Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign defenceman Troy Stecher (post #194, #443)

[me2]

Disagree. . It would be a tremendous flex of depth.
Remeber Tanev has nothing to offer offensively...

TBF he has more to offer than Gudbranson offensively, particularly passing out of his own end. Tanev should be used in the top 4. If Gudbranson gets pushed out of the top 4 by Stecher being paired with Edler, then Gudbranson can anchor the 3rd pairing. He should not need to be carried by Hutton if he a true top 4 defensive Dman.

We shouldn't be using Tanev to anchor the 3rd pairing because we are scared that Gudbranson will fail embarrassingly at it. If he's as good as advertised he will be able to handle anchoring the 3rd pair with aplomb. When Stecher struggles he can move up.

 

[nucksauce]

Think hes up and down all season playing with Edler mostly, there is no rush to give him a full time spot. Get him used to Greens system before he ultimately becomes our head coach(I hope). Regardless we have something special here, another reason to be excited for our future.

I'm already loving our potential defence for next year...

Hutton Tanev
Edler Stecher
Juolevi Gudbransson
Larsson Tryamkin

and add NHL ready Nolan Patrick, Boeser and Demko to this team.....dreams do come... true.....

 

[biturbo19]

As for Stecher ... he's looked good next to Edler, which is great but not really realistic because that's not who he'll be playing with on opening day.

Need to see if he can form a solid pairing with Tryamkin or some such, which is something else entirely.

Absolutely this.

It's nice that they've put Stecher in a great position to succeed alongside a quality top-pairing defenceman...and they've looked pretty good together. But if you're going to have Stecher making the opening night roster on "merit"...i'd really like to see that he can replicate success with someone who is not Edler.

Even if Stecher were to make the roster based on that audition away from Edler, only to end up back with Edler for the real games anyway...i'd like to see it, know what we have, and know that there's a bit of flexibility there if needed.

I'd be curious to see how say...Larsen or even Gudbranson would've looked, had they spent the entire preseason tied at the hip to Edler.


With Stecher, if he's going to make the opening roster...that has a few collateral consequences.

1)It means we've waiving and risking a loss of depth somewhere else (be that Biega/Pedan/Tryamkin back to Russia).

2)Like McCann who looked great through the preseason and early regular season last year and then faded hard...Stecher is still very physically small. He's a bit older and more experienced which helps, but small and coming out of an NCAA schedule it's still a major ??? whether he'll be able to fully hold up physically over the long haul of an NHL schedule.

3)It means Larsen becomes kind of an odd man out. They're not going to dress both.

So if you're going to keep Stecher...you have to be really really sure this is the right call. And i just don't know how you can confidently make that choice without seeing how he does without Edler helping to carry him along.

Nothing would be better for his team than if we could break up Edler-Tanev imo.

Hutton-Gudbranson - shut down pair, vs top lines
Sbisa-Tanev shut down pair #2 vs teams 2nd lines
Edler-Stecher - backs the Sedins, and 1st unit PP

The problem with this, is that you have to ask yourself if Hutton-Gudbranson is actually going to be a more effective shutdown pair than Edler-Tanev. I don't think it's a great use of Hutton as our best offensive D at this point in time, and i think the answer is probably no overall.

The only way you can really offset that, is if playing with Tanev were to magically transform Sbisa into a top matchup guy who can do more than just line up against 2nd lines. And if that were to be the case (unlikely), you'd think it wise to at least give that a decent trial run to take a look in the preseason, before diving in head first.

Otherwise, i have no idea how you get Tanev the minutes he should be playing. Tanev isn't going to make up minutes over Sbisa on the PK (his relative strong suit)...and i don't want to see Tanev anywhere near the PP where other defencemen can make up suitable minutes. There's just nowhere to make up the differential from the 20+ minutes Tanev should get, vs the minutes Sbisa should be playing. So you're really "wasting" Tanev there.

And same goes for Stecher playing the sort of #1 minutes Edler should be playing for us. Edler can play PK to eat into that differential a little bit, but not nearly enough to make it work.

