HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Notices

So, who plays defense when Schultz is gone?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-09-2010, 03:51 PM
  #1
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,263
vCash: 500
So, who plays defense when Schultz is gone?

Zidlicky - is not defensively responsible

Zanon - Here's one, but he's only signed for a year

Burns - Do we really want to keep him from roaming and cheating up a bit and lose his offense?

Barker - Uh....I don't think I have enough time to begin on what is wrong with this guy!

Stoner - Injury prone, more time on the IR than on the ice.

Falk - Is this guy even ready?

So do we go out and overpay for a guy to be a stay at home defenseman or positional defenseman? Or do we let our forwards play defense and our defense play forward?

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 03:58 PM
  #2
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
I'll go with, answer isn't immediately on roster at this point.

As much as I rag on Schultz, he's a serviceable defensive defenseman. Will the Wild feel the effects of losing that? It's likely. However, given where this team is at this point, I don't think I'd be all that concerned.

The Wild were downright horrid in the defensive zone last season. It really can't get much worse at this point. With or without Nick Schultz. The Wild would do well to get out from under that contract, though. And given the defensive prospects in the system, I'd generally have more faith in some of those guys filling this type of role down the line than say, hoping one of those players could fill an offensive minded defenseman role.

Looking ahead, I just believe that you'll be much more likely to find a player that could fill those shoes and not the other way around.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 04:01 PM
  #3
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
Niklas Backstrom/Josh Harding/Matthew Hackett/unknown goalie prospect

__________________
Blog: First Round Bust: A Cast of Thousands celebrating a rather dodgy track record of Minnesota Wild Drafting.

"Will beats skill when skill doesn't have enough will."
-Doug Woog
1974 1976 1979 2002 2003 2014?
GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 04:20 PM
  #4
Kari Takko
Registered User
 
Kari Takko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Metro, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thespeckledkiwi View Post
Zidlicky - is not defensively responsible

Zanon - Here's one, but he's only signed for a year

Burns - Do we really want to keep him from roaming and cheating up a bit and lose his offense?

Barker - Uh....I don't think I have enough time to begin on what is wrong with this guy!

Stoner - Injury prone, more time on the IR than on the ice.

Falk - Is this guy even ready?

So do we go out and overpay for a guy to be a stay at home defenseman or positional defenseman? Or do we let our forwards play defense and our defense play forward?
Zidlicky - Doesn't mean he doesn't play any D.

Zanon - Is signed for 2 more years.

Burns - Takes chances on the rush, but his skating puts him back in the play more often than not.

Barker - Barker haters are just off base with this guy. He's good. He's 24, and he's only going to get better.

Stoner - When he's healthy, he's good

Scandella - Second best d-man in world juniors behind Alex Petriangelo

Cuma - Has shown NHL promise, just needs to regain his confidence.

Prosser - Showed in a few games that he's not far off.

Kari Takko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 04:22 PM
  #5
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
Well our defense looks terrible because we lack 1-2 really good defensemen and/or a couple of our guys are question marks.

If you want to better compare them, let's guess where our guys would be playing with the Blackhawks:

Burns - 2nd pairing, maybe 1st pairing with Keith
Barker - PP specialist
Zanon - PK specialist
Zidlicky - PP specialist
Schultz - 6th/7th defenseman maybe playing with Campbell
Stoner - AHL

The point isn't that Schultz is our best defenseman, it's that we lack 1-2 top four guys. If Cuma and Scandella BOTH hit their potential to be two-way players who can move the puck AND shut down the other team as well as skate very well, we'll be really deep. Imagine this:

Burns - Scandella
Zidlicky - Cuma
Zanon - Barker

Now THAT would be a deep lineup. And without Schultz even!

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 05:14 PM
  #6
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
IMO Schultz will be with the Wild for the next 3-4 years. Whos going to take his contract off our hands?

saywut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:13 PM
  #7
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,210
vCash: 50
sign skoula for $500k. that way if our young try-outs don't pan out we at least have someone back there who will get in the way. and he isn't any worse at moving the puck up ice than most of the rest of the bunch right now.
and the skoula guy will have something to yell all night!

