[Trade] Golden Knights trade Nate Schmidt to Canucks for 2022 3rd-round pick

[189lb enforcers?]

Just now, Chicken. said:

My favorite quote from his zoom interview was something like -  " don't tell anyone guys, but they pay me to have fun everyday" 

 

Great attitude on this guy so far, real genuine, real good.

 

More of this, less of the Edler interviews, please. 

[Bissurnette]

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Agreed, yes, just not in the next few months. 

 

Rathbone wasn’t part of that group I was referring to, neither was Woo actually.
 

I have them both another year out, but welcome surprises like the one QH gave us. 
 

What are your thoughts on Rathbone earring a spot out of camp? 

What kind of shot does he have at making the Canucks out of camp? 

Anyone else’s thoughts on this are welcome too. 

I think Rathbone would benefit from a year playing professional hockey overseas, to address the defensive side of the game, but he's not far. I think if he was in the AHL he could have very well have been a call up option this year. Not sure what they'll be doing in terms of call ups for the season. But to me, you wouldn't be doing him wrong by allowing him to get a year of professional hockey under his belt before he can make the jump. I'd fully expect him to be on the roster in the 2021-2022 season, or at least first call up.

[oldnews]

3 hours ago, Gaudette Celly said:

Buyers remorse showing already.  Must sting to know they helped make it happen.

 

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-Cordell/Calgary-Flames-miss-the-boat-on-Nate-Schmidt-trade/202/107893

Garbage take.

 

"A defense-only defenseman whose game is declining at a pretty rapid pace."

 

What utter garbage.  Ignorance.   One worthless, "for perspective", hero-chart quality metric to base that on.

Doesn't  have a clue - doesn't realize what they actually got. 

 

Flames fans will appreciate Tanev when they see him in that mix.

Edited October 14, 2020 by oldnews

[zapperman]

36 minutes ago, Robert Long said:

I hope Linden look on it with some pride, he's got his hands all over this thing, the good and temporary bad. 

 

We'll see where AG ends up... I wouldn't be surprised if he's part of an upcoming deal. Its Tryamkin that Nate has to worry about. 

The talk on jersey numbers for Gaudette,   Schmidt and Tryamkin bothers me a little. As far as I know, AG has rights to it but it is part of the unwritten code that I think he will defer to Schmidt. Up to him though. For Tryamkin - sorry, but he bailed on the team and forfeited any rights to that number. As much as I want him to come back, I would lose all respect for him if he requested the number. I hope he just takes what he gets. 

[kanucks25]

1 minute ago, oldnews said:

Garbage take.

Didn't even have to read the "article".

 

You know what you're gonna get when you see what website that's from.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, Tower102 said:

Not saying its an anchor contract or anything. More: bottom 4  dman (he is 2nd pair now but will drop to 3rd pair in this contract) for 6m when they will likely have many options for 4th dmen who are cheaper based on how the draft is structured. 

 

I think they could select cheaper options and then weaponize the cap to take some Staal type contracts (1 year) and load up on picks. 

Thanks Kreskin. So like how Edler is a bottom pair D?

[5Fivehole0]

3 minutes ago, oldnews said:

Garbage take.

 

"A defense-only defenseman whose game is declining at a pretty rapid pace."

 

What utter garbage.  Ignorance.   One worthless, "for perspective", hero-chart quality bullcrap metric to base that one.

Does't  have a clue - doesn't realize what they actually got. 

 

Flames fans will appreciate Tanev when they see him in that mix.

Agreed. The idea that Tanev is not a quality guy who can play on your top pairing is ridiculous. That being said, I do think 6 years is too long, and I understand why Benning let him walk

[Chicken.]

5 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Agreed. The idea that Tanev is not a quality guy who can play on your top pairing is ridiculous. That being said, I do think 6 years is too long, and I understand why Benning let him walk

Tanev was only 4 years x 4.5M I think 

 

Although I think the wear and tear I have seen him absorb over the years might catch up to him eventually, I am sure he will be a quality asset for the Lames 

[theo5789]

55 minutes ago, Gaudette Celly said:

Buyers remorse showing already.  Must sting to know they helped make it happen.

 

https://www.hockeybuzz.com/blog/Todd-Cordell/Calgary-Flames-miss-the-boat-on-Nate-Schmidt-trade/202/107893

They don't deserve Tanev. Although to be fair, a lot of the fanbase here didn't deserve Tanev either.

[Bissurnette]

27 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

I’d rather see him with Meyers, actually. 
 

That could work too. I'm just really excited to see him play, this is a pretty nice and capable piece we got for a pretty cheap price.