The only solution would be to rotate Tanev into extra shifts with Edler. But that's a dangerous proposition at the best of times. Not only is this team already a trainwreck when it comes to line changes...but with Edler's potential for volatility, it just seems like a ticking timebomb jerking around his partner and chemistry every couple shifts like that. Edler thrives on stability and playing within a built up comfort zone with a steady partner.


I get the point you've made, that this team's defence was incredibly dysfunctional and unable to score last year. But that Edler-Tanev pairing, while not dynamite offensively...was the one thing that actually worked on our blueline last year. They eat up tons of the most unpleasant minutes every night with generally good results overall.

We also now have a Hutton-Gudbranson duo who looked really promising in the games they played. A duo who can hopefully shoulder some of the tough minutes burden without becoming a full-fledged "shutdown pairing". That alone could help to "rejuvenate" Edler by easing off the hard minutes slightly.

As well, whether it's Stecher or Larsen, ultimately...having a quality RHS partner on the PP blueline should help breathe some life back into Edler's PP play...which is where the biggest real drop-off in his production has come from in the first place.

 

[F A N]

I think you are misunderstanding what I mean by misallocation. I am not complaining about the use of resources used to acquire the players, I am saying it is a misallocation to leave a player like say Juolevi as the 4th or 5th D or Stetcher as the 6th or 7th D when we have empty cupboards up front.

I don't understand your logic here. How are we "leaving a player like say Juolevi as the 4th or 5th D or Stetcher as the 6th or 7th D?" And even if that's the case, why is it a problem? Juolevi was just drafted and most posters here believe he is at 2-3 years away from being able to compete for a top 4 spot. And by that time, who knows what the defense is going to be like, never mind the fact that Edler will either be in the last year of his contract or just finished it. And it would be ideal for Juolevi to begin his NHL career as a 5th Dman. As for Stecher, he too just got signed and wasn't expected to be a full-time NHLer this season. But if he cracks the lineup over the likes of Larsen and Biega, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting we trade Stecher or Juolevi? And it's not like the 6th/7th Dman under Willie plays 10-12 minutes a game. They play 15-16+. Furthermore, like Hutton last season, if Stecher (who is 22) makes the team based on his performance, it's not inconceivable that Willie will have Stecher on the 2nd unit PP, in fact it's almost likely. Having young Dmen with top 4 potential breaking into the league on the bottom pairing and still on their ELC is the type of depth you want. If Stecher is sitting in the press box the majority of the season then that's a mistake, not a misallocation.

The use of draft picks is irrelevant. There is no rule stating you have to use picks equally on forwards and defense. When the forwards we did draft end up as Grabner, White, Hodsgon, and Schroeder it hardly "helps" our forward problem. Meanwhile we sign Tanev as a UFA, draft Hutton in the 5th, and sign quality vets like Hamhuis for free. The point is our defensive depth is better in terms of quality than our forward depth. We have several roster players and prospects who project to be top 3-4 d. We have 1 forward who projects to be a top line scorer and then 2-3 who look like good/decent second line guys. Cassels is bottom 6 depth at best. Same for Gaunce. Grenier is an AHLer.

If you stack the two positions side by side - also allowing that you need 3 forwards to a line vs 2 defensemen - you'll see the balance is off and we should consider trading off some D assets for forward ones.

The use of draft picks is totally relevant. You're talking about misallocation here. If you feel that our prospects on D projects better and has more depth than our prospects up front, the fact that more forwards have been drafted and more first round picks have been used on forwards suggests that there have been more resources devoted to improving things up front. It seems that your whole misallocation argument is based on the fact that the D we drafted and signed happened to proportionally develop better than our forwards. And if we're talking about established NHL players here I can agree, but we're not. You're talking about projections here. And like I said, it's not like we drafted more Dmen, signed more Dmen, or spent more high picks on DMen. The whole point of drafting the BPA is you worry about positional needs later. If the team had 6 Tanevs or 6 Doughty's then ya there is likely going to be an allocation problem, but you're talking about players who haven't established themselves yet and quite frankly worth very little in trade.