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:23 PM
  #8
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,210
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kari Takko View Post

Barker - Barker haters are just off base with this guy. He's good. He's 24, and he's only going to get better.
barker haters? I was excited about him until i watched him play...What did you notice about him that you thought was promising? I'm still holding out hope that he'll start playing up to his potential, or barring that with a little emotion and/or hustle. I can understand being depressed about being shoved off the Cup wagon.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:41 PM
  #9
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
His size and shot for one. He was playing on a bad ankle and got ripped for his mobility...so that might drastically improve now that he's had the surgery.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:48 PM
  #10
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
Do people not remember how much our D sucked in the playoffs against Colorado when Schultz was out with his appendix thing?

They were bad. And we had Johnsson at that point.

It's going to be the same thing.

nickschultzfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 06:57 PM
  #11
this providence
Chips in Bed Theorem
 
this providence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: St. Paul
Posts: 9,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
Do people not remember how much our D sucked in the playoffs against Colorado when Schultz was out with his appendix thing?
Eh?

The same playoffs where the Wild gave up;
Game 1: 3 goals (OT Loss)
Game 2: 2 goals (Win)
Game 3: 2 goals (OT Win)
Game 4: 5 goals (Loss)
Game 5: 3 goals (Loss)
Game 6: 2 goals (Loss)

The defense was hardly the issue there. In fact, it was right on par with how they performed all year. Schultz was not huge loss for the team. As always, goal scoring was the key issue. Holding a team to those totals should be near strong enough to win you a series if you've got a competent offense. Which of coarse, the Wild did not.

this providence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 07:06 PM
  #12
rynryn
Progress to the Mean
 
rynryn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Minny
Country: United States
Posts: 21,210
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
His size and shot for one. He was playing on a bad ankle and got ripped for his mobility...so that might drastically improve now that he's had the surgery.
here's hoping.

I really didn't see much to brag about shot-wise, either. I thought he was going to be an instant improvement on our PP but he was absolutely underwhelming. he did not use his size at all effectively, which was my biggest complaint: if he can't produce offense, at least throw your weight around and get people off the goalie. Didn't see that at all.

Those things you mentioned were things i believed he possessed before watching him. he still probably has them but motivation might be a problem.

rynryn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:24 PM
  #13
GopherState
Repeat Offender...
 
GopherState's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: X Marks The Spot
Posts: 22,773
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by this providence View Post
Eh?

The same playoffs where the Wild gave up;
Game 1: 3 goals (OT Loss)
Game 2: 2 goals (Win)
Game 3: 2 goals (OT Win)
Game 4: 5 goals (Loss)
Game 5: 3 goals (Loss)
Game 6: 2 goals (Loss)

The defense was hardly the issue there. In fact, it was right on par with how they performed all year. Schultz was not huge loss for the team. As always, goal scoring was the key issue. Holding a team to those totals should be near strong enough to win you a series if you've got a competent offense. Which of coarse, the Wild did not.
When you lose three players which are apart of your supposed top-six and are banking on Todd Fedoruk producing points, there are other problems to deal with.

GopherState is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 09:57 PM
  #14
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
Do people not remember how much our D sucked in the playoffs against Colorado when Schultz was out with his appendix thing?

They were bad. And we had Johnsson at that point.

It's going to be the same thing.
I don't know how relevant that is at this point considering this is a different team, different coach, different system, etc.

I don't disagree that it was very noticeable in that series but Schultz was a different player under Lemaire. His gap coverage, lane coverage and overall positional play was top notch. This wasn't the case last year.

Jbcraig1883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 10:29 PM
  #15
Kari Takko
Registered User
 
Kari Takko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Metro, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rynryn View Post
barker haters? I was excited about him until i watched him play...What did you notice about him that you thought was promising? I'm still holding out hope that he'll start playing up to his potential, or barring that with a little emotion and/or hustle. I can understand being depressed about being shoved off the Cup wagon.
Wild fans haven't seen his best yet. It's what I've seen of him before coming to the Wild that make me think he's promising. You'll see next year.