 

I know some people have issues with his contract, but to me you can't realistically expect a better contract for a puck moving matchup guy playing on the top pairing of a cup contender. It is worth noting that he signed the contract in Vegas last year and took a hometown discount in order to keep the team competitive. If you watch his media availability today, at 2 different points he mentioned that the talks he had with McPhee during the contract negotiations made the trade seem like a shock.

 

It is doubly worth noting that 2 Vegas media members were in on the zoom call during this morning, and both sounded heartbroken when they were talking to him. One of them went as far to say that Schmidt was the "heartbeat of the team and the city". 17:10 & 18:55 in media availability video. I'll try to find it and link it here.

 

EDIT - trying to embed the media availability tweet off Canucks main twitter account:

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1vAGRrkNAozGl?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1316101197107929089|twgr^share_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fforum.canucks.com%2Findex.php%3Fapp%3Dcoremodule%3Dsystemcontroller%3Dembedurl%3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FCanucks%2Fstatus%2F1316101197107929089%3Fs%3D19

Edited October 13, 2020 by Vanuckles

[oldnews]

2 minutes ago, 5Fivehole0 said:

Agreed. The idea that Tanev is not a quality guy who can play on your top pairing is ridiculous. That being said, I do think 6 years is too long, and I understand why Benning let him walk

It's 4 years...  I personally would have been willing to match that deal....

But like I said before the Schmidt deal - I'm not on the phones, I have no idea what's 'really' possible in this market and there was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Benning et al were turning every stone trying to find a two way fit = and it was tracking as an extreme buyer's market - so I was 'ok' with not being aggressive enough where Tanev was concerned, but I wasn't necessarily expecting them to go 'this big'.  I guess no one knows until they know - perhaps even Benning et al did not 'expect' another opportunity like this...

 

Whatever the case - it's a hard move to argue with - as is Calgary's decision to add Tanev and 'let' Brodie walk.  

 

For a guy that is 'defense only' - Tanev outproduced Brodie last season - and Brodie played primarily with a pretty decent partner named Giordano.  Calgary has Giordano, Anderson, Hanifin - D with upside (perhaps more than Brodie at this point) - so I can understand their move to bring in a high end modern shutdown guy like Tanev.  I doubt they will be disappointed - he will make a good complement to any of those guys imo.

[Tower102]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Thanks Kreskin. So like how Edler is a bottom pair D?

I don't even know what we are debating about now. Its all conjecture that relies on too many unknowns of what every teams roster will look like and who is exposed, so  more or less pointless. Seemed like we more or less agreed from the beginning other than you thinking it a bit more likely they would take Myers than I believe, but neither of us thinking they absolutely would or absolutely wouldn't. 

 

I think Edler is a 2nd pairing dman, but was better in his prime than Myers was so I expect Myers to regress a bit more. 

[Maddogy]

1 minute ago, theo5789 said:

They don't deserve Tanev. Although to be fair, a lot of the fanbase here didn't deserve Tanev either.

The article is ridiculous. Over the years, several players have been reported to have vetoed trades to Calgary. For Nate Schmidt in particular, he mentioned in his interview today how he loves Vancouver the most (besides Las Vegas) and one of his best friend is Holtby. Even if Calgary had the cap space there was a likelihood that Nate would have vetoed a trade to Calgary. Nate mentioned that he was in a sense misled by George McPhee because he was personally assured that he would not be traded to make space for A.P. 

 

I do agree that the contract for Tanev would prove to be a mistake. I am glad Vancouver did not make that mistake. 

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, Maddogy said:

The article is ridiculous. Over the years, several players have been reported to have vetoed trades to Calgary. For Nate Schmidt in particular, he mentioned in his interview today how he loves Vancouver the most (besides Las Vegas) and one of his best friend is Holtby. Even if Calgary had the cap space there was a likelihood that Nate would have vetoed a trade to Calgary. Nate mentioned that he was in a sense misled by George McPhee because he was personally assured that he would not be traded to make space for A.P. 

 

I do agree that the contract for Tanev would prove to be a mistake. I am glad Vancouver did not make that mistake. 

I think that McPhee likely gave Schmidt the choice in where to go out of respect to him even if another team may have offered more.

 

I dont think he had to veto anything.

[rekker]

Being the die hard fan I am this trade was on the back of my mind all day. Is JB this brillant, or this lucky? Probably a bit of both. One can argue who is better Tanev or Schmidt. I'm of the camp that Schmidt is the better all round dman. That said, if you'd of told me two weeks ago that Tanev will walk and the upgrade on him will cost us a 2022 third I would of laughed at you. With this trade coming out of thin air it may end up being one where we look back and say, there, that was a game changer. Very impressed. 

[rekker]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

I think that McPhee likely gave Schmidt the choice in where to go out of respect to him even if another team may have offered more.

 

I dont think he had to veto anything.