What you're doing is like worrying about where Schroeder and Hodgson would play when the team has Henrik and Kesler in front of them. Projections are just that. We don't know if Tryamkin, Stecher Subban etc. could develop into top 4 Dmen, nevermind NHL regulars. Edler and Tanev are top pairing Dmen, Hutton and Gudbranson should be capable of being 2nd pairing Dmen (although some here doubt Gudbranson can be one), and the rest are not even established NHL regulars outside of Sbisa (whom many here despise). Juolevi should hopefully develop into a top 4 D but there's no guarantee and he's years away from helping. So if you're suggesting that the team is brimming with NHL talent on D that we can afford to and could possibly trade for needed forward help, I think you are wrong.

 

[IComeInPeace]

Stetcher is 5'11. I would not call him big, especially for a d-man.

That said, he's not soft.

Didn't Stecher himself say he's 5'10" a couple weeks ago?

 

[CanaFan]

I don't understand your logic here. How are we "leaving a player like say Juolevi as the 4th or 5th D or Stetcher as the 6th or 7th D?" And even if that's the case, why is it a problem? Juolevi was just drafted and most posters here believe he is at 2-3 years away from being able to compete for a top 4 spot. And by that time, who knows what the defense is going to be like, never mind the fact that Edler will either be in the last year of his contract or just finished it. And it would be ideal for Juolevi to begin his NHL career as a 5th Dman. As for Stecher, he too just got signed and wasn't expected to be a full-time NHLer this season. But if he cracks the lineup over the likes of Larsen and Biega, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting we trade Stecher or Juolevi? And it's not like the 6th/7th Dman under Willie plays 10-12 minutes a game. They play 15-16+. Furthermore, like Hutton last season, if Stecher (who is 22) makes the team based on his performance, it's not inconceivable that Willie will have Stecher on the 2nd unit PP, in fact it's almost likely. Having young Dmen with top 4 potential breaking into the league on the bottom pairing and still on their ELC is the type of depth you want. If Stecher is sitting in the press box the majority of the season then that's a mistake, not a misallocation.

First of all I never said trade them TODAY. But we are already seeing our depth of defensemen creating roster/waiver issues. Yes we can stash Stecher in the A for this season and Juolevi is fine to develop in junior. But in the very near future this team is going to be full-to-bursting at defense. And at that point (or hopefully a bit prior), Benning will need to be able to convert these surplus assets into assets for other parts of the roster. And my comment was hopefully Benning can do this without losing value. We've already seen how that didn't happen with Corrado when Hutton surprised them last season. They handled that like **** and basically through a surplus asset away. And lets see how they do this season with Tryamkin, Larsen, Pedan, and Stecher basically battling for 2 spots.

The use of draft picks is totally relevant. You're talking about misallocation here. If you feel that our prospects on D projects better and has more depth than our prospects up front, the fact that more forwards have been drafted and more first round picks have been used on forwards suggests that there have been more resources devoted to improving things up front. It seems that your whole misallocation argument is based on the fact that the D we drafted and signed happened to proportionally develop better than our forwards.

Well yes this is part of it but that isn't even my argument in this thread. My argument is about whether Benning can manage the surplus of D assets that we have incoming or whether he'll **** them up again like last year. The drafting issue - which I posted about in the draft thread - comes down to the fact that teams can find quality D in rounds 2-7 or as college UFAs (Hutton, Edler, Tryamkin, Tanev, Stecher) while scoring forwards are almost entirely limited to the first round.

And if we're talking about established NHL players here I can agree, but we're not. You're talking about projections here. And like I said, it's not like we drafted more Dmen, signed more Dmen, or spent more high picks on DMen.

Again not my argument. Its not about what we used to get them, its about what we do with them now that they are here.

The whole point of drafting the BPA is you worry about positional needs later.

And that's what I'm saying. We need to worry about those needs going forward.

If the team had 6 Tanevs or 6 Doughty's then ya there is likely going to be an allocation problem, but you're talking about players who haven't established themselves yet and quite frankly worth very little in trade.

Edler
Tanev
Hutton
Gudbranson
Juolevi are worth very little in trade?

What you're doing is like worrying about where Schroeder and Hodgson would play when the team has Henrik and Kesler in front of them. Projections are just that. We don't know if Tryamkin, Stecher Subban etc. could develop into top 4 Dmen, nevermind NHL regulars. Edler and Tanev are top pairing Dmen, Hutton and Gudbranson should be capable of being 2nd pairing Dmen (although some here doubt Gudbranson can be one), and the rest are not even established NHL regulars outside of Sbisa (whom many here despise). Juolevi should hopefully develop into a top 4 D but there's no guarantee and he's years away from helping. So if you're suggesting that the team is brimming with NHL talent on D that we can afford to and could possibly trade for needed forward help, I think you are wrong.

