Player Discussion Troy Stecher, Pt. II

[Bertuzzzi44]

Hughes-Hainsey
Dillon-Stecher
Edler-Myers
Juolevi-Benn

Tanev will be on the back 9 of his career, whereas Stecher is still reaching his prime. Stecher=Tanev in terms of value but Stecher will be much cheaper. If the ask from Tanev is too much I’d replace him with a cheap 1 year contract (Hainsey). I’d also sign a guy like Brendan Dillon to solidify the left side as it’ll be Edler’s last year.

 

[F A N]

What games were we watching? Myers sometimes uses his length to break up plays but...he's really in no way a "physical" defenseman. He's not a guy who punishes forward. Honestly he loses more battles than he should. By my eye, his net-front play is his worst attribute.

Stecher is definitely a lot more physical.

Size of the dog vs size of the fight.

Myers is no Chara. Chara is one of a kind. But Myers, despite a slight frame, is no bambi. Myer's height and long arms does allow him to separate players from the puck effectively. He took a lot of roughing penalties during the play-in but if you watch him play he often does push guys away and is very effective in doing so. I think he does step up his physical play in the playoffs. He's not a punishing hitter but few are nowadays.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Stecher was literally just one of our best players in two series against two of the biggest, heaviest teams in the NHL - and badly outplayed the 6'8 Myers in the same role - and we're still hearing stuff like this. He didn't 'have trouble in the d-zone with bigger forwards' at all, even a little bit. It's so frustrating.

I think, in fairness, the first game after Myers went down was a really rough one for Stecher. He got propelled into big minutes and he got targeted hard by the St. Louis forecheck. He was victimized for sure.

But what was great was how he adapted after that and totally settled into his role and just kept battling. He’s someone I really think we need to keep. He bleeds Canuck colours, he has a high hockey IQ, he’s not terribly expensive, and he’s very adaptable to different roles.

 

[timw33]

Pretty decent comparable just signed: Sean Walker 4 years $2.6MM per.

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

What games were we watching? Myers sometimes uses his length to break up plays but...he's really in no way a "physical" defenseman. He's not a guy who punishes forward. Honestly he loses more battles than he should. By my eye, his net-front play is his worst attribute.

Stecher is definitely a lot more physical.



All else equal, I'd prefer a nice right-lefty balance. And maybe you do need to pay a premium for right-handers.

But if you're wildly overpaying guys just because they're right-handed, you're doing it wrong. Vegas has 5 regular lefties on their blueline for crying out loud. Oleksiak-Heiskanen is a lefty-lefty pair. Tampa just throws Hedman out with an assortment of low-price right-handers because they know it's folly to overpay chasing a unicorn that doesn't exist.

Talent is most important. Price is important. Just because you think you need a right-hander doesn't mean you blow $30 million on Tyler Myers.

Myers size is a detriment in a battle because of his high center of gravity.

 

[Javaman]

Myers size is a detriment in a battle because of his high center of gravity.

It seemed to me that Myers lost the puck in his skates more often than is usual for a defenseman. Seems likely to be a byproduct of his unusual height, IMO.

I mean, it happened even when he wasn't directly engaged in a puck battle with an opposing player.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

I think, in fairness, the first game after Myers went down was a really rough one for Stecher. He got propelled into big minutes and he got targeted hard by the St. Louis forecheck. He was victimized for sure.

But what was great was how he adapted after that and totally settled into his role and just kept battling. He’s someone I really think we need to keep. He bleeds Canuck colours, he has a high hockey IQ, he’s not terribly expensive, and he’s very adaptable to different roles.

Hes like the opposite of Meyers who is lazy.

 

[VanJack]

Stecher was literally just one of our best players in two series against two of the biggest, heaviest teams in the NHL - and badly outplayed the 6'8 Myers in the same role - and we're still hearing stuff like this. He didn't 'have trouble in the d-zone with bigger forwards' at all, even a little bit. It's so frustrating.

Whether or not Stecher can handle bigger forwards in his own zone, is basically immaterial to the bigger picture. The 'bigger picture' is that the Canucks need dramatic improvement on their blueline. Everybody could see it in these playoffs.

