Nate Schmidt | #88 | D

[alt kilgore]

21 hours ago, aGENT said:

And then we likely would not have gotten Schmidt. Which is what Benning was actually waiting for (AP o sign, Schmidt to become available).

 

You seem to be having a lot of trouble sorting through what actually happened.

 

Ah.....Bennings 5 dimensional chess board.  I should have guessed.  I forgot he could see into the future.

 

So because we signed Schmidt we can't afford to ice 6 defencemen?  Or....just not those demanding astronomical contracts like a 2.3 x 2.  For a defenceman who had some better stats than those paid nearly triple. But don't worry, we'll solve everything by bringing up the young D farm hands. They will instantly work out, becasue Benning can see the future so no worries.

 

It all still circles back to the wishful inflated contracts to our bottom 6 + Loui.  We lose players we wanted to keep, because we have to pay out contracts of players no one else wants.  Its not that that's never happened before. I'm not saying JB is unique. Other GMs can make these kinds of foolish mistakes too. I just don't live quite as close to de Nile. We accept it happened. We deal with it. And move on. Love the Schmidt addition.

[aGENT]

45 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Ah.....Bennings 5 dimensional chess board.  I should have guessed.  I forgot he could see into the future.

 

So because we signed Schmidt we can't afford to ice 6 defencemen?  Or....just not those demanding astronomical contracts like a 2.3 x 2.  For a defenceman who had some better stats than those paid nearly triple. But don't worry, we'll solve everything by bringing up the young D farm hands. They will instantly work out, becasue Benning can see the future so no worries.

 

It all still circles back to the wishful inflated contracts to our bottom 6 + Loui.  We lose players we wanted to keep, because we have to pay out contracts of players no one else wants.  Its not that that's never happened before. I'm not saying JB is unique. Other GMs can make these kinds of foolish mistakes too. I just don't live quite as close to de Nile. We accept it happened. We deal with it. And move on. Love the Schmidt addition.

No, it's widely reported that Benning was in on the Schmidt deal well ahead of the AP signing making Schmidt available. Nothing to do with seeing the future, he was simply doing his job and had solid communication with Vegas and didn't handcuff himself out of that massive improvement by tying up cap on lesser players

 

You seem to insist on being willfully obtuse here to suit your narrative... So have fun with that.

 

And no, we shouldn't have paid $2.3x2, evidenced by the fact that a lesser team that isn't his home town and hence received no 'home town' or 'competitive team' discount, signed him for far less.

Edited November 14, 2020 by aGENT

[JM_]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

No, it's widely reported that Benning was in on the Schmidt deal well ahead of the AP signing making Schmidt available. Nothing to do with seeing the future, he was simply doing his job and had solid communication with Vegas and didn't handcuff himself out of that massive improvement by tying up cap on lesser players

LeBrun in particular reported that Benning was the most active GM this offseason, its not really surprising he was in on NS early. I wonder how close we cane to other deals?

 

Its not over yet either, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Jim has something else in the works yet. 

[alt kilgore]

8 hours ago, aGENT said:

No, it's widely reported that Benning was in on the Schmidt deal well ahead of the AP signing making Schmidt available. Nothing to do with seeing the future, he was simply doing his job and had solid communication with Vegas and didn't handcuff himself out of that massive improvement by tying up cap on lesser players

 

You seem to insist on being willfully obtuse here to suit your narrative... So have fun with that.

 

And no, we shouldn't have paid $2.3x2, evidenced by the fact that a lesser team that isn't his home town and hence received no 'home town' or 'competitive team' discount, signed him for far less.

Sure, whatever you say aGENT.   It was also widely reported Benning was working on a Barrie deal. Benning was active this off season no doubt There was no guarantee it was going to be Schmidt, or Barrie, or anyone.

It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category. paying Stecher 2.3 would not have negated a Schmidt deal.  Nothing obtuse about that. And Stecher is worth 2.3, especially from the team he lived and bled for. But hockey is a business too. Stech will get more opportunity in Detroit so good for him.

[HomeBrew]

16 hours ago, kilgore said:

Sure, whatever you say aGENT.   It was also widely reported Benning was working on a Barrie deal. Benning was active this off season no doubt There was no guarantee it was going to be Schmidt, or Barrie, or anyone.