Kari Takko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2010, 11:37 PM
  #16
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,263
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kari Takko View Post
Zidlicky - Doesn't mean he doesn't play any D.
He really doesn't play D, he's an offensive specialist that needs a defensively responsible player playing next to him.


Quote:
Zanon - Is signed for 2 more years.
Meh, one more year. Still better.

Quote:
Burns - Takes chances on the rush, but his skating puts him back in the play more often than not.
He's good at skating but we need a more defensively responsible player instead of having him cheat up to try and score goals.

Quote:
Barker - Barker haters are just off base with this guy. He's good. He's 24, and he's only going to get better.
Everyone rips on Schultz but Barker isn't paid that much less. Barker hasn't shown much at all. There is a reason why they wanted him out of Chicago.

Quote:
Stoner - When he's healthy, he's good
That's the big key for Stoner. When healthy.

Quote:
Scandella - Second best d-man in world juniors behind Alex Petriangelo

Cuma - Has shown NHL promise, just needs to regain his confidence.

Prosser - Showed in a few games that he's not far off.
No, Prosser is a few years away. All three of them need time in the juniors. Or else we might have another Sheppard or Gillies.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:33 AM
  #17
mnwildgophers
Registered User
 
mnwildgophers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,497
vCash: 500
It'd be great to see Schultz being shipped out. We could get out of his contract and use that money for cap space to do whatever. We have Noreau and Falk down in the minors, and Scandella and Cuma will most likely challenge for a spot on the roster (Although, I hope that they just get a year down in the AHL to develop). Losing Schultz I don't think would matter much.

mnwildgophers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 01:32 AM
  #18
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,263
vCash: 500
Noreau? You mean the under size defenseman that looks like Travis Roche Pt II? If we were getting rid of Zids, yes bring up Noreau but no.

thestonedkoala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 10:54 AM
  #19
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
All three of those guys are AHL eligible and should be playing there. Prosser is 24 years old and not eligible for juniors, and he looked pretty damn good out there.

What I dislike about Schultz is that he doesn't contribute offensively, but he isn't a shutdown guy either. He can't clear the front of the net and isn't physical, but he's not a brilliant takeaway guy either. Zanon is better at every aspect of the game, and he's not a top pairing guy, so what does that make Schultz? Bottom pairing.

He was pretty good with Johnsson, who was a very good defensive guy who could turn the play around. Overpaid by $500k to $1m and not as well suited to this system, but very good. Schultz is okay, works a lot better with a strong defensive partner, but Zanon does his job better at half the price.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 12:51 PM
  #20
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
All three of those guys are AHL eligible and should be playing there. Prosser is 24 years old and not eligible for juniors, and he looked pretty damn good out there.

What I dislike about Schultz is that he doesn't contribute offensively, but he isn't a shutdown guy either. He can't clear the front of the net and isn't physical, but he's not a brilliant takeaway guy either. Zanon is better at every aspect of the game, and he's not a top pairing guy, so what does that make Schultz? Bottom pairing.

He was pretty good with Johnsson, who was a very good defensive guy who could turn the play around. Overpaid by $500k to $1m and not as well suited to this system, but very good. Schultz is okay, works a lot better with a strong defensive partner, but Zanon does his job better at half the price.
But Schultz can close the gap on a rush very well. You pair him with a bigger, stronger Dman, like Burns or Stoner, and you have a very good D pair.

Cuma, Prosser, and Scandella should all be in the AHL. If Prosser can prove his metal down there, I would hope he would be the first call-up. Ideally, I would like Cuma and Scandella each to get two seasons in the AHL.

nickschultzfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 01:06 PM
  #21
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,431
vCash: 500
Yep, he can do that just fine, but there's a lot more to playing defense than closing the gap on a rush.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 01:18 PM
  #22
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,119
vCash: 500
I just wanted to make a note that I am not an advocate of going out and trading Schultz just to do so. I am fine with his contract and am in agreement he had great gap coverage, lane coverage and positional play before last year. I do think he can get back to that game as well, considering he was told to join the rush last year. Considering our whole defensive corps were out of position most of the year, I can't just point at Schultz. But, he wasn't the positional guy of years past.

