Nate Schmidt | #88 | D

[Goal:thecup]

2 hours ago, kilgore said:

 

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 !!~!!

 

 

Jeez man!  Let it go.

A 6 - 7  D didn't get resigned for too much money; BFD.

 

Take it to a JB Bashing thread; or Stecher Does Detroit; whatever.

This is the Nate Schmidt thread, where your least favorite GM has wasted another (3rd round) draft pick only 2 short years from now.

 

"Petey and Quinn deserve better (management), but there's nothing I can do about it but b**** on CDC".

Get over yourself; like you could do any better.

You entitled flakes think you know and deserve everything.

 

 

 

[theo5789]

1 hour ago, kilgore said:

 

 

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.

 

Don't ignore deployment. Plus/minus is a team stat, it's no surprise that sometimes the players that are facing the tougher competition will get burned more often.

 

Biega had 16 points in 41 games in his last season with us (3 in 49 with Detroit). Stecher had 17 in 69 games last season. Biega was a true #7/8 dman that filled in well with his energy, but you would never expect more from him. Stecher is similar in that he was the least used dman on the team, so he knew when it was his turn he better give it his all. At the end of the day, his size as a dman was going to be a problem. It's not like teams were flocking to sign him. Stecher ended taking a pay cut with a team that was last in the league. This isn't just Benning, the league doesn't view him that highly because of his size and role.

 

Now no one has said he didn't do his job well, but he wasn't worth his qualifying offer for his role. He may have felt like there wasn't enough communication, but the reality is he's a bottom pairing dman that is replaceable and thus much lower on the priority list. There's a lot more to sort out first. So I wish him the best, but the needle was never shifting with or without him.

 

On the other hand, Schmidt, to stay on topic, is a needle mover. He's arguably a top pairing dman and was so with one of the best teams in the league. This was a priority for us and rightfully so. If Stecher was a casualty to ensure we got Schmidt, then it was one worth risking. I think we are still looking for a dman to fill that bottom pairing role, so I'm not going to be too concerned about that yet.

[theo5789]

21 minutes ago, Goal:thecup said:

 

Jeez man!  Let it go.

A 6 - 7  D didn't get resigned for too much money; BFD.

 

Take it to a JB Bashing thread; or Stecher Does Detroit; whatever.

This is the Nate Schmidt thread, where your least favorite GM has wasted another (3rd round) draft pick only 2 short years from now.

 

"Petey and Quinn deserve better (management), but there's nothing I can do about it but b**** on CDC".

Get over yourself; like you could do any better.

You entitled flakes think you know and deserve everything.

 

 

 

I guess that 2nd cup of coffee has kicked in lol

[wildcam]

19 hours ago, theo5789 said:

I guess that 2nd cup of coffee has kicked in lol

 

19 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

 

Jeez man!  Let it go.

A 6 - 7  D didn't get resigned for too much money; BFD.

 

Take it to a JB Bashing thread; or Stecher Does Detroit; whatever.

This is the Nate Schmidt thread, where your least favorite GM has wasted another (3rd round) draft pick only 2 short years from now.

 

"Petey and Quinn deserve better (management), but there's nothing I can do about it but b**** on CDC".

Get over yourself; like you could do any better.

You entitled flakes think you know and deserve everything.

 

 

 

Stetcher is a #5 D man Benning can't give big money to Stetcher..I am fine with not resigning Stetcher..

Juolevi, Rathbone, Rafferty will fill # 5 spot under 900,000..

[Goal:thecup]

WARNING:  long text.  I found the following interesting, and perhaps it may be a bit helpful while discussing where Nate fits into the roster along with the whole redo the D thing.

 

From NHL.com:

Roster Limits
Teams have four different “roster” limits to balance under the league’s regulations; a 20-player “dressed list” for games, a 23-player active NHL roster, a 50-contract maximum, and a 90-player maximum reserve list.
 

