Horvat is a Boss

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,045 Gaming the system

About Horvat is a Boss

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Recent Profile Visitors

3,049 profile views
  1. @Kanukfanatic the 2016 draft is listed twice and the 2015 draft is missing. Also, I don't think many people care about making the NHL in their draft +1 year as it's usually the top 3 who have a shot at that and then a bunch of exceptions. Instead, you should look at the top 5 pick who didn't make the NHL by their draft +2 year. That would mean 2019 would have to be excluded though since they're only in their draft +1 year.
  2. Those lists are wrong. I don't know what list that is, but it's not the draft order. I mean, Pettersson was taken 5th overall and he's not on the 2017 list. Didn't that set off any alarms?
  3. "Discount" was probably the wrong way to phrase it. What I meant was that Hughes' camp can say that he has been underpaid for his contributions thus far, not that they accepted a lower deal than what they wanted at the time. Good point on the arbitration rights. I would absolutely look to lock Hughes (and Pettersson) up for 8 years. I wasn't a fan of the term on Boeser's deal because now, if he earns it at the end of his deal, he could be much more expensive to re-sign (with the cap going up and such) compared to if we just committed to him now. With Hughes, hopefully the Chabot deal can be used as a comparable (8 years, 8 million cap hit per and Hughes is scoring at a slightly lower rate with a smaller sample size) signed with one year left on his ELC. For Pettersson, hopefully the Eichel deal will be the comparable there (8 years, 10 million cap hit per after scoring at a slightly lower rate than Pettersson and missing time with an injury signed with one year left on his ELC). I would definitely go for term with these deals though. Any bridge will just make them that much more expensive. As much as our team has improved short term, we should still have a long term outlook on this.
  4. One thing to consider in regards to Hughes' next deal is that his camp has already given the Canucks a discount. Hughes doesn't have any schedule B bonuses in his ELC, whereas Pettersson has the maximum allowed. This gives Hughes' camp the ability to say that they already gave the team a break, now they team should ready to pay him. This is what happened with Marner and the Leafs this past summer.
  5. I wasn't aware that it was only the top 2 centers in the league. I would then agree that it's unlikely Pettersson hits that. That just means we have to wait until the top 10 scoring leaders for the year are determined and the nominees for the NHL Awards are announced to be absolutely certain. I wouldn't bet on either of those things happening, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did happen either. Best Case Scenario: 1.7M in bonuses + 4M internal cap = 5.7 million in essentially dead cap space next year just looking at bonuses. Worst Case Scenario: 3.7M in bonuses + 4M internal cap = 7.7 million in essentially dead cap space next year just looking at bonuses. We're looking at the bad or the ugly.
  6. I just want to make sure I understand what you mean regarding the bolded. You're saying that if a team has to use LTIR, then they are already tight to the cap and therfore couldn't bank a significant amount of cap space anyways, correct? Regarding Pettersson, I would imagine that being named to the All-Star game (not being voted in, actually being originally selected for it) would be reason enough to believe that he would be named to the first or second All-Star team. It sounds like there's a decent chance that Pettersson will hit his schedule B bonuses one way or another and we should definitely be prepared for it. Given that the Canucks have banked an insignificant amount of cap space, it sounds like we should expect around 3.5 million in overages for next season, is that fair? I figured we would have to get rid of Sutter and Baertschi and possibly lose Stetcher for us to bring back the important parts of this year's team, but operating with an extra 2 million in dead cap and with an internal limit of 2+ million below the cap to account for performance bonuses next year means we might have to do even more. That's terrible really for a team that has just pulled itself out of the basement for 1 year.
  7. Does that really say much? I mean it's nice, but not important.
  8. Thank you for the response. I guess the question that remains is how exactly does banking cap space work? I know the cap is calculated daily, so is the banked cap space the average of the team's daily cap space (excluding LTIR)? Thank you for the response. Pettersson has been named an All-Star already, doesn't that count as reaching a schedule B bonus? There's also been light talk that Pettersson could be up for the Lady Byng. That would definitely qualify as a schedule B bonus correct? I just looked and it looks like Hughes doesn't have any schedule B bonuses, which is good because he would have definitely hit two of them being an All Star and virtual lock to finish top 3 in Calder voting. On the other hand, when Hughes' camp is negotiating his next contract (which will be substantially larger) they can claim that they already gave management a break by not having schedule B performance bonuses in the deal. It would make him less likely to take any sort of discount on his next deal. That was the exact situation that played out this past summer with Marner and the Leafs. This type of cap management has been the weakest part of this regime in my opinion. Now we are really have to clear some cap space this summer to bring back our key UFAs (Tanev, Markstrom) and retain our current RFAs (Virtanen and Gaudette). Stetcher is as good as gone given the rumors surrounding him at the start of the year and our cap situation, which is a shame and an example of the consequences of poor cap management. We're also going to need to sign or replace guys like Motte, Schaller, Leivo and possibly Markstrom or Tanev if they don't re-sign.
  9. Considering that Ferland has been on LTIR most of the year and Pettersson and Hughes will likely hit most of their bonuses, could the Canucks realistically be looking at 3+ million in bonus overages for next year?
  10. The bonus overage thing is a key factor here. I'm not sure if I'm 100% right on this, but here's how I understand it. Between Pettersson and Hughes, the Canucks could have a maximum or 3.7 million in bonuses to play out. For arguments sake and just to use a round number, let's say at the end of the year we are on the hook for 3 million in bonuses. Then let's say the Canucks' end of season cap space is $500,000 after some trades and moves. The Canucks would then have to pay 2.5 million in overages for next year. I don't think it's that simple (LTIR factors into it), but that's the general idea. @mll would you be able to clarify? EDIT: I see you already beat me to it.
  11. Lundell is having a phenomenal year. He missed some time due to an injury (including the WJC) but hasn't slowed down at all since his return. He's known as a responsible, two-way center but has shown offensive ability this year as well. There aren't many players who have a significant positive impact in a professional men's league in their draft years and the ones that do get taken very early in the draft. Lundell has been doing that. For those who remember last year's WJC, Lundell played an important role as Finland's 2C on their gold medal winning team as an underager. That is also very impressive. For reference, Lundell would have certainly cracked the top 3 last year and would have been a real contender for 1st overall. This year it's tough to put him in the top 5. That's how ridiculously stacked the top end of this draft is.
  12. There were rumours at the start of the year that management would look to move Stetcher this summer. We can't afford to pay him anything really and he can be internally replaced. I would hate to lose him, but it's the position we've put ourselves in. I'd love to pay Seattle to take Myers. It really is his contract that's caused our cap complications.
  13. I haven't seen much of this angst at all. Most people feel that we are in good place in regards to the draft, especially with Hughes being ineligible. Did this require a thread?
  14. I'm saying that the ask for the asset would be greater than the actual value of the asset. If the Canucks were trading Woo, they could ask for O'Reilly. That doesn't mean the trade would actually happen. Minnesota reportedly asked for Boeser in return for Zucker. Obviously the ask was greater than the value so the Canucks declined.