Obviously Hughes, Myers Benn and Edler are all going to be back because they're under contract.. And if the Canucks bring back both Tanev and Stecher as some posters have advocated, can anyone explain to me how the blueline will possibly be any better? If you're 'standing still' in the Western Conference, you're 'sliding backwards'.

Whether the improvement comes internally from guys like Rafferty, Rathbone and Juolevi pushing for a spot; or Benning going out and making a splashy trade; something has to happen.

I suppose if Stecher is willing to take a significant home-town discount you can re-sign him as an insurance policy in case nothing else works out. You could still turn around and trade him later on. But if his contract were to go to arbitration and he's awarded north of $3m a season, the Canucks have to walk away.

Because doing nothing on the blueline and bringing back the same guys for next season simply isn't an option.

 

[Blue and Green]

I suppose if Stecher is willing to take a significant home-town discount you can re-sign him as an insurance policy in case nothing else works out. You could still turn around and trade him later on. But if his contract were to go to arbitration and he's awarded north of $3m a season, the Canucks have to walk away.

Clubs can't walk away from arbitration decisions that are less than $4.5M.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Clubs can't walk away from arbitration decisions that are less than $4.5M.

I never knew that..that would put Stecher in between a rock and a hard place.

 

[Peter10]

I never knew that..that would put Stecher in between a rock and a hard place.

That was the reason why Hutton wasnt qualified last year.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Whether or not Stecher can handle bigger forwards in his own zone, is basically immaterial to the bigger picture. The 'bigger picture' is that the Canucks need dramatic improvement on their blueline. Everybody could see it in these playoffs.

Obviously Hughes, Myers Benn and Edler are all going to be back because they're under contract.. And if the Canucks bring back both Tanev and Stecher as some posters have advocated, can anyone explain to me how the blueline will possibly be any better? If you're 'standing still' in the Western Conference, you're 'sliding backwards'.

Whether the improvement comes internally from guys like Rafferty, Rathbone and Juolevi pushing for a spot; or Benning going out and making a splashy trade; something has to happen.

I suppose if Stecher is willing to take a significant home-town discount you can re-sign him as an insurance policy in case nothing else works out. You could still turn around and trade him later on. But if his contract were to go to arbitration and he's awarded north of $3m a season, the Canucks have to walk away.

Because doing nothing on the blueline and bringing back the same guys for next season simply isn't an option.

The Defence was pretty good considering the Canucks were hemmed in 80% of the time. The forwards simply couldn’t maintain possession and offensive zone time; bottom 6 would usually reach the red line, dump it in and change. Our D got hammered as a result, they bent but didn’t break under heavy pressure. Lack of size, strength, speed and skill at forward (especially in the bottom 6) was a much bigger problem. Stecher btw was fantastic in the playoffs.

 

[VanJack]

All you can do is take stock of the Canucks blueline in the totality of 69 games played in the regular season and 17 playoff games.

The verdict--not nearly good enough. And that's not just coming from these boards, it's coming from observers around the NHL. After six years of the Benning regime, they're still relying on Tanev and Edler night after night, and now they're over 30 and increasingly injury-prone.

And anyone who believes that their blueline was good enough in these playoffs is living in some drug-induced fantasy as Burkie once described it. Without absolutely mind-boggling goaltending, this team might not have even got past Minnesota. And you simply can't rely on getting those kind of saves night after night.

Canucks need bigger, stronger d-men and more puck-movers to compliment Hughes. The only d-men guaranteed to be back are Myers, Hughes and Edler because they have contracts. Benn has a contract but it's in his last year and I see him traded for depth. As for the others, even if they're willing to take a major haircut on their new contracts, I wouldn't bring any of them back.

 

[Fatass]

I like Troy but it sounds like Benning will trade him. Likely at the draft for picks, or as sweetener to dump a toxic contract. I could see a trade like Sutter and Troy to a team like Buffalo. Two character guys to a team that needs that. Benning said OJ is NHL ready, so I see Benn and OJ on our bottom pair. Our right side will look like this, because our cap problems indicate it must:
Myers
Tanev (or Rafferty)
Benn

 

[JiffyPB]

You are panicking about an undrafted free agent. It's true that our 2016 1st rounder should be having a bigger impact, but Hughes is more than expected. I should remind you that the Blackhawks won the Stanley Cup basically on the back of Keith/Seabrook/Oduya/Hjalmarsson.