Good point and may explain the low cost. Ala Leivo to the Canucks a few years back.

[DeNiro]

Just now, rekker said:

Being the die hard fan I am this trade was on the back of my mind all day. Is JB this brillant, or this lucky? Probably a bit of both. One can argue who is better Tanev or Schmidt. I'm of the camp that Schmidt is the better all round dman. That said, if you'd of told me two weeks ago that Tanev will walk and the upgrade on him will cost us a 2022 third I would of laughed at you. With this trade coming out of thin air it may end up being one where we look back and say, there, that was a game changer. Very impressed. 

I think Benning just works really hard.

He leaves no stone unturned when looking for players to upgrade his roster and has a very clear idea of which players may be available, and who he’d be willing to target.

 

I don’t doubt he was in on this deal very early as soon as he heard Schmidt was available. He was also quick to act where others may have wanted to squeeze the Knights a bit more.

 

It was the same thing with the Miller trade. He identified a player he liked, saw Tampa’s situation, and jumped in with a price he knew would get him his player while other teams were caught napping.

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, Tower102 said:

I don't even know what we are debating about now. Its all conjecture that relies on too many unknowns of what every teams roster will look like and who is exposed, so  more or less pointless. Seemed like we more or less agreed from the beginning other than you thinking it a bit more likely they would take Myers than I believe, but neither of us thinking they absolutely would or absolutely wouldn't. 

 

I think Edler is a 2nd pairing dman, but was better in his prime than Myers was so I expect Myers to regress a bit more. 

The sentiment that Myers is 'overpaid'.

 

The fortune telling that you evidently know what level his play will be at when his contract is expiring.

 

That he wouldn't arguably be our best exposed asset should we choose to expose him. Which BTW, I'd be happy to, assuming we can upgrade on him for cheap and/or laterally get younger/lower cap/RFA control (or as a means to fit say Tryamkin and/or Woo in and improve elsewhere). That doesn't mean he wouldn't still be a solid, top 4 D worth his contract. It just means we'd have options.

[rekker]

7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

I think Benning just works really hard.

He leaves no stone unturned when looking for players to upgrade his roster and has a very clear idea of which players may be available, and who he’d be willing to target.

 

I don’t doubt he was in on this deal very early as soon as he heard Schmidt was available. He was also quick to act where others may have wanted to squeeze the Knights a bit more.

 

It was the same thing with the Miller trade. He identified a player he liked, saw Tampa’s situation, and jumped in with a price he knew would get him his player while other teams were caught napping.

Agreed. JB strikes me as the type that loves and lives for his job. 

[Tower102]

3 minutes ago, aGENT said:

The sentiment that Myers is 'overpaid'.

 

The fortune telling that you evidently know what level his play will be at when his contract is expiring.

 

That he wouldn't arguably be our best exposed asset should we choose to expose him. Which BTW, I'd be happy to, assuming we can upgrade on him for cheap and/or laterally get younger/lower cap/RFA control (or as a means to fit say Tryamkin and/or Woo in and improve elsewhere). That doesn't mean he wouldn't still be a solid, top 4 D worth his contract. It just means we'd have options.

I will reiterate what I said in the past because you clearly did not actually read what my words were but guessed at them.

 

1. I even clarified that I didn't believe he was overpaid. I just said that a higher contract like that is one they might avoid so they could weaponize the cap or go with a cheaper option. The fact you would be willing to let him go for the sake of a cheaper option shows that it is a logical deduction for what Seattle may be thinking themselves. 

 

2. We all play some fortune telling when dealing with these conversations do we not? I never said he would for sure regress to bottom pairing, but he is someone that Seattle would be concerned about possibly regressing to that by the time he is 33. There may be safer targets for them.

 

3. Also never said he wouldn't be our best asset exposed. He likely would be. But for the same reason the Canucks may choose to expose him over a Rafferty, Chatfield, or Brisebois, the Kraken may prefer to pick a guy like that off our roster instead of Myers. 

 

Everyteam that goes with the 7-3 model will be exposing their 4th best defenseman asset, their will likely be many with Myers talent that are cheaper than 6 million. A guy like Holtby would be a great pick up for them depending on what other goalies are exposed. A guy like Motte would be a decent pick up for them for what he brings to a team. If I was Seattle, I would probably take a Motte type guy and then trade for overpaid guys with 1 or 2 years left and pick up some 1st and 2nd rounders and have loaded drafts for the first 2 years. Cap space has never been so valuable, and Seattle has all of it right now at their disposal. I think that more than makes up the asset value difference in taking a Motte over a Myers. 

 

With that said, as I have said a few times, I don't want to play too much of a fortune teller and guess what every team will be exposing so we can't really debate whether Seattle will take an exposed Myers without knowing what other options they have at every position.