It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category. paying Stecher 2.3 would not have negated a Schmidt deal.  Nothing obtuse about that. And Stecher is worth 2.3, especially from the team he lived and bled for. But hockey is a business too. Stech will get more opportunity in Detroit so good for him.

Two questions.... One: How much cap space do we have right now? And two: How many more defensemen have we signed after the Schmidt deal? Answer those and maybe you might realize that you are being a little obtuse about this. 

[wildcam]

On November 14, 2020 at 8:13 PM, kilgore said:

Sure, whatever you say aGENT.   It was also widely reported Benning was working on a Barrie deal. Benning was active this off season no doubt There was no guarantee it was going to be Schmidt, or Barrie, or anyone.

It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category. paying Stecher 2.3 would not have negated a Schmidt deal.  Nothing obtuse about that. And Stecher is worth 2.3, especially from the team he lived and bled for. But hockey is a business too. Stech will get more opportunity in Detroit so good for him.

You cannot be paying 2.3 million for 3rd pairing D man with covid cap..... We have 3 young guys making under 1 million that will fill Stetcher's position..

I think Detroit signed Stetcher for 1.7 million preseason-----

1.Juolevi 6'2, 22 -- 2. Rafferty 3. Rathbone 4. Briesbois..... All these guys make Under 900,000

 

Edited November 16, 2020 by wildcam

[Elias Pettersson]

We're already over the cap but some people wanted us to sign a 3rd pairing Dman to a $2 million+ contract.  That doesn't make alot of sense.  Stecher can't play in your top 4 if your idea is trying to make a push in the playoffs.  Good luck to Detroit.  They have no depth on the right side so that is why they signed him.  They are in rebuild mode for the next several years so Stecher might not be around when they are contenders again. 

[theo5789]

On 11/14/2020 at 8:13 PM, kilgore said:

Sure, whatever you say aGENT.   It was also widely reported Benning was working on a Barrie deal. Benning was active this off season no doubt There was no guarantee it was going to be Schmidt, or Barrie, or anyone.

It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category. paying Stecher 2.3 would not have negated a Schmidt deal.  Nothing obtuse about that. And Stecher is worth 2.3, especially from the team he lived and bled for. But hockey is a business too. Stech will get more opportunity in Detroit so good for him.

If Stecher "lived and bled for" this team, he should've went to Benning and said, I want to stay and I know the cap situation, so I'll sign for 700k to do so. At the end of the day, he went to the highest bidder. If we paid 2.3 million for Stecher, people will start calling this another blunder of cap space. If Benning truly meant that he was willing to match the 1.7 offer, then that must be within the space he believes he can work with at this point, which is intriguing as it doesn't seem like we do.

[Goal:thecup]

8 hours ago, theo5789 said:

If Benning truly meant that he was willing to match the 1.7 offer, then that must be within the space he believes he can work with at this point, which is intriguing as it doesn't seem like we do.

I like your posts, but can't figure out what you are trying to say with this last sentence.

Edited November 16, 2020 by Goal:thecup
Clarity (again)

[theo5789]

Just now, Goal:thecup said:

I like your posts; can't figure out what you are trying to say with this last sentence.

It was suggested that Benning in a last ditch effort was willing to match the Detroit offer. If this is true, then this must be the budget that we could work with to make things work is the interpretation I'm making. Perhaps I'm wrong though.

[Goal:thecup]

I've only had one cup of coffee this morning, so apologies for the dense conversation.

But I still don't get what "things" you are trying to "make work".

 

We can drop this if you want.

I need another cup.

[alt kilgore]

21 hours ago, HomeBrew said:

Two questions.... One: How much cap space do we have right now? And two: How many more defensemen have we signed after the Schmidt deal? Answer those and maybe you might realize that you are being a little obtuse about this. 