34 year old Edler is still a top 4 D, the other two are iffy. Our right-side could definitely use upgrade, but Edler-Myers is a good second pairing. Most teams would take a second pairing like that. Myers and Stecher are the two best RHD on our team at this point, Tanev has turned into Kris Russell and is not fit to play in the offensive zone. I'd expect Stecher back before Tanev.

I'm not panicking over a 5D, I'm panicking that the defense is old as hell with no feasible internal replacements. You name that defense core for the Hawks, yet they imploded after 2 years because they couldn't sustain that level of play anymore.

 

[tradervik]

I think LA signing RFA Sean Walker to a 4 year deal with AAV $2.65 million puts an end to "Stecher's going to get $3 million in arbitration". Canucks should be able to sign him to his QO if not less.

 

[timw33]

I think LA signing RFA Sean Walker to a 4 year deal with AAV $2.65 million puts an end to "Stecher's going to get $3 million in arbitration". Canucks should be able to sign him to his QO if not less.

Agreed. It was like them being worried about Hutton arbitration because they bungled the original post-ELC contract and were backed into a QO that wasn't worth it.

 

[604]

Offer Stecher 4 x $2M and see if he bites.

Would rather have him than Schenn/Benn.

 

[Canucks1096]

Offer Stecher 4 x $2M and see if he bites.

Would rather have him than Schenn/Benn.

Stecher is a rfa, we can't offer a lower salary unless we don't offer him a qualifying offer and he become a ufa. Then we risk losing Stecher for nothing.

 

[Canucks1096]

Hughes-Hainsey
Dillon-Stecher
Edler-Myers
Juolevi-Benn

Tanev will be on the back 9 of his career, whereas Stecher is still reaching his prime. Stecher=Tanev in terms of value but Stecher will be much cheaper. If the ask from Tanev is too much I’d replace him with a cheap 1 year contract (Hainsey). I’d also sign a guy like Brendan Dillon to solidify the left side as it’ll be Edler’s last year.

Hainsey is almost 40. Don't want him and especially not on the 1st pairing

 

[wonton15]

Stecher is a rfa, we can't offer a lower salary unless we don't offer him a qualifying offer and he become a ufa. Then we risk losing Stecher for nothing.

Honestly I'd take that risk. I think he wants to come back, but if he doesn't then not an irreplaceable loss. Tanev is pretty hard to replace though and is someone we can't risk.

 

[604]

Stecher is a rfa, we can't offer a lower salary unless we don't offer him a qualifying offer and he become a ufa. Then we risk losing Stecher for nothing.

I believe we can offer him anything we want.

We will need to give him a 1 year QO if we want him to become an RFA but I feel he wants to be in Vancouver and may be willing to take less in order to stay here rather than risking free agency in this market place.

IMO, there are a lot of guys of similar play level to Stecher who will be available this off-season.

 

[F A N]

Agreed. It was like them being worried about Hutton arbitration because they bungled the original post-ELC contract and were backed into a QO that wasn't worth it.

Huh? Hutton's QO would have been $75K more than Stecher's QO. It's hardly unreasonable. If Hutton isn't worth his QO, that's not on the Canucks. Clearly, Hutton's camp overestimated Hutton's worth. If the Canucks were interested in keeping Hutton, Hutton could have signed a deal worth his QO.

 

[mathonwy]

• Right-handed
• Ages - 16-34
• GP this season - >=30
• Cap Hit - 0->3M
• Expiry status - RFA

• Expiry status - UFA

.

 

[tyhee]

...

IMO, there are a lot of guys of similar play level to Stecher who will be available this off-season.

I agree with that statement, but our pro scouting staff's failures in recognizing defencemens' levels of play is a major concern. I doubt that the Canucks will qualify Stecher but hope they sign him at a reasonable price rather than having them think they've found another bargain along the lines of Bartkowski.