However, with that said, I think it is obvious as to why his name has been brought up by Russo, and that is because we have defensive depth in the system. Schultz is the most tradeable asset we have. Losing him is not losing an elite defenseman. Losing him does not make us lose the Stanley Cup. He is a great defenseman but we aren't a team that is one player away from the cup. The fact is he is a veteran defenseman who is still young and would be valued by teams.

In other words, it is logical to see why Fletcher would try to trade Schultz.

Jbcraig1883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 01:51 PM
  #23
nickschultzfan
Registered User
 
nickschultzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,794
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jocksta18 View Post
I just wanted to make a note that I am not an advocate of going out and trading Schultz just to do so. I am fine with his contract and am in agreement he had great gap coverage, lane coverage and positional play before last year. I do think he can get back to that game as well, considering he was told to join the rush last year. Considering our whole defensive corps were out of position most of the year, I can't just point at Schultz. But, he wasn't the positional guy of years past.

However, with that said, I think it is obvious as to why his name has been brought up by Russo, and that is because we have defensive depth in the system. Schultz is the most tradeable asset we have. Losing him is not losing an elite defenseman. Losing him does not make us lose the Stanley Cup. He is a great defenseman but we aren't a team that is one player away from the cup. The fact is he is a veteran defenseman who is still young and would be valued by teams.

In other words, it is logical to see why Fletcher would try to trade Schultz.
I understand the point you are making, but I don't see how a defensive Dman like Schultz, with a fairly large contract, is going to bring back more than his value to the team.

Sure, I'd trade Schultz for a top-6 center, but when have you seen a defensive dman moved for major value coming back, except maybe at the deadline? It just doesn't happen.

Being aware of that, I read all the "Trade Schultz" posts as NOT a call to bring in help via trade, BUT INSTEAD a call to get rid of Schultz, just to get rid of him and save a little cap space - which I think is a completely terrible idea. We can clear cap space easier by moving some of our forward group.

Honestly, I don't see Fletcher pulling off a big trade to bring in top-6 forward help. It's just too hard. Instead, I see Fletcher clearing the roster and cap space, positioning himself to do what he has proven to do best: sign top-tier free agents.

nickschultzfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 02:25 PM
  #24
bozak911
Ignoring Idiots
 
bozak911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 3,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
Instead, I see Fletcher clearing the roster and cap space, positioning himself to do what he has proven to do best: sign top-tier free agents.
Like who?

Havlat?

Havlat contacted US. He (and his agent) had a contract in mind. The Wild said yes.

Pretty simple. Even Risebrough wouldn't have screwed that up.

bozak911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 02:27 PM
  #25
Jbcraig1883
Registered User
 
Jbcraig1883's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Louisville, KY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,119
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickschultzfan View Post
I understand the point you are making, but I don't see how a defensive Dman like Schultz, with a fairly large contract, is going to bring back more than his value to the team.

Sure, I'd trade Schultz for a top-6 center, but when have you seen a defensive dman moved for major value coming back, except maybe at the deadline? It just doesn't happen.

Being aware of that, I read all the "Trade Schultz" posts as NOT a call to bring in help via trade, BUT INSTEAD a call to get rid of Schultz, just to get rid of him and save a little cap space - which I think is a completely terrible idea. We can clear cap space easier by moving some of our forward group.

Honestly, I don't see Fletcher pulling off a big trade to bring in top-6 forward help. It's just too hard. Instead, I see Fletcher clearing the roster and cap space, positioning himself to do what he has proven to do best: sign top-tier free agents.

I agree with you on the base that getting rid of Schultz just because he has a larger contract to open up would be stupid.

I also understand that it is highly unlikely that he would garner a top 6 player.

Finally, I agree that Schultz being moved to open up cap space is probably the most rational outcome in trading him. That, and maybe getting a pick and a low tier prospect.

I think we are in agreement, it's just that I am lacking the communication skills. I am just trying to point out that it makes sense that Schultz is the player that has been mentioned as an individual that has value to trade in order to open up cap space and to possibly get back some other assets. Should we trade him just to do so? No, but if a trade makes sense and CF feels he can make a splash in free agency, then I feel it does make sense.

Jbcraig1883 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.