Nate Schmidt | #88 | D

[Junkyard Dog]

2 hours ago, Where's Wellwood said:

He's not on the same level as Petey and Hughes in terms of money but he is in terms of importance and being a key piece

He's a bit of a ways from reaching his potential and I don't expect him to reach it by the end of this season after only having 1 year as an NHL back up. So a bridge deal seems likely, if not then a 1 year extension that ends when Holtby's contract ends. At that point we will have a better feel for Demko.

 

He's also a bigger if than Petey/Hughes who've already proved that they're important pieces. Take away those 3 games in the bubble setting Demko hasn't done much to prove he's as important as Petey/Hughes and that's largely due to how inexperienced he is. Could change though moving forward and that's what the next couple of years will determine. 

 

Overall he probably won't be much on his next deal but we will probably have 7-7.5M in cap taken inbetween Demko/Holtby(2.5-3.5M for Demko) depending on how Demko plays. I am not too worried about it.

[alt kilgore]

On 11/18/2020 at 6:32 PM, The Lock said:

So I'm not going to disagree with the first paragraph, but I will say, because of that first paragraph and because of our situation with the cap, perhaps the fact that he's worth 2.3 x 2 is why we didn't sign him. Save a bit of money. Go with a bargain in the free agency (which there definitely are potential bargains to be had).

 

So when you say those other 5/6 defensemen were not on the Canucks, that's the whole point I was making and it follows suit with what I just said about reaching into the bargain bin. I don't see 5/6 defensemen as a big deal to begin with. Yes, having that extra skill on the bottom will help,. but it's not going to destroy your team if you take a step back in that category. Even internally, Rafferty and others don't have the same stats as Stecher potentially because they didn't receive that chance. We don't know what our prospects are like in the NHL. Is it then a risk worth taking to try our prospects instead of spending the extra cap on Stecher? Given our situation, I'd say yes. In fact, I'd even go one step further and say we have the chance of taking a risk and being better without Stecher compared with playing things safe and having Stecher. It's not an unreasonable idea, nor is it even that risky given it's a bottom pairing we're looking at.

 

I'm obviously not saying that will happen (since it's a risk) but it could and a lot of successful teams take these risks. Just look at Boston and all of the random people that suddenly seem to show up out of nowhere. Would they have shown up suddenly if they weren't given that shot? I'd argue not. The way our fanbase treats "loss" I even question whether we can even handle being a good team that consistently has to let good players go. lol

 

Personally, I'm not for buying out a player until their final season. Even then, I think it's risky when we have the big 3 to sign next year. We don't need more unneccessary cap in the books while trying to sign them. So I'm inclined to say no to buying out Suter, especially when he's still at least a useful player despite his wage.

 

And you're right that no GM is going to be perfect. I hope that Benning learns from this off season. I actually think he needs to; however, to give the benefit of the doubt, this entire year's been insane and perhaps none of this would have happened in a regular year with a cap that was raised slightly.

 

That is another way to look at it, Your first paragraph. Interesting take.

I admit, I am valuing what Stecher brought to the team higher than yourself and others. I do think he is worth 2.3 x 2.  I recall, just a few short months ago, no one was batting an eye in here when Stecher's ask was being thrown around here and in the media as between 3 and 3.5 mill. Because he had improved, and was an effective bottom D that could play up, as he did with Edler.  

BUT, sure I can see that with every penny of the cap precious, they may have thought they needed Sutter still, losing Tofu, Leivo, and not confident in Gaudette going full time on 3rd line C yet.

I admit, he was a player I was emotionally attached with, local kid, who I just enjoyed watching on the team. And I just think there are certain players that come onto a team, no matter their pay grade, or size even, that mean more in all kinds of little ways that doesn't always show on the stat sheet. And those players you have to try and keep, not as your first tier core, but your second tier core. (Even if they are replaceable) c'est la vie.  I'll miss him. 

I remember one time he was explaining how he approaches warm up.  He picks one player on the opposing team, almost randomly, and just stares at them with a pissed off face. Until they notice and get agitated, And then its Game On!.

