Horvat is a Boss

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,166 Gaming the system

About Horvat is a Boss

  • Rank
    Canucks Third-Line

Recent Profile Visitors

3,287 profile views
  1. Some thoughts on the series and the organization as a whole: This was a great showing for Boeser. Obviously everyone in the market knows what happened before the series with the trade rumours, but he stepped up and showed why he deserves to be part of our core moving forward. I don't think there were many people that doubted that, but anyone that did (especially anyone in management if there were any) doesn't think so now. It's more than just the nice stats too; he was making a difference at both ends of the ice the right way. Both of his goals came from battling in tight in the gritty areas. He showed that he's willing to do the dirty work necessary in the Playoffs, which is what he needed to do. He was solid defensively all series as well as shown by his assist where he tied up and eliminated his man, allowing Hughes to jump up on Pettersson's goal. The series was a personal and emotional one for him as we all know and he was at his best. Another player that deserves a standing ovation is Hughes. He played huge minutes, often getting double shifted or taking a short break before being thrown right back out there. He never slowed down when staring a heavy, hard forecheck in the face and made a massive difference at both ends of the rink. It's not a coincidence that the Canucks never really seemed trapped when he was on the ice. The last two games especially he was dominant. He had 5 points on the Canucks' 8 goals over those two games and he easily generated at least one goal that he didn't get a point for. He showed that he can also step up and that he won't be broken down by Playoff hockey, which is an incredible sign moving forward. There are a bunch of other players that deserve recognition as well. Pettersson was targeted but I loved the way he handled it. He didn't show any frustration and was willing to give it back too. He recognized that he wasn't going to have any time and space to operate at all and adjusted his game accordingly. The penalty killers obviously came up huge all series as well. Everyone is aware of how important Motte, Beagle, Sutter, etc. were to the win. Edler and Tanev also played monster minutes on the PK and handled it amazingly well. Tanev especially showed why he is still a very critical part of the team consistently making great defensive plays. Horvat, Sutter and Pearson responded in huge ways after weak performances in game 1. Eriksson completely stabilized that line and he played effective minutes even if he wasn't scoring. Virtanen stepped in a proved that he should have been in the lineup from the start. After game 1, the whole team looked much better on their way to three straight wins. The one thing that absolutely needs to be addressed is our penalty troubles. We can't keep taking that many penalties, other teams will have more than just Fiala (probably the best player in the series except game 4) and bury us. Myers brought a lot in terms of being able to handle top 4 minutes, but taking penalties like the one he took on Parise where he punched him in the face coming across the blue line only hurt us. Some of his calls were soft, but that one was just a dumb play. I expect him to be more disciplined but still physical moving forward. He didn't make much of an impact in the series, but for the organization Juolevi has been revelation since training camp. It was very encouraging to see that he won a spot against some other players who had already seen NHL action. I thought he was not just decent, but actually very good in his limited minutes in game 4 as well. He played on the PK which is where he is at at his best for a short time, made some good breakout passes, didn't get trapped, kept an active stick disrupting several plays and even made a patented no-look cross ice pass (his signature) that Horvat wasn't ready for. It is a very small sample size and the top 4 did the vast majority of the heavy lifting, but it is definitely an encouraging sign. I would expect him to earn a spot on our bottom pairing next year, which is a huge step forward for him and a great sign for the organization. From here, I think the Canucks can call this a successful season almost definitively. There isn't much that could happen in the next series that could severely disappoint me. The Canucks are playing with no expectations (at least from me) now. The 1st round pick we give up has been decided, which is huge. I didn't want to have an unprotected pick hanging over us next year, so this is the ideal scenario I would say. For me personally, I forgot how it felt to actively cheer for a team in the Playoffs. The last 4 years have been different since I don't have an allegiance to any of the teams I'd be watching. I didn't feel the rush of every goal scored or the pain of every single goal against, I just felt the general excitement. There wasn't an emotional investment. This series reminded me of the roller coaster of pain and joy your on as a fan watching your team in the Playoffs and I'm just happy that the ride is still going.
  2. Do you like our playoff chances with Toffoli more than with Tanev? That's essentially the decision that you'd have to make. I think Tanev is the easy pick there. The Canucks went 4-5-1 in the 10 games after after acquiring Toffoli. We didn't go on some heater to sneak in, we got in because of the work we did in the other 85% of the season without Toffoli. Toffoli played 10 games for us. Tanev played 69 for us. I'd say Tanev was almost 7x more important in us making the Playoffs.
