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

[DeNiro]

6 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

And Benning got it so cheap, no other GM did because they offered even less. Benning got the deal done with the lowest Vegas was willing to make it happen for us. End of story.

That’s the problem with some people in this fan base. Even when the GM makes a great trade and upgrades our roster fans still look for something to complain about.

 

They act like they would have gotten Schmidt for a 5th and got Vegas to retain. In reality they would have given up a first and lost their lunch money.

 

Vegas likely had many options to trade Schmidt and their preference probably wasn’t within the division. I think this was likely a favour to Schmidt who was well liked to go to the team he wanted. That may have even meant taking a lesser deal. Thinking that Benning was the only one offering up that value is just idiotic.

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by DeNiro

[theo5789]

Just now, Arrow 1983 said:

No Vegas had to do a trade 

they where offer the cap  more then 10%

That forced them to make a trade 

All I am saying is a great trade would have been some cap retention

 

this is a Really good trade 

They still need to move cap after moving Schmidt. Asking to retain cap would've ended the trade talks. What your expectations of a great trade is something that would've been impossible to accomplish. An unrealistic expectation.

 

You can admit that the Miller trade was a "great" trade. This literally is the exact same thing. The lower price was due to covid for sure, but it's the same scenario where a team needed to move cap, so arguably this deal is potentially even better than the Miller one. So you're being hypocritical here.

[Dazzle]

Just now, Sweathog said:

No, apparently Vegas would have had to retain salary on Schmidt in order for it to be a perfect trade.....

Now you're getting a hang of it! Arrow 1983 is hosting a free lecture on how to be a good GM on zoom. Never get ripped off on your trades again!

 

Here is a preview:

 

If you're offered a player - don't give them a draft pick. Throw them a player you don't want! Because if a team is trading the player, it's junk!

[Darius]

10 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

It’s actually been quite comical seeing people try and come up with stuff to hate on this trade and just look desperate.

The use of semantics here is amusing 
 

Now here is the question.  If JB managed to get Pietrangelo instead of Schmidt ( after convincing mcrimmmon he made a big mistake) ..... and .... three million of his salary  retained for the same third rounder would it be

 

a) great

b) really good

c) perfect 

 

 

[knucklehead91]

1 minute ago, Dazzle said:

I don't ignore them because I am entertained by the stupidity. He's splitting hairs about what is a "really good trade" and a "great" trade. Because we apparently didn't make them eat cap for our pristine 3rd round pick, it's not a great trade. LOL.

Lmao he clearly doesnt pay attention to the fact Vegas literally cant afford to retain cap. 
“hey benning, we are 7 mil over the cap. Hows about we give you that Schmidt guy for peanuts, and we’ll retain 1.5mil to fix our cap situation as well. That should make a great trade for the both of us, wouldnt ya say?”

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Darius said:

The use of semantics here is amusing 
 

Now here is the question.  If JB managed to get Pietrangelo instead of Schmidt ( after convincing mcrimmmon he made a big mistake) ..... and .... three million of his salary  retained for the same third rounder would it be

 

a) great

b) really good

c) perfect 

 

 

Trick question.

The answer is he should be fired because he didn’t make the perfect trade.

[canuck73_3]

6 minutes ago, Dazzle said:

I don't ignore them because I am entertained by the stupidity. He's splitting hairs about what is a "really good trade" and a "great" trade. Because we apparently didn't make them eat cap for our pristine 3rd round pick, it's not a great trade. LOL.

Eat cap they didn't have, hence why they traded Schmidt. The daftness is unreal. 

[theo5789]

3 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That’s the problem with some people in this fan base. Even when the GM makes a great trade and upgrades our roster fans still look for something to complain about.

 

They act like they would have gotten Schmidt for a 5th and got Vegas to retain. In reality they would have given up a first and lost their lunch money.

 

Vegas likely had many options to trade Schmidt and their preference probably wasn’t within the division. I think this was likely a favour to Schmidt who was well liked to go to the team he wanted. That may have even meant taking a lesser deal. Thinking that Benning was the only one offering up that value is just idiotic.

 

I personally call it the microscope crew. They refuse to look at the bigger picture and focus on what they want to nitpick only.

