Player Discussion Troy Stecher, Pt. II
- Thread starter Zombotron
- Start date
- Status
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,345
- 20,212
Love a good fly by.
I think as long as your defenders are skilled and great skaters, size shouldn't matter as much.
It is all about defensive pairings and I think it comes down to the right side. I think most of us like having Stecher on our 3rd pairing. I actually want to see Stecher alongside Juolevi. I did ask the question earlier about whether we need more size on D and wanted to see the Canucks acquire Carlo.
There's so much horribly flawed logic here it's actually difficult to unpack it all. It's a stupid argument for the ages.
1) on a pretty basic level it should be pretty obvious that having more good players = better team, regardless of size.
2) same as the European captain thing, this whole argument is a 'this rock keeps tigers away' thing or Ron Delorme's 'there are no Slovenian NHLers' argument for not drafting Kopitar. There are very few sub-6' NHL defenders and very few teams have multiples of them, so therefore it's highly unlikely for this outcome to have happened, whatever the case. To use the non-occurrence of an unlikely outcome as an excuse to make your team worse is abject stupidity.
3) THERE IS ACTUALLY AN EXAMPLE OF A TEAM EXCELLING WITH MULTIPLE TINY DEFENDERS. Boston came 1 game away from a Cup last year and dominated in the 'regular' season this year with Krug/Grzelcyk in the Hughes/Stecher roles PLUS Connor Clifton as a tiny 6th defender on top of that. Literally the team with the most small defenders in the NHL has been one of the most successful!
4) We just watched this team in an extended playoff run where Hughes and Stecher were two of our best players and the fact that we had multiple small defenders wasn't a problem at all. The actual problem was that we had too many big, plodding defenders who were constantly pinned in their own end. But somehow the focus is upgrading the guy who killed his minutes and was +10, not the pylons who were getting killed.
You've found the outlier, congrats! It's certainly an amusing team to summon in support of undersized defencemen, when they can insulate them with the largest defenceman to ever play hockey. A 6'5 Brandon Carlo doesn't hurt either.
In this year's conference final teams (New York and Vegas), there was only one regular defencemen under 6'0 on both teams combined (a 5'11 Andy Greene).
The 2018 Stanley Cup final had one regular defencemen under 6'0 on both teams combined (a 5'11 Orlov).
The 2017 Stanley Cup Final had two regular defencemen under 6'0 on both teams combined (a 5'11 Daley and 5'10 Ellis).
Need I go on, or you're fine hanging your hat on the outlier?
Bojack Horvatman
IAMGROOT
- Jun 15, 2016
- 4,114
- 7,254
People are just putting way too much stock into those two goals in the St Louis series. Stecher for years has been very good at not getting scored on at ES and on the PK in a bottom pairing role. If someone bigger can be brought in that is as effective as Stecher, and for the same price. Sure. Bringing in someone just because they are big, and thinking that automatically means better defensively is how you end up with Gudbranson.
The issue was never 'do you 'want' or 'not want' Stecher on your team. For his role he's a valuable contributor as a depth defender. But that's all he'd be on a team with pretensions of hoisting the Cup one day.
And the problem is he's an RFA who's probably due a significant raise on his current base salary of $2.35m per year. He could win a $3m contract at least if he goes to arbitration......far too much for a guy who's a gamer but delivers little on offense. Even Jordie Benn at $2m a season is overpaid for that role.
So unless he and his agent are prepared to take a home-town discount, then it makes sense for both the Canucks and the player to move on.
And the problem is he's an RFA who's probably due a significant raise on his current base salary of $2.35m per year. He could win a $3m contract at least if he goes to arbitration......far too much for a guy who's a gamer but delivers little on offense. Even Jordie Benn at $2m a season is overpaid for that role.
So unless he and his agent are prepared to take a home-town discount, then it makes sense for both the Canucks and the player to move on.
Yes, this is because there are very few tiny defenders in the NHL, on any team. The crappy teams aren't playing the living daylights out of multiple 5'10 defenders, either. The fact you can't process this simple bit of logic is stunning.
It's like saying that if Edmonton had a stud German defender coming up that they should trade him immediately because no team has won a Cup with multiple Germans playing key roles.
The one team in the NHL running out 3 tiny defenders is Boston, who have been one of the best teams in the NHL and nearly won a Cup doing so. With Krug and Grzelcyk playing basically the exact same roles as Hughes and Stecher.
There is no correlation here.
OK, so to have Hughes, Stecher, and soon Rathbone all on our defence-corps (I'm sure you would like Biega too!) we just need to obtain Zdeno Chara and Brandon Carlo clones (well Myers would work, but you want to get rid of him...). Got it!
It's funny that you disagree with the size argument when it comes to defencemen you like, but then cite size as your reason for calling Mike Dipietro a bust from day one. And size is tangible, ethnicity is not. Try some other rhetorical move.
Nazzlind
Registered User
but why are there so few under-6'0 defensemen in the league in the first place? Are defensemen over 6'0 just inherently more skilled than ones under 6'0?
Same amount of skill, but defenseman in general is a very physically demanding role. Skill also doesnt matter as much as a defenceman (compared to forwards) since you dont really have the puck most of the time. You cant win battles as a 5'9 dman in the corner when the 6'2 guy just leans on you and takes/protects the puck. Reach is also very important to break up plays. Unless if youre Quinn Hughes ( who obviously has many flaws defensively) where youre offensive gifts outweigh your flaws, the guy taller than you with the same amount of skill is going to get your spot.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 15,477
- 8,575
Until the mid-00s, one of the most effective types of defensemen were slow-skating huge guys who just grabbed on to opponents and didn't let them go anywhere. With the two-line pass in place, the long pass transition game also wasn't what it is today, so defenders were able to get away with a much lower level of puck skills than they need today.
Bias - both conscious and unconscious - toward discouraging smaller, highly puck-skilled players from playing D certainly still exists today, and definitely would have even more so at the time that any current NHLers were getting started in the game.
Nazzlind
Registered User
Yeah, this is what I was alluding too. Size is a skill in itself, just like speed. Sacrificing some skill to bring in bigger or faster players isn't a bad move, as long as it improves the balance of the team.
I like Stecher a lot, but with Hughes on the team and Rathbone in the system, I am also of the opinion that we don't need 3 small dmen on the roster. Out of those 3 dmen, Stecher's skillset is also the easiest to replace too.
BB06
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2020
- 2,973
- 4,321
I know he does...but career wise why would he want to stay? He’s gotta be looking at a better opportunity elsewhere.
Wow! Stecher signs on with a team in a total rebuild for $1.7m a season on a two year contract. That's chump change. I can't believe if the Canucks had been remotely serious about bringing him back, they couldn't have matched that. And he was desperate to re-sign with the Canucks.
Sadly, just goes to show how little Benning and the Canucks actually valued him.
Sadly, just goes to show how little Benning and the Canucks actually valued him.
hellstick
Registered User
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,078
- 16,513
Dude played his ass off here, people comparing this to Hutton don’t watch hockey, Stecher will be more useful since he’s very good on the PK and isn’t as giveaway/mistake prone as Hutton.
Troy gets into trouble when playing too many minutes, he spends so much energy on each shift that he’s best suited for a 3rd pairing role
Troy gets into trouble when playing too many minutes, he spends so much energy on each shift that he’s best suited for a 3rd pairing role
- Status