Well Stecher would be on the opening day roster if not for fear of losing Pedan or Larsen so I don't think there's much question about him. Juolevi might be 2-3 years away or he might be 12 months away. These are decisions that are going to have to be made sooner than later. I never said today but my comment was that it is something Benning is going to have to do and do much better than he has in the past. If you think that is wrong then fair enough but I think you've grossly misunderstood my argument to begin with.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

I don't understand your logic here. How are we "leaving a player like say Juolevi as the 4th or 5th D or Stetcher as the 6th or 7th D?" And even if that's the case, why is it a problem? Juolevi was just drafted and most posters here believe he is at 2-3 years away from being able to compete for a top 4 spot. And by that time, who knows what the defense is going to be like, never mind the fact that Edler will either be in the last year of his contract or just finished it. And it would be ideal for Juolevi to begin his NHL career as a 5th Dman. As for Stecher, he too just got signed and wasn't expected to be a full-time NHLer this season. But if he cracks the lineup over the likes of Larsen and Biega, what's the big deal? Are you suggesting we trade Stecher or Juolevi? And it's not like the 6th/7th Dman under Willie plays 10-12 minutes a game. They play 15-16+. Furthermore, like Hutton last season, if Stecher (who is 22) makes the team based on his performance, it's not inconceivable that Willie will have Stecher on the 2nd unit PP, in fact it's almost likely. Having young Dmen with top 4 potential breaking into the league on the bottom pairing and still on their ELC is the type of depth you want. If Stecher is sitting in the press box the majority of the season then that's a mistake, not a misallocation.

I agree with this. I would put it this way: if all goes well we have the potential to have a decent defensive corp. Not the best in the NHL but maybe upper half assuming that all goes well.
Trading a valuable player from that defensive group to shore up the offence doesn't make a lot of sense to me as we're just filling one hole and creating another. I think we all agree that the team needs lots of offensive help. We're probably going to have to acquire that through the draft or free agency though.

 

[deckercky]

Didn't Stecher himself say he's 5'10" a couple weeks ago?

Comparing like to like, if Stecher says he's 5'10, then he's as tall as the average player listed at 5'11 on NHL.com.

 

[CanaFan]

I agree with this. I would put it this way: if all goes well we have the potential to have a decent defensive corp. Not the best in the NHL but maybe upper half assuming that all goes well.
Trading a valuable player from that defensive group to shore up the offence doesn't make a lot of sense to me as we're just filling one hole and creating another. I think we all agree that the team needs lots of offensive help. We're probably going to have to acquire that through the draft or free agency though.

That only makes sense if the holes are equal. Why did Edmonton trade Hall for Larsson? And why did NJ trade Larsson for Hall? Both had surplus in some areas and greater need in others. There's no point having a potential 3/4 D man playing a 5/6 role/minutes while your forwards are a collection of second liners and bottom 6 depth players. Teams need to score as well as defend.

We are seeing the beginnings of an issue this season with Stecher pushing for a spot that was never expected. It happened last year with Hutton and cost us Corrado. It may happen again next year if Juolevi has a good development year in London. This is basic hockey management. If you are overflowing in one area you move a piece to another. We already subtracted a forward (McCann) to add a D. Why is it so controversial that we may need to do the reverse in the near future?

 

[WetcoastOrca]

That only makes sense if the holes are equal. Why did Edmonton trade Hall for Larsson? And why did NJ trade Larsson for Hall? Both had surplus in some areas and greater need in others. There's no point having a potential 3/4 D man playing a 5/6 role/minutes while your forwards are a collection of second liners and bottom 6 depth players. Teams need to score as well as defend.

We are seeing the beginnings of an issue this season with Stecher pushing for a spot that was never expected. It happened last year with Hutton and cost us Corrado. It may happen again next year if Juolevi has a good development year in London. This is basic hockey management. If you are overflowing in one area you move a piece to another. We already subtracted a forward (McCann) to add a D. Why is it so controversial that we may need to do the reverse in the near future?