[aGENT]

@kilgore Almost nobody disliked Stecher.... Still don't see how that's remotely an argument about what happened and continues to completely ignore the context of why he's not back. Nobody is debating you on that point because it's not the point, nor is his play particularly debatable.

Edited November 20, 2020 by aGENT

[BoKnows]

Stetcher was blessed

[DrJockitch]

I do think even at what he cost we couldn't afford him (Stetcher that is).

Rafferty should be able to do everything he did and potentially better though I think the biggest concern is that we are looking like will have three rookie D on the roster if we carry 8 D.

Edited November 20, 2020 by DrJockitch

[Fred65]

I think at long last we may be seeing a long term plan emerge. Vcr will not win the SC next season but have a good chnace in a further 2-3 years and there is a need to develop youngsters so they are ready at that time. This next season, should there be such a thing, is the start of preperations for that moment ie blooding the youth.

[alt kilgore]

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

@kilgore Almost nobody disliked Stecher.... Still don't see how that's remotely an argument about what happened and continues to completely ignore the context of why he's not back. Nobody is debating you on that point because it's not the point, nor is his play particularly debatable.

Sigh. Never said no one else liked him. Just thought they should have found a way to keep him. That his value to the team, in a lot of different ways, was more than worth what he what he wanted.

I'm done talking Stech. 

 

[Kootenay Gold]

9 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I do think even at what he cost we couldn't afford him (Stetcher that is).

Rafferty should be able to do everything he did and potentially better though I think the biggest concern is that we are looking like will have three rookie D on the roster if we carry 8 D.

I don't find that a very big issue unless the Canucks run into a lot of injuries as only 6 are on the playing roster at one time. In some ways it might be beneficial to have that flexibility as TG can match who he puts in on the bottom pairing depending on who they are playing and also how well each rookie is performing.

[-AJ-]

Sorry to intrude on this Stecher thread, but I think with Schmidt, we have a pretty solid top 4 for next year. I'm not super sold on Myers, but I think as a #4, he's adequate. I'll be eager to see if Schmidt sticks with Hughes on the top pairing or if Edler ever gets a shot there. I suppose it will probably depend on Schmidt's play, as I think the #2 spot is his to lose.

[WeneedLumme]

41 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Sorry to intrude on this Stecher thread, but I think with Schmidt, we have a pretty solid top 4 for next year. I'm not super sold on Myers, but I think as a #4, he's adequate. I'll be eager to see if Schmidt sticks with Hughes on the top pairing or if Edler ever gets a shot there. I suppose it will probably depend on Schmidt's play, as I think the #2 spot is his to lose.

I really don't see Hughes and Schmidt paired together except for special circumstances. Way nicer to have one highly skilled Dman on the ice for most of the game rather than 2 for just 20 - 25 minutes. But I imagine Green will try various combinations.

[-AJ-]

1 minute ago, WeneedLumme said:

I really don't see Hughes and Schmidt paired together except for special circumstances. Way nicer to have one highly skilled Dman on the ice for most of the game rather than 2 for just 20 - 25 minutes. But I imagine Green will try various combinations.

Do you expect Hughes to be paired with Edler instead? I would be very surprised to see him paired with Myers since I don't think Myers can handle top pairing minutes and as good as a Schmidt/Edler pairing could be, I'd expect Hughes to get the prime minutes of the top pairing.

 

So in short, I could see a Hughes/Edler, but not really a Hughes/Myers pairing.

[WeneedLumme]

Just now, -AJ- said:

Do you expect Hughes to be paired with Edler instead? I would be very surprised to see him paired with Myers since I don't think Myers can handle top pairing minutes and as good as a Schmidt/Edler pairing could be, I'd expect Hughes to get the prime minutes of the top pairing.

It's certainly possible. I expect Green to try various combinations to see what the chemistry is like. I just don't see putting all your eggs in one basket as being the best choice. If they are split up I could see the top 2 pairings getting similar icetime, with either Huggy or Schmidt on the ice for 45 minutes each game.

[theo5789]

21 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Do you expect Hughes to be paired with Edler instead? I would be very surprised to see him paired with Myers since I don't think Myers can handle top pairing minutes and as good as a Schmidt/Edler pairing could be, I'd expect Hughes to get the prime minutes of the top pairing.

