Player Discussion Troy Stecher, Pt. II

[F A N]

Have we qualified him yet? Isn't that step 1?

No. You can sign him to an extension today.

You're banking on Stecher wanting to stay in Vancouver bad enough he sacrifices money for stability.

There's no guarantee that he would stay in Vancouver even with a 5 year contract though. That was my point. "Stability" would come in the form of having a long term contract.

 

[Hammer79]

He got exposed in the playoffs, why are we throwing around 5 year 2.5 AAV proposals? A guy his size needs to be producing a lot of offense to make up for his lack of defensive reach, but he doesn't.

 

[Burke's Evil Spirit]

He got exposed in the playoffs, why are we throwing around 5 year 2.5 AAV proposals? A guy his size needs to be producing a lot of offense to make up for his lack of defensive reach, but he doesn't.

If he was so exposed why did he have such a great positive goal differential?

 

[MS]

He got exposed in the playoffs, why are we throwing around 5 year 2.5 AAV proposals? A guy his size needs to be producing a lot of offense to make up for his lack of defensive reach, but he doesn't.

What playoffs were you watching?

 

[PavelBure10]

I don't care who anyone says. At the right cost, I want Stech resigned.

Stecher is proving himself to be a reliable defenseman. I do not want to see him traded.

 

[Canucks1096]

We probably disagree a little on Stecher's value. To me he is a third pairing D-man on a good team and an insurance guy who can move up the line-up without a huge downgrade when injuries happen. Last year he averaged over 20 minutes per game. This year his minutes were down because Myers was in but his D-zone starts were over 60%. He has improved defensively every year and is a solid top 6 on most teams.
For a team looking to add solid defensive help both at forward and defense, Stecher plus Eriksson come at a very low cost, possibly less than $4M for the two of them.

Fair enough.

Th actual cash might be 4 M ( 3 M Stecher + 1 M Eriksson ) but the cap will be 9 M ( 3 M + 6 M ). Don't think many teams have 9 M in cap space to spend.

 

[Luck 6]

He got exposed in the playoffs, why are we throwing around 5 year 2.5 AAV proposals? A guy his size needs to be producing a lot of offense to make up for his lack of defensive reach, but he doesn't.

He didn’t get “exposed”, but he was over matched at times. Even still, he performed above expectations despite being asked to play a role beyond his pay grade. Those are the types of bottom pairing defensemen you want on your roster.

 

[VanJack]

He didn’t get “exposed”, but he was over matched at times. Even still, he performed above expectations despite being asked to play a role beyond his pay grade. Those are the types of bottom pairing defensemen you want on your roster.

There's a lot to like about Stecher but you can't teach 'size', and his next contract will elevate him well above the pay scale for a 'bottom pairing d-man'. So unless they can negotiate a lower contract they may either have to trade him or let him walk, rather than risk an arbitration award.

 

[vanuck]

There's a lot to like about Stecher but you can't teach 'size', and his next contract will elevate him well above the pay scale for a 'bottom pairing d-man'. So unless they can negotiate a lower contract they may either have to trade him or let him walk, rather than risk an arbitration award.

You can't teach IQ either, which is something he has the definite edge on someone much bigger like Myers. And knowing where to be or where to go is probably the most important trait in hockey.

 

[StreetHawk]

If they get him for max of $2.5 they likely keep him. Especially if they let Tanev walk. If Tanev signs then Stecher they will try to trade. His arbitration case wouldn’t be as strong as Hutton’s would have been last year so the fear of a $3.5 mill number shouldn’t be there.

 

[Hit the post]

A pretty solid acquisition by Benning (I must be getting soft, this will be TWO posts in a row I say something positive about the GM ). Agreed, for the right price, we could do ALOT worse than re-sign Stecher.

 

[sting101]

He didn’t get “exposed”, but he was over matched at times. Even still, he performed above expectations despite being asked to play a role beyond his pay grade. Those are the types of bottom pairing defensemen you want on your roster.

exactly. i would sign him for 4-5yrs at a reasonable cap hit in a heartbeat. He's young enough to give us plenty of value and he likely takes less to stay in Van. Him and Myers is a good 4/5 rotation depending on who is rolling and he plays well with Edler who may want to stick around on a short term if no one can unseat him by the end of his contract

 

[member 328930]

A pretty solid acquisition by Benning (I must be getting soft, this will be TWO posts in a row I say something positive about the GM ). Agreed, for the right price, we could do ALOT worse than re-sign Stecher.

I suspect they let him go. 1040 was saying Benning has decided they need an overhaul of the D. Too bad they could not dump Myers instead.

Would he have ANY value?

 

[VancouverJagger]

A pretty solid acquisition by Benning (I must be getting soft, this will be TWO posts in a row I say something positive about the GM ). Agreed, for the right price, we could do ALOT worse than re-sign Stecher.

Yeah that's it exactly. He doesn't overly excite me and quite frankly he's not the missing part to put us over the edge however he is very serviceable and would be very reasonable (affordable) with his demands.

 

[Luck 6]

exactly. i would sign him for 4-5yrs at a reasonable cap hit in a heartbeat. He's young enough to give us plenty of value and he likely takes less to stay in Van. Him and Myers is a good 4/5 rotation depending on who is rolling and he plays well with Edler who may want to stick around on a short term if no one can unseat him by the end of his contract

I still wouldn’t sign him for that. I’d probably go 3 years max with Stecher. It’s a flat cap, I don’t think we’ll see as many longer term contracts for depth players.