I disagree. Just because we are stronger on defense than we are on offence doesn't mean we have a great defense. I think that group has a chance of maybe being average or if all goes well somewhat above average. You're creating a hole in one area to try to fix a hole in another.
The Oiler's analogy doesn't really hold as they had a great offence at least in terms of high end players. If we had an up and coming defenseman who projected to be generational (the equivalent of McDavid) plus a few other top guys (Hall, Draisaitl, Pulj, RNH, Eberle) then by all means trade from an area of strength to bolster an area of weakness. We don't have that luxury.

Unfortunately, I don't see any shortcuts. We're going to have to draft a number one center and probably a first line winger.

 

[Jimson Hogarth*]

So to recap, the Vancouver Canucks are an NHL team, making them a possible destination for Stecher as a hockey player, with no edge on 29 other NHL teams.

This needs to go into one of your cartoons

 

[CanaFan]

I disagree. Just because we are stronger on defense than we are on offence doesn't mean we have a great defense. I think that group has a chance of maybe being average or if all goes well somewhat above average. You're creating a hole in one area to try to fix a hole in another.
The Oiler's analogy doesn't really hold as they had a great offence at least in terms of high end players. If we had an up and coming defenseman who projected to be generational (the equivalent of McDavid) plus a few other top guys (Hall, Draisaitl, Pulj, RNH, Eberle) then by all means trade from an area of strength to bolster an area of weakness. We don't have that luxury.

Unfortunately, I don't see any shortcuts. We're going to have to draft a number one center and probably a first line winger.

Oh I agree we are going to need to draft the majority of those forwards needed. But I disagree that we don't have *potentially* a fairly high end defense. And yes, I am projecting but that is pretty much necessary to say anything about this team. But within the next 1-2 years I see us likely having the following defensive roster:

Edler-Tanev -> Strong (not elite) top pair

Gudbranson-Hutton -> Don't love Gud but Hutton has the makings of a high end 2nd pair guy.

Juolevi-Stecher -> This is where I see the log jam coming up. Both of these guys project well beyond a 15 minute bottom pair. Not immediately I'll grant you but probably sooner than you think. Again I'm not saying we move someone like Tanev TODAY because this may happen in 1-2 years but it is coming and how Benning handles it will be critical. Meanwhile our forward depth is only going to get worse as the Sedins and Eriksson age and (so far) we have only Boeser coming up as a potential top line replacement. Yes maybe those gaps will be filled by our 2017 and 2018 draft picks, but maybe they won't.

This also ignores potential progression from Tryamkin and Pedan, as well as the fact that we are still stuck with Sbisa for another two years.

Planning for the future includes success planning and considering where your assets are strong and where they are deficient. I see a *much* larger deficiency up front than on the back end.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Oh I agree we are going to need to draft the majority of those forwards needed. But I disagree that we don't have *potentially* a fairly high end defense. And yes, I am projecting but that is pretty much necessary to say anything about this team. But within the next 1-2 years I see us likely having the following defensive roster:

Edler-Tanev -> Strong (not elite) top pair

Gudbranson-Hutton -> Don't love Gud but Hutton has the makings of a high end 2nd pair guy.

Juolevi-Stecher -> This is where I see the log jam coming up. Both of these guys project well beyond a 15 minute bottom pair. Not immediately I'll grant you but probably sooner than you think. Again I'm not saying we move someone like Tanev TODAY because this may happen in 1-2 years but it is coming and how Benning handles it will be critical. Meanwhile our forward depth is only going to get worse as the Sedins and Eriksson age and (so far) we have only Boeser coming up as a potential top line replacement. Yes maybe those gaps will be filled by our 2017 and 2018 draft picks, but maybe they won't.

This also ignores potential progression from Tryamkin and Pedan, as well as the fact that we are still stuck with Sbisa for another two years.

Planning for the future includes success planning and considering where your assets are strong and where they are deficient. I see a *much* larger deficiency up front than on the back end.

