Horvat is a Boss

Members
  • Content Count

    2,970
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,751 Gaming the system

About Horvat is a Boss

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular

Recent Profile Visitors

2,767 profile views
  1. JUST the Olympics huh If NHL players aren't going and Podkolzin adjusts to the KHL well (which I hope our 10th overall pick would by his 3rd year) then I'd say there's a decent chance he makes the team.
  2. This seems to be the feeling around Juolevi. Some reports of lackluster to lazy defensive play in Utica, Salo bringing up lack of conditioning and physical commitment, reports about disinterested demeanor on the ice, etc. It seems to add up for the most part, yet he's always playing great in big situations. He was great for Finland at the WJC and also stepped up for TPS in the Playoffs in Liiga. But the one that sticks out to me the most is his OHL Playoffs in his draft +1 year, after the Knights had lost Marner, Dvorak and Tkachuk and were going up against the Memorial Cup hosts in Windsor (with DiPietro). He was arguably the most impactful player in the series. He scored two goals (the first goal of the series on the PP in game 1 and the last goal of the series as the GWG on the PP in game 7) and was great defensively. He was assigned the task of shutting down Vilardi and his line and did a great job. The Knights beat the eventual Memorial Cup champion Spitfires in 7 games largely due to Juolevi's play. It's really weird. It seems like the initial reports of Juolevi are founded, but then he has these brilliant flashed (usually at important times) where he calmly looks like the best player in the game. The challenge looks like it will be to increase the frequency of those flashes, which could be done with a healthy year of development and some training.
  3. Comparing UFA contracts (Sutter) to RFA contracts (Horvat) is comparing apples to oranges. Benning signed that contract before Sutter had played a game for us. There was really no need for that. There were people that would have rather not had Sutter at the time if that was his price.
  4. The most recent rumour is that Boeser's camp wants a 4 year deal. We don't know if that's actually what's being said, but it's all we have. It makes sense with other younger players reportedly taking/asking for shorter terms out of their ELCs to maximize their payday (Matthews, Marner, etc.)
  5. That's more subjective. I didn't like either of Eriksson or Sutter's contract at the time of signing.
  6. Boeser didn't say anything about a 7 year deal. He could sign a 4 year deal and an 8 year deal after that and still be in Vancouver for a long time.
  7. The most recent rumour I'm going off of is the one that said Boeser's camp is looking for a 4 year deal.
  8. Really? That's great news if true. Do you have a link?
  9. Not everything is finalized yet as teams still have RFA's to sign and rosters to sort, but there will be teams that are better than us with more cap space. It's not a rule that you have to be out of cap space to push for the Playoffs.
  10. Nobody is really saying we can't sign Boeser, it's just disappointing that we're tight to the cap despite being a bad team for the last period of time. We probably will finish higher than we did last year, but it's still not a great team for the dollars being spent.
  11. The problem is there shouldn't be problems when we have two significant ELCs (Pettersson and Hughes) and we've been a bad team for the last 5-ish years. Boeser will likely get between 6-7 on a bridge deal and over 7 long term. I also had Goldobin around 2, so only less than a million in cap space. Something will be done before Roussell is healthy.
  12. I think having the budget, staff, commitment and resources to develop you're players is the key factor in developing young players. Obviously getting to choose where a prospect plays at any point in time would be ideal, but that's just not how it works. Some teams teams simply take the best player available regardless of where they're playing next year and then approach their development the best way they can. One example is Adam Boqvist, drafted 8th overall last year behind Hughes. The Blackhawks had the choice to play him in any league they wanted; AHL, SHL, Allsvenskan or CHL. They chose the CHL, and not just the CHL, the London Knights who already had Bouchard as their #1D and right handed offensive defenseman. It was a really odd choice that didn't make much sense to me at all. But the Blackhawks made that choice and then committed to developing him in that situation: They essentially have a personal development coach for their player. Campbell officially worked for the Blackhawks in a business role, but transitioned into a player development coach. Have we seen any of our development staff working with any of our prospects in the same capacity? I'm aware that a lot happens off camera, but the fact that we only have two people listed in the organization who's role is development outside of Utica (Ryan Johnson and Stan Smyl), I'd say it's unlikely that any of our prospects get the same quality of instruction. Given how many of our prospects have developed outside of the AHL, is that a good or bad thing? The Blackhawks have 9-10 players listed in development of some kind including Campbell.The Maple Leafs have 11-12. Even the Sharks and Predators have more than us with around 4. On a side note, I really don't understand why the Canucks don't produce more content. The Blackhawks have about 25-30 minutes of content spread out over 3 episodes of behind the scenes looks at their scouting and drafting process. They have a 25 minute video introduces Dach as their 3rd overall pick. They have 10 minutes on how they're working to develop Boqvist throughout the year. The closest the Canucks get is 5 minutes of draft coverage. I really don't understand why there isn't more media content available to the fans.