1. 0

2. Buying out Sutter would have garnered the amount to sign Stecher.   Most pundits were confused by that non move. Or any other great GM move that he should know, and we don't because we are just fans on a message board.  That's his job and he gets paid very well.  Thanks for reminding me he managed to whittle down our cap to zero, while actually losing more talent than he replaced it with. Bravo JB! He may have thought that Sutter was more important to the team than Stecher. Especially since he screwed up with Toffoli too.  Thats at least some kind of argument I guess.  But I would disagree, in that I think Stecher was more valuable to the team than Sutter. IMHO. (I'm not going to re-post Troy's stat highlights from last season, they are in a post above) But I'll add that Troy got the same amount of points as Sutter, 17, who of course is a forward, who even got a bit of PP time. And Troy also was a plus +10, just behind Quinn.  Sutter, the foundational defensive specialist, was a +1. 

 

It still boils down to the butterfly effect of bad assessment, and backwards decision making in Jim's first half of tenure.  Its almost, in some bizarre way, like we are going about this rebuild a** backwards. NOW we will play more of our youth, not from any plan of a rebuild, but because management forced us into this situation.  Now is not the time, when Petey and Quinn are entering their peak years, to call up the farm.  And forced to have to say goodbye to good players, like Marky, Tanev, Toffoli, Stecher, and Leivo.  I knew we would lose some of them, but all of them?  We acquired Schmidt and Holtby. If Schmidt is an improvement on Tavev, and Holtby is a downgrade on Marky, then one could say that exchange is level. Still missing other pieces. But we get to keep Sutter, Beagle, Rousell, and Eriksson. And lets not forget the disastrous gamble that is Ferland.  We could never trade them because other GMs laugh at those contracts. But JB did re-sign the wonder boy Virtanen. (Next season...you just watch....he'll finally "get it", honest). 

 

But, that said, I am stoked about next season.  I'll always back the team, the players, if not the GM.  I think Petey and Quinn deserve better, but there's nothing I can do about it but b**** on CDC. Maybe its hard for some to understand criticizing a team's management but still loving the team. Sorry if that is confusing. Lets just say I hope everything I fret about is proven moot. I hope any new farm hand like Juolevi or Rathbone, Rafferty, Chatfield or Woo, Lind, or another one, maybe Hoglander is even ready now at his age; but that one,preferably more than one, rise to the occasion and stick. I'd love to see a forward prospect come in and force LE back into the stands.  And some combination of Juolevi, Rathbone or Chatfield or..? stick on defence. But I always predict we will win the Cup every season, and I will again. High hopes baby!

 

 

 

 

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

I've only had one cup of coffee this morning, so apologies for the dense conversation.

But I still don't get what "things" you are trying to "make work".

 

We can drop this if you want.

I need another cup.

The budget to add a bottom pairing RD.

[alt kilgore]

2 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

The budget to add a bottom pairing RD.

You mean like Stecher?  A good RD who was already here and wanted to stay?

Who could have been qualified with a Sutter buyout?

[theo5789]

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

Its almost, in some bizarre way, like we are going about this rebuild a** backwards.

We have brought in veterans to play the hard minutes so it's not put on Bo, Petey, Quinn, Brock, etc. We have had these placeholders for young players to challenge and for the most part when young players have done so, we have made room for them. Pushing the young guys to find another level through challenges is not a bad thing. And as those above mentioned players start to become the "vets", then you can bring in young players in other roster spots.

 

If this is a ass backwards rebuild, then what are the Edmonton, Toronto, Buffalo, New Jersey, Arizona, etc ones? They're the teams that have thrown in their young players expecting them to turn the team around, how have they fared?

[theo5789]

10 minutes ago, kilgore said:

You mean like Stecher?  A good RD who was already here and wanted to stay?

Who could have been qualified with a Sutter buyout?

If he wanted to stay, then he would've waited knowing that we were willing to match the offer. We probably had a lower offer on the table that made more sense for us and giving us the flexibility for roster moves, but he chose the biggest payout he could get (not a knock, just reality). Overplaying this whole wanting to be here is pointless because if it was really, then he would've either waited or made it work for us. We were never going to qualify him as his qualifying offer wasn't worth it for his role. Love his heart, but he's in a very replaceable position. I suspect we will want Tryamkin in that spot in a year, so we probably didn't why to tie up the spot either.

 

If we sign a player, I suspect it'll be a one year deal. We will survive the loss of Stecher especially after upgrading on Tanev.

