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

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, kanucks25 said:

There's no gripe for me; if you read my posts in this thread you'll see that I'm ecstatic about this trade.

 

Just that I don't think everything done/not done this off-season was all a part of the plan to bring Schmidt in for a 3rd.

 

Benning gets all the credit from me for having a plan but not panicking to chase it, and then working out a different plan once the original(s) didn't work.

 

I didn't mean you necessarily, I just saw that brought up & its something I keep hearing. Sorry I didn't mean to paint you into an argument. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

cute puppy.

 

do you have any points of reason kos?  your previous attempts are pretty much rekt wadr.

I stated Canucks as an organization historically have not done well drafting elite D men.

Excluding Hughes of course.

 

You tapped out because you know its true. 

 

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he’s a left handed right side D. He Comfortable  on the right side But he isn’t the righty so many on here were obsessed with. 
All of a sudden those obsessed with getting a “righty” are ecstatic we landEd another lhd. Huh. 

hes a good dman and we got him cheap because they Had upgraded and had to shed cap. 
We barely had the cap to take him and it’s a deal that fell in our lap from the reports I read itS more because the Florida deal fell apart. Hence why we were tied to weegar. 

glad we got him and not Perto or OEL.
 Not sure our d is improved because of him if you factor in we lost stecher and Tanev but we needed change on the back end and we got that. 


 

Lol Canuck 73-3 

The confused super troll. 

Edited by Tracksuit
  • Haha 1
  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I love Bieksa in the room and his leadership... but his playing skills were pretty mediocre at best.....

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you a case in point that quantity (of posts) doesn't necessarily translate into quality...

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I stated Canucks as an organization historically have not done well drafting elite D men.

Excluding Hughes of course.

 

You tapped out because you know its true. 

 

Your mopey intial fail - a reference to needing to go to UFA to overpay for top 4 D - was a whiff, period.

 

Schmidt was not a UFA nor was he signed as one.

 

You're both off point and off topic....basically  = off.    Take a time out, a deep breath, and try to get your bearings straight.

 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RomanP said:

Ladies and gentlemen, may I present to you a case in point that quantity (of posts) doesn't necessarily translate into quality...

Yah Bieksa was a top 2 dman right ?  All star games right ?  Maybe even a hall of famer..... right ?

 

Crack me up.... 

 

Bieksa did super well for a 5th round draft choice. He had amazing leadership skills and was a fantastic teamate....  800 games in the show for a 5th round is Fantastic....  Too bad he wasn't a better skater , it would have really helped his game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tracksuit said:

 Not sure our d is improved because of him if you factor in we lost stecher and Tanev but we needed change on the back end and we got that.

It’s a fairly significant upgrade imo but there is still a hole in the bottom pairing you’re right about that. If we added a guy of Stechers calibre then our defence is quite a bit better especially as it seems a couple guys are ready. I think OJ will be an upgrade on Fanta and Benn by the time the seasons done 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, oldnews said:

Your mopey intial fail - a reference to needing to go to UFA to overpay for top 4 D - was a whiff, period.

 

Schmidt was not a UFA nor was he signed as one.

 

You're both off point and off topic....basically  = off.    Take a time out, a deep breath, and try to get your bearings straight.

 

Technically you are correct, he it was more of a salary dump for a third. 

 

I see you gave up discussing Canucks track record of drafting D men.

 

Happy to see you ending a discussion when you admit you lost.  Heh, i love to see that kind of growth in you.  Very encouraging. 

  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, vannuck59 said:

 

You forget Luke Bourdon would have been our best drafted D-Man ever, rest in peace 

You could be right. LB  had that warrior spirit.  I remember watching him in the Jr.s.  He was such a talent and agressive too....

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, appleboy said:

Show me the metric that says a 30 point D man on one of the deepest teams in the league is a top pairing guy. Show me why you think he is a #2.

What if he gets 20 points with the Canucks?

Wow you cant be happy on getting a quality D-man to help us win shame on you!

  • Cheers 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, kingofsurrey said:

Technically you are correct, he it was more of a salary dump for a third. 

 

I see you gave up discussing Canucks track record of drafting D men.

 

Happy to see you ending a discussion when you admit you lost.  Heh, i love to see that kind of growth in you.  Very encouraging. 

technically you are in denial and projecting.

 

 

as for drafting top 4 d-men - I'm still waiting for you to show me how many teams have drafted more than 2 of their top 4 D.

 

I await the answer in spite of it's nevertheless irrelevence to your mischaracterization of this trade..... for the sake of off topic discussion.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Maddogy said:

Thomas Drance on Team 1040 said that this may be a bad deal because instead of giving up a 3rd round pick to Vegas, Vegas should have given Vancouver an asset for cap dump. 

 

7 hours ago, Rush17 said:

He's usually pretty good. He just tried to stretch out the crapping on Benning take. Unfortunate for him the fan base has largely come to accept Jim did amazing.

 

There is zero chance Vegas pays a division rival to game on arguably the second best defenseman. (Pietro being their first lol).

 

If Vegas had to pay he'd end up out east.

 

 

 

He also said the Canucks 'got worse' defensively. After the media, pretty sure including the VanCast, was saying during the Vegas series that the Canucks defense didn't move the puck well enough, namely Tanev/Edler. (And rightly so)

 

So here we make a move to address that, and the take-away is we got worse defensively. Its like we all acknowledge the defense needs to improve & become more mobile, well you can't change/improve it by bringing back the same group of guys who caused you to make that acknowledgement.

 

Its just like JD Burke saying they shouldn't have qualified Virtanen & kept Toffoli (fair take in a vaccum), when I'm sure he would've been complaining about asset management had they let Jake walk.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schmidt reminds me of JT Miller with his humble hard working up bringing. Coaches love guys like this. He is a high character big personality. I see him and Beagle getting along well. I think his infectious positivity will help boost Quinn Hughes confidence to allow him to blossom into the superstar he was meant to be. He is built for playoff hockey. He is extremely dangerous with his first pass so it gives our top D pairing a dangerous look.

 

Hughes Schmidt 

Edler Myers

Benn Rafferty 

 

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, appleboy said:

Show me the metric that says a 30 point D man on one of the deepest teams in the league is a top pairing guy. Show me why you think he is a #2.

What if he gets 20 points with the Canucks?

Just &^@#ing stop already, go join a Lames, Coilers or Laffs fan forum....congrats your entry #blank on the ignore list!

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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