Starting with the largest and working our way down, teams are only allowed to have up to 90 players on its reserve list, whether signed to a standard player contract (SPC) or unsigned. From there teams are only allowed to have up to 50 players signed to contracts for any given season, including those for the players on the active roster and injured reserve lists. The unsigned players are draft picks of the club who have not yet been signed. In most cases, an organization retains an unsigned drafted player’s rights for two seasons after his drafted year, with some extended timeframes provided for US College players and for European players, among others, but that’s for another topic later on.

Every player on the 23-person active NHL roster, plus any player on the injured reserve list, must be under contract (and count toward the 50 contract maximum) and every team must have at least 24 players and three goaltenders under an SPC. Beyond those parameters, a team has wide latitude to make up its 50 contracts. In actuality, most teams opt not to use the full 50-contract maximum to give the organization the flexibility to make roster moves – trades, waiver claims, or player signings – at any given time. Most teams carry a significant number of signed players at the minor professional level, AHL being the highest minor pro league in North America. Since these players are already signed to contracts, it’s easy for clubs to recall the player(s) to the NHL as needed.

Other players may be signed to contracts but returned to the player’s junior club – most often this takes place between an NHL club and Canadian Major Junior teams (teams that play in the Ontario Hockey League, Quebec Major Junior Hockey League, or Western Hockey League, collectively the CHL). But 18 and 19-year-old players assigned to their team in the CHL do not count against the 50-contract maximum, until they have played at least 11 NHL games in one season.

The 50-contract limit has an interesting distinction in that the limit pertains to the season(s) for which a contract is valid. All NHL player contracts expire on June 30. The year varies from contract to contract, but the day remains the same (as we’ll discuss more when we look at player contracts in later editions of the feature). Knowing it has expiring contracts coming off its 50-contract maximum, a team can sign players to contracts for the following season. By doing so a team may have more than 50 different players signed to valid SPCs, as long as 50 or fewer are signed to valid SPCs for that current season AND fewer than 50 SPCs on tap for the upcoming season.

The 23-man roster limit is in place from the conclusion of the preseason until 12:01 am on the day of the NHL’s Trade Deadline. After that teams are allowed to have an unlimited active roster at the NHL level, provided players are signed to one of their 50 contract slots. NHL teams are only allowed to dress a maximum of 20 players – 18 skaters and two goaltenders – for any given game, but those 20 must come from the 23-player active roster.

Both the 23-player active roster and 20-player game roster can change day-to-day and game-to-game. All changes to the team’s 23-player active roster must be cleared through the NHL’s Central Registry before the move is considered finalized (and before the player is eligible to play in a game). In most cases the clearance from Central Registry is simple and completed in a nominal time span. Changes to the 20 players on the game roster are even easier – the list is submitted to the NHL official (either referee or official scorer) by the team (usually the head coach) moments before the start of the game. Prior to submitting the list, the team can choose from any members of its 23-man active roster.

As for the 20-player game roster, according to Rule 5.2, “Only players and goalkeepers on the list submitted to the Official Scorer before the game may participate in the game.” The rule further states that any goals scored while ineligible players are on the ice are subject to be disallowed – at the time of the goal – and the ineligible player(s) removed from the game with the offending team not allowed to replace the ineligible player’s roster spot. However, the rule continues, “No additional penalties are to be assessed but a report of the incident must be submitted to the Commissioner.”

There is an exemption to the rule should both of the goaltenders on the game roster become “incapacitated” but that is an extremely specific rule that has very rarely come into play in the league’s long history.

Beyond those limitations, the league does not dictate the make-up of a team’s roster, though the standard make-up used by most teams for the 20-player game roster is to dress 12 forwards and six defensemen along with the mandated two goaltenders. Rarely a team will use 13 forwards and five defensemen, but it’s not overly uncommon for a team to dress 11 forwards and seven defensemen.

While there are defined limitations, teams have a lot of flexibility to personalize their rosters to their organizational needs, preferences, or styles of play.

[Goal:thecup]

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

 

[alt kilgore]

20 hours ago, Goal:thecup said:

 

Jeez man!  Let it go.