I agree 100% with the bolded.
I think where we disagree is whether we have excess assets on defense to fix that deficiency. I don't see that.
I also agree 100% that we should be planning for the Sedin's succession. But we already have a decent group of second and third line players. Not great but decent. It's the top end guys we lack and we're likely getting those through the draft.

 

[tantalum]

This also ignores potential progression from Tryamkin and Pedan, as well as the fact that we are still stuck with Sbisa for another two years.

Planning for the future includes success planning and considering where your assets are strong and where they are deficient. I see a *much* larger deficiency up front than on the back end.

I think the problem with projecting a log jam is that for us to get to that supposed log jam requires all projections to come true. They may but likely not. What I see right now Edler-Tanev, Gudbranson-Hutton (and I'm not convinced Gudbranson is a top 4 but I'm believeing more that Hutton can raise the play of his partner and pull that guy along).

After that the question marks are huge. Pedan has shown virtually nothing to suggest he is anything more than an AHLer. Tryamkin had some decent games in garbage time last year but not guarantee he progresses to regular NHL player at all. Larsen has yet to prove he can play in the NHL and he either does so in the next few months or he likely won't. And even still you are likely looking at Yannick Weber type ceiling. You'll get some decent seasons from him here and there but likely a journeyman. Sbisa is Sbisa. IT's too early to truly project Stecher and Juolevi and how much time they'll need.

Being an optimist would seemingly put them at 6 or 7 NHL d-men in that list. With contracts expiring, trades, injuries etc I don't see how that is in any way a log jam one needs to worry about right now. Or that's some sort of area of strength to deal from.

 

[Jyrki21]

This needs to go into one of your cartoons

It's weird that you're using a post from April to take a non-sequitur shot at me, considering that I was commenting there on a news article from the time in which Stecher made a point to say that, and this is again a direct quote, "the chance to play in front of family and friends in Vancouver won't impact his decision".

 

[y2kcanucks]

I gotta say I'm definitely impressed by this Stecher kid. I liked the signing in the off-season, but did not expect he would come in and earn a job on the big team. At this point it would be a complete farce if he doesn't make the team.

 

[MS]

Disagree. . It would be a tremendous flex of depth.
Remeber Tanev has nothing to offer offensively...

This 'Tanev offers no offence' stuff continues to be ridiculous.

On the PP? Sure, maybe.

But he's a 20-point ES defender which is average for a top-4 guy and he's out-produced Edler at ES over the past 3 years. He's a very solid offensive defender at ES.

To talk about him in the same vein as legitimate offensive black holes like Gudbranson/Sbisa/Tryamkin is unfair and grossly inaccurate.

 

[Rotting Corpse*]

It really is crazy how people still can't figure out that edler plays 1,000 minutes on the PP every year and still doesn't out produce tanev by much.

 

[DL44]

This 'Tanev offers no offence' stuff continues to be ridiculous.

On the PP? Sure, maybe.

But he's a 20-point ES defender which is average for a top-4 guy and he's out-produced Edler at ES over the past 3 years. He's a very solid offensive defender at ES.

To talk about him in the same vein as legitimate offensive black holes like Gudbranson/Sbisa/Tryamkin is unfair and grossly inaccurate.

Hopefully he begins to show it. He's had a rough preseason handling the puck. Passes thru the neutral zone are not connecting and he's handling the puck with hands of stone.. fumbling more than i can ever remember him doing. Can't hold the zone. He's 26... he's had 300 gms in the league.. for some here, that's it for him... wysiwyg. But hey - its preseason.

Tanev deserve as little credit as possible for those ES points you keep harping on about it... he's ultra frustrating to watch in the offensive zone. He should have 30+ with the opportunity he gets. Inspired to go down vote him again.

 

[CanaFan]

I think the problem with projecting a log jam is that for us to get to that supposed log jam requires all projections to come true. They may but likely not. What I see right now Edler-Tanev, Gudbranson-Hutton (and I'm not convinced Gudbranson is a top 4 but I'm believeing more that Hutton can raise the play of his partner and pull that guy along).

After that the question marks are huge. Pedan has shown virtually nothing to suggest he is anything more than an AHLer. Tryamkin had some decent games in garbage time last year but not guarantee he progresses to regular NHL player at all. Larsen has yet to prove he can play in the NHL and he either does so in the next few months or he likely won't. And even still you are likely looking at Yannick Weber type ceiling. You'll get some decent seasons from him here and there but likely a journeyman. Sbisa is Sbisa. IT's too early to truly project Stecher and Juolevi and how much time they'll need.