 

So in short, I could see a Hughes/Edler, but not really a Hughes/Myers pairing.

I'd like to see Edler-Hughes and Schmidt-Myers. Where Schmidt-Myers would take the brunt of the 5v5 time and Edler-Hughes getting their share but having their minutes upped with top PP (Hughes) and top PK (Edler) time.

 

But with that said, Myers could work well with Hughes (although was tried a bit last season and didn't look great, but now Hughes is a bit more experienced). When Schenn was with Hughes, he had a job to protect and that's something Myers can do. I think he would need to change his game a bit to adapt to Hughes where he himself doesn't rush up as much (even though that can be a positive aspect to his game) to ensure there is solid defensive coverage.

 

I definitely think Hughes and Schmidt should be on different pairings for most of the game unless we are chasing a goal. And if we want to defend a lead, we could go with Edler-Myers/Schmidt.

[-AJ-]

7 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

I'd like to see Edler-Hughes and Schmidt-Myers. Where Schmidt-Myers would take the brunt of the 5v5 time and Edler-Hughes getting their share but having their minutes upped with top PP (Hughes) and top PK (Edler) time.

 

But with that said, Myers could work well with Hughes (although was tried a bit last season and didn't look great, but now Hughes is a bit more experienced). When Schenn was with Hughes, he had a job to protect and that's something Myers can do. I think he would need to change his game a bit to adapt to Hughes where he himself doesn't rush up as much (even though that can be a positive aspect to his game) to ensure there is solid defensive coverage.

 

I definitely think Hughes and Schmidt should be on different pairings for most of the game unless we are chasing a goal. And if we want to defend a lead, we could go with Edler-Myers/Schmidt.

I think Green really loved his stalwart defensive pairing in Edler/Tanev last year so I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a similar pairing with Edler/Schmidt this year, but I felt last year that Hughes was wasted with Myers. I think he works better with a better defenseman and for that reason alone, I'd like him to be with Edler or Schmidt. Really, in my eyes, Myers is quite a bit below the other three of our top four and finding someone to put with him is a bit difficult. If he can step it up both defensively and offensively, that'd be a huge blessing for this team.

[theo5789]

41 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

I think Green really loved his stalwart defensive pairing in Edler/Tanev last year so I wouldn't be surprised to see him make a similar pairing with Edler/Schmidt this year, but I felt last year that Hughes was wasted with Myers. I think he works better with a better defenseman and for that reason alone, I'd like him to be with Edler or Schmidt. Really, in my eyes, Myers is quite a bit below the other three of our top four and finding someone to put with him is a bit difficult. If he can step it up both defensively and offensively, that'd be a huge blessing for this team.

Myers played with Edler for the majority of last season which is why we saw Tanev with Hughes. Edler partnered with Tanev mainly on the PK. I believe Myers had the highest average 5v5 time last season.

 

I think and hope with the addition of Schmidt that if he's partnered with Edler that it would dial back the 5v5 time for Myers and potentially make him more effective (much like by having Myers, it lowered Tanev's time which may have kept him healthier on top of having an excellent partner). My concern though is that we did see Hughes and Myers for a glimpse last season and I agree it didn't look great, which is why I was saying that Myers would have to adapt his game to mesh better. If that doesn't work out though, then I think Edler-Hughes and Schmidt-Myers would work as well as Schmidt's two way play could bode well with Myers allowing Edler and Hughes to take the heavy load on the special teams while handling a lesser role 5v5.

[JM_]

19 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I think at long last we may be seeing a long term plan emerge. Vcr will not win the SC next season but have a good chnace in a further 2-3 years and there is a need to develop youngsters so they are ready at that time. This next season, should there be such a thing, is the start of preperations for that moment ie blooding the youth.

well if we're not, then letting all those veterans go was weird. 

[48MPHSlapShot]

20 hours ago, Fred65 said:

I think at long last we may be seeing a long term plan emerge. Vcr will not win the SC next season but have a good chnace in a further 2-3 years and there is a need to develop youngsters so they are ready at that time. This next season, should there be such a thing, is the start of preperations for that moment ie blooding the youth.