A 6 - 7  D didn't get resigned for too much money; BFD.

 

Take it to a JB Bashing thread; or Stecher Does Detroit; whatever.

This is the Nate Schmidt thread, where your least favorite GM has wasted another (3rd round) draft pick only 2 short years from now.

 

"Petey and Quinn deserve better (management), but there's nothing I can do about it but b**** on CDC".

Get over yourself; like you could do any better.

You entitled flakes think you know and deserve everything.

 

 

 

  Okay dude, don't want to give you a heart attack.

 

I take it all back. How does it go?....In Benning We Trust!!!  

That poll question in another thread should have been, Is Benning a Great GM, or the GREATEST GM in history!

Go Jim Go!

 

 

[Goal:thecup]

36 minutes ago, kilgore said:

  Okay dude, don't want to give you a heart attack.

 

I take it all back. How does it go?....In Benning We Trust!!!  

That poll question in another thread should have been, Is Benning a Great GM, or the GREATEST GM in history!

Go Jim Go!

 

 

Yeah, sorry about that 'flake' dig.

I get crotchity old fart syndrome and should just keep my mouth shut sometimes (wish I knew when).

 

[Bad_BOI_pete]

On 11/16/2020 at 2:35 PM, kilgore said:

 

 

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.

 

you are going to look silly, if you compare schmidt, with stetcher. there is nothing really impressive about stetchers numbers, he played very sheltred minutes. he got out played by 1st,2nd,3rd liners and only played better than 4 liners. what is impressive about that?

[The Lock]

On 11/16/2020 at 1:35 PM, kilgore said:

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.

I want to kind of know exactly what you want proven here. You mention you want arguments other than "he's replaceable" I'm assuming, but what would be the end goal in that? To prove he wouldn't have been good for us moving forward as a 5-6 Dman?

 

Now, don't get me wrong here. I think Benning did mess up in the lack of communication with the resignings (provided we take everything the media says at face value which is playing with fire a bit).

 

However, here's the way I see it: I kind of picture our bottom pairing as a place for 1 of 2 options: either as a placeholder/depth, or someone with the potential to become a better defender later on. I was personally hoping to see Stecher become one of the later. He's small, as you've mentioned, so having as a placeholder long term... is that really what we want? Also, if he's not going to move up here, perhaps a change of scenery would be better for him anyway. Maybe he does become a top 4 in Detroit. But, as good as Stechers stats were, he hasn't shown the ability to become a top 4 defenseman yet. He needs to show more potential in my mind. He's effectively made himself easily replaceable when there are a lot of other bottom pairing defensemen who also have good stats, so then where's his niche?

 

Also, comparing 2 completely different dmen in Schmidt and Stecher seems like a rather weak argument to me. There's a reason why Schmidt is a 1st pairing dman and Stecher is a bottom pairing dman, and it's not because of points, let alone the weakest stat available in hockey: plus/minus...

 

One more thing: I've felt this before he left even. He's kind of been the odd man out for a while here in my opinion.

Edited November 17, 2020 by The Lock

[theo5789]

38 minutes ago, The Lock said:

One more thing: I've felt this before he left even. He's kind of been the odd man out for a while here in my opinion.

This is pretty much it. Even when the talk was about which two of Toffoli, Marky, or Tanev would we keep, Stecher was never really in the discussion. We have grown to like the person and the player in his role, but he was never worth his qualifying offer, let alone trying to make moves to fit his qualifying offer. He played with his usual passion in the playoffs and it did get me thinking if we should let him go. If he really was going to stay, he would've had to take a million or less or wait out until we sort out our priorities before dealing with a bottom pairing dman. If he felt like that was disrespect, then he must think more highly of himself. I don't blame him for taking an offer on the table given the market and I wish him the best, but his best offer was a pay cut with the worst team in the league (so they probably offered more to get him to go there like we did when we were a bottom team) and that's the reality of his value around the league.