 

Grand scheme of things is that our team is getting better. Has everything been perfect? No, but that doesn't mean we are going in the wrong direction. Hell even Schmidt said himself in his interview that he likes seeing where this team is headed and was one of the reasons why he wanted to come here. He's not saying, "well Eriksson is over paid, so can't trust this management".

 

I mean it would've been great had we got 50% retention plus a 1st in return and all we have to give up is a 7th. That would've been a perfect trade surely.

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, Sweathog said:

No, apparently Vegas would have had to retain salary on Schmidt in order for it to be a perfect trade.....

Which completely ignores what Vegas was trying to accomplish.

 

Heres how it would have went:

 

Jim: Hey Kelly so we like Schmidt and all but we think because you’re desperate you should retain some salary and we’ll give you a 3rd to do it 

Kelly: I’ll get back to you on that one

 

Jim: Hey Kelly, Jim again. So do we have a deal?

 

Kelly: Oh I thought that was a joke. I traded him to Calgary for their 3rd

 

[Rush17]

10 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

That’s the problem with some people in this fan base. Even when the GM makes a great trade and upgrades our roster fans still look for something to complain about.

 

They act like they would have gotten Schmidt for a 5th and got Vegas to retain. In reality they would have given up a first and lost their lunch money.

 

Vegas likely had many options to trade Schmidt and their preference probably wasn’t within the division. I think this was likely a favour to Schmidt who was well liked to go to the team he wanted. That may have even meant taking a lesser deal. Thinking that Benning was the only one offering up that value is just idiotic.

 

Brian Burke calls it the lunatic fringe 

 

He talked about it on Vancouver radio again just the other day Lol

 

https://www.sportsnet.ca/650/sportsnets-starting-lineup/brian-burke-bennings-everything-logically-sensibly/

 

He supports Jim's decisions before he even made them if you give it a listen.

[NorthWestNuck]

The interesting part is that people are saying that the Canucks had the knights over a barrel so they should have gotten more, when the truth is that it was reported that the deal was already in place prior to Pietrangelo signing. The knights were under the cap at the time, it was our handshake deal that gave them the confidence to sign Pietrangelo, knowing that they WOULD get the cap space. If we tried to put the irons to Vegas for more, they just turn around and not sign Pietrangelo.

Edited October 14, 2020 by NorthWestNuck

[UKNuck96]

28 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I personally call it the microscope crew. They refuse to look at the bigger picture and focus on what they want to nitpick only.

 

Grand scheme of things is that our team is getting better. Has everything been perfect? No, but that doesn't mean we are going in the wrong direction. Hell even Schmidt said himself in his interview that he likes seeing where this team is headed and was one of the reasons why he wanted to come here. He's not saying, "well Eriksson is over paid, so can't trust this management".

 

I mean it would've been great had we got 50% retention plus a 1st in return and all we have to give up is a 7th. That would've been a perfect trade surely.

But that 7th could have been a future hall of fame player. It should have been 50% retained two 1sts for future considerations from us 

[PistolPete13]

41 minutes ago, Arrow 1983 said:

I didn't say that.

 

I like the Trade

 

But people cant call it a great trade come on there where reasons this happen that Benning got it so cheap 

This reminds me of your fervent claim last year that the Maple Leafs were onto something when they were trading for players that were injured. Just so they could be put on LTIR. This was the “ Perfect Model” that other teams should be following to manage their salary cap issues.

 

That was great, but the trade for Schmidt, is merely good. 

 

I think that you are just arguing here because you like arguing.  Have at it.

 

 

[Drakrami]

8 minutes ago, NorthWestNuck said:

The interesting part is that people are saying that the Canucks had the knights over a barrel so they should have gotten more, when the truth is that it was reported that the deal was already in place prior to Pietrangelo signing. The knights were under the cap at the time, it was our handshake deal that gave them the confidence to sign Pietrangelo, knowing that they WOULD get the cap space. If we tried to put the irons to Vegas for more, they just turn around and not sign Pietrangelo.