How do you know "Vancouver" will not win the "Stanley Cup"  next season?  We were not that far away this year .

You will not be putting up a decorative picture or gif for the youth being blooded though, right?  

It's always 2 to 3 years from now, isn't it...

It's NOW, gosh darn it.

[BigTramFan]

On 11/18/2020 at 8:55 AM, Goal:thecup said:

So having posted that roster thing above, I believe the team should 'carry' 8 NHL-quality D on the 23 man active roster.

The 20 man game roster will be determined by Green & Co on a day-to-day basis.

 

Here's where I think these 8D line up currently:

 

Hughes          Schmidt

Edler               Myers

Juolevi           "HOLE"

Rathbone       Rafferty

 

("HOLE" = Theo579's RD Dilemma)

 

Hole could be filled by Benn, whom I believe will be challenged and found wanting by both Juolevi and Rafferty.

Hole could also be (somehow) filled by JB acquiring that #1 RD and forcing the right side down.

 

At this time, I believe Nate is our #1 RD and JB is not looking to land a greater player for this spot.

And I do not think we have anyone else in the system is projected to grow to be a legit #1 RD.

 

So I think we will add from lower down, hopefully above Myers but that too is unlikely.

Which leaves me with Rafferty and all the other hopefuls like Woo, for example, vying for #3 RD, and then #4 RD

 

On game day, we can dress 6, 7, or even 8 D, though 8 is rarely done.

So, right now, my top six, in order, on their 'proper' sides is:

 

Hughes          Schmidt

Edler               Myers

Juolevi           Rafferty

 

Good post. A couple of other thoughts...

 

The NHL may allow taxi squads due to the virus and the need to keep a pool of quarantined guys at the ready who are not on the active roster. This may allow the Canucks to run a 20 or 21 man active roster and instead rely on the wider taxi squad to bring in injury replacements immediately if required. This could also allow the team to maximise the gap between daily salary hit and daily cap limit, for example guys like Benn may be "waived" but still based with the squad. This would save $1.075m in cap hit on Benn while he doesn't play, but he is available immediately if required because he won't be based in Utica and will have already been quarantined.

 

Regarding the hole that we have on our rightside D. If he can't get Hamonic or Hainsey, I think JB could look at a veteran UFA who could be available at league minimum. Someone like Jan Rutta could be had for $700k on a one year deal. I think he would add a lot in that 3RD slot, size and experience, ability to play PK, etc. Could be a nice fit with Juolevi. Keep Rafferty and Benn on the taxi squad but not on the active roster until required.

 

Potential 20-man roster:

Miller Pettersson Boeser

Pearson Horvat Virtanen

Roussel Gaudette Ferland

Motte Beagle MacEwen

 

Hughes Schmidt

Edler Myers

Juolevi Rutta

 

Holtby, Demko

 

Wider taxi squad (waived but ready if required), saves almost $6m in cap hit:

Sutter, Hawryluk, Eriksson, Baer, Benn, Rafferty

 

[Fred65]

5 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

How do you know "Vancouver" will not win the "Stanley Cup"  next season?  We were not that far away this year .

You will not be putting up a decorative picture or gif for the youth being blooded though, right?  

It's always 2 to 3 years from now, isn't it...

It's NOW, gosh darn it.

Vegas played with us and to make it to the SC you have to go through Vegas, an improved Vegas. We're getting better but Vegas is still ahead of us. You have to have a plan, depending on luck is for the idiot who play the slots 

Edited November 21, 2020 by Fred65

[Drewman]

1 hour ago, Fred65 said:

Vegas played with us and to make it to the SC you have to go through Vegas, an improved Vegas. We're getting better but Vegas is still ahead of us. You have to have a plan, depending on luck is for the idiot who play the slots 

I really don't understand why people feel they need to exaggerate to make a point. They didn't "play with us", it was a 7 game series for crying out loud. It was a very close serious, and if our young stars take a big enough step forward in development I see no reason the Canucks couldn't take the Knights out this year.