Being an optimist would seemingly put them at 6 or 7 NHL d-men in that list. With contracts expiring, trades, injuries etc I don't see how that is in any way a log jam one needs to worry about right now. Or that's some sort of area of strength to deal from.

Pedan - yes
Tryamkin - yes

These two are certainly question marks but this is mitigated by the fact that there are two of them and they only need to develop into servicable 5/6 players. Tryamkin is almost there already though his preseason hasn't been as good as his NHL debut was. Pedan may never get there but he still has a shot. Between the two of them there is still a better than 50/50 that we have a bottom pair D on our hands.

Stecher - no, he is 22 and already showing like a potential top 4 NHL defenseman. Yes he may need/get a season in the A to get some seasoning but I don't see much doubt that he has the talent, drive, and smarts to make it. He's a fairly easy projection for me.

Juolevi - again no. Similar to Stecher, he shows the talent and smarts to be at worst a top 4 D and at best a top pair guy. Yes something unexpected could derail that like injuries but then that could happen to Boeser just as easily. Based on his draft pedigree and his showing in camp and the preseason there is not really any legitimate question that he has an NHL future.

 

[CanaFan]

I agree 100% with the bolded.
I think where we disagree is whether we have excess assets on defense to fix that deficiency. I don't see that.
I also agree 100% that we should be planning for the Sedin's succession. But we already have a decent group of second and third line players. Not great but decent. It's the top end guys we lack and we're likely getting those through the draft.

Fair enough. Projecting players future isn't an accurate business and I don't expect everyone's views to match my own speculations. But we are at least clear on the nature of the discussion so no worries. The other poster was confusing what I was saying about a "misallocation of assets" with saying we had wasted too many picks to acquire these in the first place, which was never my point at all.

 

[MS]

Hopefully he begins to show it. He's had a rough preseason handling the puck. Passes thru the neutral zone are not connecting and he's handling the puck with hands of stone.. fumbling more than i can ever remember him doing. Can't hold the zone. He's 26... he's had 300 gms in the league.. for some here, that's it for him... wysiwyg. But hey - its preseason.

Tanev deserve as little credit as possible for those ES points you keep harping on about it... he's ultra frustrating to watch in the offensive zone. He should have 30+ with the opportunity he gets. Inspired to go down vote him again.

Uh, you do realize there were only 11 defenders in the entire NHL to score more than 28 ES points last year, right? And it's pretty much a laundry list of the most elite offensive defenders in the game:

Erik Karlsson
Brent Burns
Kris Letang
John Klingberg
Victor Hedman
Roman Josi
Mark Giordano
Dustin Byfuglien
TJ Brodie
Alex Pietrangelo
Alex Goligoski

If you're expecting Chris Tanev to score 30+ ES points 'given his opportunities', perhaps you're being somewhat unrealistic?

Again, Chris Tanev is, for an NHL top-4 defender, completely average at ES offensively. The notion that he's weak in this regard is completely unfounded and incorrect.

 

[DL44]

Uh, you do realize there were only 11 defenders in the entire NHL to score more than 28 ES points last year, right? And it's pretty much a laundry list of the most elite offensive defenders in the game:

Erik Karlsson
Brent Burns
Kris Letang
John Klingberg
Victor Hedman
Roman Josi
Mark Giordano
Dustin Byfuglien
TJ Brodie
Alex Pietrangelo
Alex Goligoski

If you're expecting Chris Tanev to score 30+ ES points 'given his opportunities', perhaps you're being somewhat unrealistic?

Again, Chris Tanev is, for an NHL top-4 defender, completely average at ES offensively. The notion that he's weak in this regard is completely unfounded and incorrect.

The Last thing i do is expect Tanev score 30+...

 

[MS]

The Last thing i do is expect Tanev score 30+...

You literally said in your previous post "He should have 30+ with the opportunity he gets."

 

[DL44]

You literally said in your previous post "He should have 30+ with the opportunity he gets."

He should. But I would never expect it from Tanev. Semantics.