 

We took the risk targetting Schmidt knowing they were after Pietrangelo. It could've blown up in our faces if Pietrangelo signed elsewhere, but it didn't and it paid off taking that risk. With us in the market for OEL as well at the time, it showed that we really wanted to improve the top end of our defense. A lot of quality teams have a solid top 4 and have a budget bottom pair and it works. Stecher didn't fit into that budget portion.

[alt kilgore]

23 hours ago, The Lock said:

I want to kind of know exactly what you want proven here. You mention you want arguments other than "he's replaceable" I'm assuming, but what would be the end goal in that? To prove he wouldn't have been good for us moving forward as a 5-6 Dman?

 

Now, don't get me wrong here. I think Benning did mess up in the lack of communication with the resignings (provided we take everything the media says at face value which is playing with fire a bit).

 

However, here's the way I see it: I kind of picture our bottom pairing as a place for 1 of 2 options: either as a placeholder/depth, or someone with the potential to become a better defender later on. I was personally hoping to see Stecher become one of the later. He's small, as you've mentioned, so having as a placeholder long term... is that really what we want? Also, if he's not going to move up here, perhaps a change of scenery would be better for him anyway. Maybe he does become a top 4 in Detroit. But, as good as Stechers stats were, he hasn't shown the ability to become a top 4 defenseman yet. He needs to show more potential in my mind. He's effectively made himself easily replaceable when there are a lot of other bottom pairing defensemen who also have good stats, so then where's his niche?

 

Also, comparing 2 completely different dmen in Schmidt and Stecher seems like a rather weak argument to me. There's a reason why Schmidt is a 1st pairing dman and Stecher is a bottom pairing dman, and it's not because of points, let alone the weakest stat available in hockey: plus/minus...

 

One more thing: I've felt this before he left even. He's kind of been the odd man out for a while here in my opinion.

Thanks for the reasonable response.  I enjoy a good debate. Insults don't make a lot of points with me.

I guess I thought it was obvious and I didn't have to write it, but I was in no way comparing Schmidt and Stecher as being equal. This is for the poster above you as well.  In fact I said, "It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category."  I thought it was implied that I was simply pointing out that in some areas, not in size or point production obviously, he wasn't far behind Schmidt. Just to make a point that Stecher is at least worth 2.3 x 2.....if Schmidt is worth 5.9 x 5.  Perspective.

 

And those "lot of other bottom pairing defensemen who also have good stats" were not on the Canucks.  Stecher outperformed all the other 5/6/7 defencemen. And even outperformed some in the top 4 in some stats. I've mentioned them in different posts. Not going to repeat them all. I really think this was a classic case of judging a player on his size. And dammit, he reminded me of Burrows in his attitude and commitment, forgive me for getting upset when someone like that is unceremoniously turfed out. I'm more upset that he was such a deal for what he brought to the team. I don't feel sorry for Troy personally. He'll be fine. A millionaire who is now playing for one of the original 6.

 

To further answer, the Canucks only had to qualify his previous contract I believe. That means only 2 years. That would work as a placeholder no?  I really cannot stress enough that I agree, Stecher is replaceable. But why?  Why make the headache.  Its just dumb GMing.  A Sutter buyout could have worked to shore up the money.  Loyalty, home town commitment, hard work on the ice every night, already knows the system and coach well and not having to find a replacement.  Also, is a right handed D (Even Schmidt is L handed) and we already lost Tanev who shoots R too.  Those were the benefits of keeping Troy.  the minuses I just do not see adding up.  The one reason I could maybe understand is that Quinn is a smallish D, and JB wants to beef up our D.  I could understand that argument, but no one seems to be arguing that point.

But that's okay. I understand no GM is perfect. I can live with the bad as long as there is enough good. I like the Schmidt signing. And if it was a choice between Stecher or Schmidt, even between Tanev (today) and Schmidt, I'd choose Schmidt no doubt about it.