Just ignore these people. Wasting time and picking at bones. We got the #1 defenseman from Vegas for a 3rd round pick. We got what we needed. Now it's time to sign our RFAs, get some depth on our bottom pair defense and we should be repeating what we accomplished last season and more. We probably need to make another trade as we only have 2 million of cap left. Interesting how Benning will handle it. 

[Alienhuggyflow]

5 hours ago, Devron44 said:

It was a recreational drug so it’s not like he was cheating the game. I’m sure there’s quite a few that have dabbled in it just like any other kid in their 20’s.
In Schmidt case tough to say maybe it was a one time thing and he really didn’t want to have that painted on him. I’m not 100% certain on the circumstances but I believe he denied it? It’s easy to point the finger and call someone out when one gets caught. Especially when others who may have done it more regularly not get caught. That’s a tough situation in any case. I feel for guys cause it can be easy to get caught upin Some try things and move on and others it becomes a problem.

He testes positive for a ped but it was a microscopic amount that was probably introduced without his knowledge. Vegas backed him 100% and agree it was something as harmless as him eating a steak with illegal steroids in it.

[filthycanuck]

3 hours ago, theo5789 said:

They still need to move cap after moving Schmidt. Asking to retain cap would've ended the trade talks. What your expectations of a great trade is something that would've been impossible to accomplish. An unrealistic expectation.

 

You can admit that the Miller trade was a "great" trade. This literally is the exact same thing. The lower price was due to covid for sure, but it's the same scenario where a team needed to move cap, so arguably this deal is potentially even better than the Miller one. So you're being hypocritical here.

I wouldn't say its the same thing. TB was in a massive cap crunch and contrary to what much of the fan base says, Miller was not sought out during when the trade was announced. Miller was a 3rd - 4th liner in TB that was healthy scratched for a number of games, I really doubt people were knocking on TB's door asking for Miller offering up a high end asset. The trade worked out, and trust me, if TB knew Miller was going to end up being an 80pt player, they wouldve kept him or asked for WAY more. Just so happens that JT landed in a perfect position and I don't think any of us knew he would be this good. Its like us trying to get rid of Sutter and someone calls Jim offering us a 1st round pick for Brandon Sutter, would you take it?

 

Pietrangelo on the other hand is probably in the upper echelon of this UFA draft class, whereever he's gonna go, hes going to make an impact. Vegas didn't need to go get Pietrangelo but they identified him as an upgrade and needed to get somebody out.

[filthycanuck]

3 hours ago, Drakrami said:

Just ignore these people. Wasting time and picking at bones. We got the #1 defenseman from Vegas for a 3rd round pick. We got what we needed. Now it's time to sign our RFAs, get some depth on our bottom pair defense and we should be repeating what we accomplished last season and more. We probably need to make another trade as we only have 2 million of cap left. Interesting how Benning will handle it. 

anytime you can get trade a 3rd round pick for a Dman thats top 4 and probably ends up being your 2nd best dman, thats a major win. You need a guy like Nate to anchor the 2nd pairing, and I think there might be some scoring upside. I think Jim is really pushing for one of Chatfield, Brisbois, Juolevi , Rafferty to push for the 6th dman spot and eventually segway into the top 4 next season

[surtur]

4 hours ago, BPA said:

So you'd rather JB play hardball with Vegas like the other GMs and get a draft pick or salary retention?

I am sure the not retaining salary was the kicker to make it happen, Vegas probably felt that if they retained salary they would have to find a buyer for another one of their guys to make room for AP. 

 

I think they also had this trade figured out prior to the signing of AP, I don't believe this was a panic move on their part. Possibly it was and that's why the price was low, or the price was so low because they had a prior arrangement incase they did land their guy and didn't have to worry when it happened.

 

 

 

[Lionized27]

4 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

true 

 if we got him with salary retention that would have been a great trade this was A really good one

 

I am happy with a really good one but people can not say this is a great trade do to circumstances 

 

 

 

[vannuck59]

5 hours ago, Arrow 1983 said:

No Vegas had to do a trade 

they where offer the cap  more then 10%

That forced them to make a trade 

All I am saying is a great trade would have been some cap retention

 

this is a Really good trade 

Semantics you wouldn't know a great trade from a good trade LOL