[Frozen Water Walker]

Wow how about that Schmidt guy!!!

 

[theo5789]

14 minutes ago, Frozen Water Walker said:

Wow how about that Schmidt guy!!!

 

Yes an incredible addition. Many have suggested that we have downgraded overall, but I think many are underestimating the overall impact of adding Schmidt. Another puck possession dman that can play against the toughest competition and can play both sides (which is good for coverage). We could potentially have a legit puck controlling dman for the majority of the game and the NHL has trended towards that (and we have been trying to accomplish this which is why we were in the Barrie rumours as well, but thank goodness we got Schmidt instead).

 

Hopefully his impact will mean we are less hemmed into our zone and not have to rely on heroics from goaltending which mitigates the loss of Marky while Holtby is no slouch with Cup winning experience and Demko stepping up another level hopefully making the loss a wash. And having him to help connect the forwards and defense could help structure our offense while he will be a welcome addition to our first (which would bump a very good player to the 2nd unit) or second PP.

[alt kilgore]

18 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

We have brought in veterans to play the hard minutes so it's not put on Bo, Petey, Quinn, Brock, etc. We have had these placeholders for young players to challenge and for the most part when young players have done so, we have made room for them. Pushing the young guys to find another level through challenges is not a bad thing. And as those above mentioned players start to become the "vets", then you can bring in young players in other roster spots.

 

If this is a ass backwards rebuild, then what are the Edmonton, Toronto, Buffalo, New Jersey, Arizona, etc ones? They're the teams that have thrown in their young players expecting them to turn the team around, how have they fared?

 

13 minutes ago, theo5789 said:

If he wanted to stay, then he would've waited knowing that we were willing to match the offer. We probably had a lower offer on the table that made more sense for us and giving us the flexibility for roster moves, but he chose the biggest payout he could get (not a knock, just reality). Overplaying this whole wanting to be here is pointless because if it was really, then he would've either waited or made it work for us. We were never going to qualify him as his qualifying offer wasn't worth it for his role. Love his heart, but he's in a very replaceable position. I suspect we will want Tryamkin in that spot in a year, so we probably didn't why to tie up the spot either.

 

If we sign a player, I suspect it'll be a one year deal. We will survive the loss of Stecher especially after upgrading on Tanev.

 

A GM always has to have those key veterans while a rebuild is happening.  problem was that the veterans that JB assessed and decided on, were mostly in decline, and over valued and over termed.  Pushing prospects into the lineup and challenging them is NOT a bad thing, but usually that is done at the start of a rebuild.

I'm not saying this ass backwards way won't work. I hope it does. Its just traditionally, the way that has worked, is playing the youth more at the beginning, but yeah, Edmonton et all, proved that it doesn't work all the time. But after the evaluation and signings of Loui and Gagner, JB then doubled down and brought in a new batch of more past-their-prime additions to lucrative contracts, further tying his hands now, in the present.

 

I agree, Stecher is replaceable. But his stats are impressive for a 5/6 D, if anyone cared to look.   But it was avoidable. By reports there was no communication at all.  Not even "hang on, we want to sign you". Why the headache?  Most likely because JB did not respect what Troy could do here. His size is one argument. I wish folks would actually debate me with actual real arguments like that one. I can definitely see that point.  Of course he's no Schmidt.  But Nate wasn't an replacement for Troy anyways. Even though last season, without PP time, Stech only had 2 less goals than Schmidt 5-7. and only one off in the plus/minus 10-11.

 

[HomeBrew]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

Pushing prospects into the lineup and challenging them is NOT a bad thing, but usually that is done at the start of a rebuild.

I'm not saying this ass backwards way won't work. I hope it does. Its just traditionally, the way that has worked, is playing the youth more at the beginning, but yeah, Edmonton et all, proved that it doesn't work all the time. But after the evaluation and signings of Loui and Gagner, JB then doubled down and brought in a new batch of more past-their-prime additions to lucrative contracts, further tying his hands now, in the present.

 

Sooooo when you ramble on for forever, there are times where you even state that you are wrong in your deductions and yet you refuse to conclude as such... My thoughts on your argument can basically be summed up by this graphic:

Edited November 16, 2020 by HomeBrew