 

[WeneedLumme]

47 minutes ago, kilgore said:

....Just to make a point that Stecher is at least worth 2.3 x 2.....if Schmidt is worth 5.9 x 5.  Perspective.....

Stecher is obviously not worth 2.3 x 2, since he exposed himself to the open market and subsequently signed for 1.7 x 2. And using the salary of a top pairing Dman, an asset that is almost impossible to acquire, to estimate the appropriate salary for a bottom pairing Dman, an asset that is easy and cheap to replace, is ludicrous.

[The Lock]

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

Thanks for the reasonable response.  I enjoy a good debate. Insults don't make a lot of points with me.

I guess I thought it was obvious and I didn't have to write it, but I was in no way comparing Schmidt and Stecher as being equal. This is for the poster above you as well.  In fact I said, "It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category."  I thought it was implied that I was simply pointing out that in some areas, not in size or point production obviously, he wasn't far behind Schmidt. Just to make a point that Stecher is at least worth 2.3 x 2.....if Schmidt is worth 5.9 x 5.  Perspective.

 

And those "lot of other bottom pairing defensemen who also have good stats" were not on the Canucks.  Stecher outperformed all the other 5/6/7 defencemen. And even outperformed some in the top 4 in some stats. I've mentioned them in different posts. Not going to repeat them all. I really think this was a classic case of judging a player on his size. And dammit, he reminded me of Burrows in his attitude and commitment, forgive me for getting upset when someone like that is unceremoniously turfed out. I'm more upset that he was such a deal for what he brought to the team. I don't feel sorry for Troy personally. He'll be fine. A millionaire who is now playing for one of the original 6.

 

To further answer, the Canucks only had to qualify his previous contract I believe. That means only 2 years. That would work as a placeholder no?  I really cannot stress enough that I agree, Stecher is replaceable. But why?  Why make the headache.  Its just dumb GMing.  A Sutter buyout could have worked to shore up the money.  Loyalty, home town commitment, hard work on the ice every night, already knows the system and coach well and not having to find a replacement.  Also, is a right handed D (Even Schmidt is L handed) and we already lost Tanev who shoots R too.  Those were the benefits of keeping Troy.  the minuses I just do not see adding up.  The one reason I could maybe understand is that Quinn is a smallish D, and JB wants to beef up our D.  I could understand that argument, but no one seems to be arguing that point.

But that's okay. I understand no GM is perfect. I can live with the bad as long as there is enough good. I like the Schmidt signing. And if it was a choice between Stecher or Schmidt, even between Tanev (today) and Schmidt, I'd choose Schmidt no doubt about it.

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.

Edited November 19, 2020 by The Lock

[theo5789]

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

Thanks for the reasonable response.  I enjoy a good debate. Insults don't make a lot of points with me.

I guess I thought it was obvious and I didn't have to write it, but I was in no way comparing Schmidt and Stecher as being equal. This is for the poster above you as well.  In fact I said, "It wasn't a choice between Stecher or Schmidt. As the latter is in a completely different category."  I thought it was implied that I was simply pointing out that in some areas, not in size or point production obviously, he wasn't far behind Schmidt. Just to make a point that Stecher is at least worth 2.3 x 2.....if Schmidt is worth 5.9 x 5.  Perspective.

Perspective is understanding their roles on the team. Whatever similarities you can point of between Schmidt and Stecher needs to take into account that Schmidt was 3rd amongst all NHL dmen facing the toughest competition on a nightly basis versus a guy playing the most sheltered role. People that complain that we are paying our bottom 6 too much needs to realize paying a bottom pairing dman 2.3 million is no different. There's a reason why Stecher took a pay cut with the worst team in the league, that's what the league valued him in this current market.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

And those "lot of other bottom pairing defensemen who also have good stats" were not on the Canucks.  Stecher outperformed all the other 5/6/7 defencemen. And even outperformed some in the top 4 in some stats. I've mentioned them in different posts. Not going to repeat them all. I really think this was a classic case of judging a player on his size. And dammit, he reminded me of Burrows in his attitude and commitment, forgive me for getting upset when someone like that is unceremoniously turfed out. I'm more upset that he was such a deal for what he brought to the team. I don't feel sorry for Troy personally. He'll be fine. A millionaire who is now playing for one of the original 6.