 

[tantalum]

I suspect they let him go. 1040 was saying Benning has decided they need an overhaul of the D. Too bad they could not dump Myers instead.

Would he have ANY value?

Benning finally came to the decision most came to 4 or 5 years ago? Good I guess....

 

[I am toxic]

A pretty solid acquisition by Benning (I must be getting soft, this will be TWO posts in a row I say something positive about the GM ). Agreed, for the right price, we could do ALOT worse than re-sign Stecher.

Full mark's to Benning getting Stecher.

Stecher could also contribute the next time the team's window opens when Petey and Hughes are in their prime, either on the team or as part of a trade.

 

[iceburg]

In two years this D-core is going to look very different. Edler and Tanev will both likely be gone. Myers (because of his contract) and Hughes (because he can play hockey) are the only two almost guaranteed to be here. Since the current list to draw from, which realistically only includes Rathbone, Rafferty, Juolevi, and Woo, are quite young/inexperienced, they will need keep Stecher and bring in an established non-replacement level D-man or let Stecher go and bring in 2 D-men for the 21/22 season. In this mix they will need to find 2 that can play in the top 4 and make the team competitive.

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

Look at the defence cores of the Cup Final teams:

Hedman 6'6
Cernak 6'3
Sergachek 6'2
Bogosian 6'2
Schenn 6'2
McDonagh 6'1

Oleksiak 6'7
Klingberg 6'3
Lindell 6'3
Heiskanen 6'1
Fedun 6'1
Sekera 6'0

How about last year's Cup winner:

Parayko 6'6
Bouwmeester 6'4
Edmonson 6'4
Pietrangelo 6'3
Gunnarsson 6'2
Dunn 6'0

Are we seeing a trend here? To be honest, I could go further back. No matter how much people love Stecher (and I do too, but I also recognize his clear limitations in playoff hockey), the Canucks simply cannot build a defence core with multiple undersized defencemen, three if Rathbone is as good as he looks. It's simply unprecedented, and opens up the team to relentless forechecks, as we saw when Myers wasn't 100%.

Stecher is gone and for good reason.

 

[rypper]

Stecher is gone and for good reason.

We should probably ship that Quinn Hughes, short stuff out of town then?

 

[CantStoptheBrock]

We should probably ship that Quinn Hughes, short stuff out of town then?

Here I'll help you read: "the Canucks simply cannot build a defence core with multiple undersized defencemen." Now, care to dispute the actual substance of my post, or do you just like to do fly-bys?

 

[MS]

Look at the defence cores of the Cup Final teams:

Hedman 6'6
Cernak 6'3
Sergachek 6'2
Bogosian 6'2
Schenn 6'2
McDonagh 6'1

Oleksiak 6'7
Klingberg 6'3
Lindell 6'3
Heiskanen 6'1
Fedun 6'1
Sekera 6'0

How about last year's Cup winner:

Parayko 6'6
Bouwmeester 6'4
Edmonson 6'4
Pietrangelo 6'3
Gunnarsson 6'2
Dunn 6'0

Are we seeing a trend here? To be honest, I could go further back. No matter how much people love Stecher (and I do too, but I also recognize his clear limitations in playoff hockey), the Canucks simply cannot build a defence core with multiple undersized defencemen, three if Rathbone is as good as he looks. It's simply unprecedented, and opens up the team to relentless forechecks, as we saw when Myers wasn't 100%.

Stecher is gone and for good reason.

This rock keeps tigers away!

 

[MS]

Boston lost in 7 games last year with 5'9 Torey Krug, 5'9 Matt Grzelcyk, and 5'11 Connor Clifton all playing regularly.

This is as stupid as the 'no European captain has every won the Cup' garbage that was floating around for ages. A team with 3 Quinn Hughes playing next to 3 Tyler Spurgeons on defense would destroy the NHL.

 

[WetcoastOrca]

Look at the defence cores of the Cup Final teams:

Hedman 6'6
Cernak 6'3
Sergachek 6'2
Bogosian 6'2
Schenn 6'2
McDonagh 6'1

Oleksiak 6'7
Klingberg 6'3
Lindell 6'3
Heiskanen 6'1
Fedun 6'1
Sekera 6'0

How about last year's Cup winner:

Parayko 6'6
Bouwmeester 6'4
Edmonson 6'4
Pietrangelo 6'3
Gunnarsson 6'2
Dunn 6'0

Are we seeing a trend here? To be honest, I could go further back. No matter how much people love Stecher (and I do too, but I also recognize his clear limitations in playoff hockey), the Canucks simply cannot build a defence core with multiple undersized defencemen, three if Rathbone is as good as he looks. It's simply unprecedented, and opens up the team to relentless forechecks, as we saw when Myers wasn't 100%.

Stecher is gone and for good reason.

Yeah I think the trend is towards big mobile D. But the key is mobile. The big plugs who used to inhabit the NHL are largely a thing of the past.
Smaller high level D like Hughes and Makar are also a new trend but as you say the rest of the D probably needs size if you have one of those guys.
I don’t see Stecher as a long term solution but over the next couple of years he may be better than anything else we have.

 

[JTmillerForA1stLOL]

I think Stetcher should be one of the last dominoes to fall. He's not important enough to be a priority. Figure out Tanev, Markstrom and Toffoli first. Figure out how to unload at least one of our bloated contracts. Then deal with Stetcher. If he can be utilized to accomplish any of the above - go for it.

The guy is not irreplaceable when it comes to a franchise with as many contract issues as we have.