.

 

[Gaudette Celly]

1 hour ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

We could still leave Sbisa exposed and protect Edler/Tanev, Gudbranson, plus any one of Larsen, Biega, or Pedan (technically even Billins, McEneny, or Nilsson) as the third D. 

 

As for "exposing another forward of likely better value," do you mean whoever we acquired in trade?

 

Otherwise, our forward protection list would be unchanged.

 

It's true that acquiring a veteran forward of quality (who we'd want to protect) would necessitate leaving another forward (Baertschi, Granlund, Hansen, etc) exposed. But maybe we can avoid that risk by demanding a young, high end player who's expansion exempt, or futures like picks and prospects.

 

Yes, it's reasonable to figure that the return for Tanev would be a forward we would protect, which means another drops off the bottom of the list.  The debate then would be the value of losing a Sbisa versus a Granlund/Hansen/Baertschi.  Seems a waste to protect a lesser player than Sbisa somehow, no?  And unless it's a high first, would you really want to see us move a Tanev/Edler for nothing more than picks and lesser prospects?

 

Getting an exempt player would of course be ideal, especially if it's a quality forward with upside, but that means the other team is now using up a new spot and exposing another of their players.  Will be interesting how the GMs all wrangle around this season, and have to figure that the expansion draft will be pretty much known before it happens, with many talks and deals having taken place beforehand.

[spur1]

My bad . I thought this was about Stecher

[Rush17]

Henrik "no shot" Sedin.  his new nickname.  why does he refuse too shoot.

 

if I was his coach I'd be making him take shots in practice!

[5Fivehole0]

5 hours ago, The Big Luongo said:

Trading Edler would be the best move. Although he's not as valuable as Tanev we'd be complete idiots to trade a great defenseman like Tanev he's our best!

 

I honestly think if we traded Edler, Miller and our 1st rounder for a younger scoring forward and a back up goalie there's absolutely no way we'd finish out of the playoffs with that lineup and  especially with the wall Markstrom in net so the 1st round pick isn't anywhere as good as people think it would be.

 

Those are the best moves for the future I have no doubt that's a team that would make the playoffs and put a real scare in any opponent.

 

Uhh Edler Miller 1St better be netting us something Vesey calibre or better..

 

I'm talking 21~year old 25+ Goal scorer 60 point getter

[CanuckinEdm]

7 hours ago, The Big Luongo said:

Trading Edler would be the best move. Although he's not as valuable as Tanev we'd be complete idiots to trade a great defenseman like Tanev he's our best!

 

I honestly think if we traded Edler, Miller and our 1st rounder for a younger scoring forward and a back up goalie there's absolutely no way we'd finish out of the playoffs with that lineup and  especially with the wall Markstrom in net so the 1st round pick isn't anywhere as good as people think it would be.

 

Those are the best moves for the future I have no doubt that's a team that would make the playoffs and put a real scare in any opponent.

There is a 0% chance we trade our 1st this year.