I pointed out that Biega had even better numbers last year than Stecher and he played a similar game as well. Were you upset when we "turfed" him as well?

 

It looks like he chased the money than being passionate for the team he played for. Doubtful that Detroit turns things around in the 2 years that he signed for.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

To further answer, the Canucks only had to qualify his previous contract I believe. That means only 2 years. That would work as a placeholder no?  I really cannot stress enough that I agree, Stecher is replaceable. But why?  Why make the headache.  Its just dumb GMing.  A Sutter buyout could have worked to shore up the money.  Loyalty, home town commitment, hard work on the ice every night, already knows the system and coach well and not having to find a replacement.  Also, is a right handed D (Even Schmidt is L handed) and we already lost Tanev who shoots R too.  Those were the benefits of keeping Troy.  the minuses I just do not see adding up.  The one reason I could maybe understand is that Quinn is a smallish D, and JB wants to beef up our D.  I could understand that argument, but no one seems to be arguing that point.

Qualifying his contract takes him to arbitration, which could mean he gets even more than his qualifying offer if an arbitrator decides that and he likely would be at a number that we cannot walk away from. No one offered his qualifying offer, so clearly it would be an overpayment if we gave him that.

 

No one is denying his work ethic, but loyalty and home town commitment went out the window when he signed elsewhere. As for players knowing the system, well players come and go every year, we didn't win last year, so we decided to try something different hoping for a better result.

 

As for the size issue, I'm pretty sure almost everyone has noted that. You seem to agree, so there's no reason to "argue" it.

 

Vegas played with 5 LDs and they did fine.

 

3 hours ago, kilgore said:

But that's okay. I understand no GM is perfect. I can live with the bad as long as there is enough good. I like the Schmidt signing. And if it was a choice between Stecher or Schmidt, even between Tanev (today) and Schmidt, I'd choose Schmidt no doubt about it.

 

I agree that no GM is perfect and no one has called Benning that. If you agree with the decision we made in the end, then what's to gripe about? Sutter plays the PK and can win faceoffs and showed that if he's healthy, he could be a impact player which he showed in the playoffs. Buying out a useful player (when healthy) to overpay another player (as I explained why he would be at his qualifying offer) while pushing more cap into the following season when it's time to pay EP/QH/TD is not exactly smart GMing right?

[TNucks1]

@The Lock whos the 3? i know petey and hughes, just cant think of the third.

[Where's Wellwood]

16 minutes ago, TNucks1 said:

@The Lock whos the 3? i know petey and hughes, just cant think of the third.

Demko.

 

Gaudette is also an RFA but he's a tier below in terms of importance

[TNucks1]

4 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said:

Demko.

 

Gaudette is also an RFA but he's a tier below in terms of importance

ah okay, thanks.

[Junkyard Dog]

47 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said:

Demko.

 

Gaudette is also an RFA but he's a tier below in terms of importance

I doubt Demko's next contract is along the lines of Hughes/Petey. He will probably get a bridge deal similar to Marky.

 

Demko will be an RFA till he's 26 which is till the 2022 off-season. Would be 27 if his birthday was before June 30th(His is December 8th). So it might be ideal to give him a 1 year deal. A 1 year extension would also end the same year Holtby's contract ends which works out well.

Edited November 19, 2020 by Junkyard Dog

[Where's Wellwood]

1 hour ago, Junkyard Dog said:

I doubt Demko's next contract is along the lines of Hughes/Petey. He will probably get a bridge deal similar to Marky.

 

Demko will be an RFA till he's 26 which is till the 2022 off-season. Would be 27 if his birthday was before June 30th(His is December 8th). So it might be ideal to give him a 1 year deal. A 1 year extension would also end the same year Holtby's contract ends which works out well.

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