  3. I'd rather re-sign Tanev. He's someone who's actually been here all year and played a major role in us being in a position to play in the play-ins. Toffoli is much easier to replace and Boeser looked right at home, which isn't a surprise considering the Lotto line was one of the best in the league.
  4. After that, are people still lining up to tie up cap space into Toffoli long term given that we have Podkolzin, Hoglander and Lind all 1-2 years out?
  5. Those points on Ferland are fair and I had similar concerns with him when we signed him, but the bar we're talking about here is 30-35 points. I think he's capable of that when healthy, but we'll see when he gets to that point. Besides, Roussel was my primary replacement and he scored at essentially the same rate as Pearson (empty net points excluded) while not spending the entire year with Horvat. I'm sure Roussel could pick up a couple empty net points if he was given Pearson's ice time this year. I agree with what you're saying about moving Pearson. He would actually have positive value, which makes trading him a lot more appealing than dumping someone else. Again, I think coaching and management will probably keep him, but I definitely see the value in moving him. In addition, we could easily re-sign Leivo to a 1 year, 1.5M deal (the same deal he got this year) with the savings we get from moving Pearson and it works out perfectly. Leivo gets a one year "show me" deal after a good season was lost to injury and the Canucks get a cheap and effective 1 year stop gap before their young players step in (Podkolzin, Hoglander, Lind). I agree with the trade Boeser/Virtanen stuff. To me, letting Toffoli walk should be an easy decision. I would sign both Markstrom and Tanev before him. I have never really understood why some people are so intent on keeping him. There will be a bunch of teams that take trade losses due to Covid (Edmonton gave up assets for Green who played one game, got injured and then opted out) but we should just cut out losses and move on, not compound them with a multi-year contract.
  6. I think a healthy Roussel could definitely step into Pearson's spot and there wouldn't be much of a difference at all. A healthy Ferland probably could too, but we haven't seen that yet so I wouldn't rely on that. I think Pearson is a bit overrated offensively. He had 0 assists in his last 18 GP and frequently has 3-4 game stretches without any assists. He led the NHL with 6 empty net goals and a handful of empty net assists (playing with empty net assassin Loui Eriksson) which artificially pumped up his numbers. Pearson's non-empty net point total comes in at around 35 points, or almost exactly the same as Roussel's point totals from last year when he played with Horvat a bunch and before his injury. Horvat's even strength production went down this year and I don't think it's a coincidence that happened when Pearson was his most common linemate. Not to mention that we would only need to put somebody in that spot for one year before Podkolzin, Hoglander and/or Lind come in and are able to fight for spots.
  7. The progress is encouraging and more than I expected. With that said, I don't think he should be in the starting lineup for the play-ins. He would be playing sheltered minutes at best behind Hughes and Edler. I'd say just let him carry the positive momentum into next training camp where he could take Fantenberg's spot on the bottom pairing.
  8. I made that McCann comparison a long time ago. I'm glad it's sticking as I really can't think of a better one. McCann has an incredible shot though.
  9. If anything, MacEwan has shown why you don't need to fill up a bottom 6 with expensive veterans when younger, cheaper options are available. He definitely could have been on the roster at the start of the year.
  10. All of those trades look good value wise, but the context around those deals matters. I wouldn't trade Virtanen unless we get a solid RHD back. Showing up below the mark in two training camps in one season is frustrating for everyone involved; coaches, fans, management and the player. But I don't think the signs that he showed this season should be ignored. He finally had a more consistent season and showed that he could possibly be an option in the top-6. I think in 2-3 years his head get's screwed on even tighter and we see an even more refined and committed player. There's no guarantee of this happening, but I think the chances of it happening if he get's traded are higher. So again, unless there's a RHD coming back (or possibly shedding Eriksson), I would prefer not the deal Virtanen even though the value in your proposed deal is good. I agree with you on the Pearson trade and I would also do that deal. I don't think the coaching staff or management would go for it though since Pearson was stapled to the 2nd line for the whole season no matter what. I think we have other options who could take that spot and at least replicate his numbers if not improve them, but again coaches seem to like him there. I would definitely take that deal though. I would be really happy with that third trade, but that's the one that I'm not sure the value is quite there. We're going to have to shed players like Beagle, Roussel and Eriksson to make room for Pettersson and Hughes' new deals, so getting a head start on that and not leaving it all to the last minute is a good idea. I'm not convinced Roussel would have positive value this summer given the numerous other options that very few teams will have to use their cap space (Killorn, Palat, Johnson, van Reimsdyk, Ladd, Boychuk, Johnsson, Kerfoot, R. Strome, Stastny, Stepan, Hjalmarsson, Steen, Bozak, etc.). These listed players are some of the players that teams with cap constraints will look to move. Considering that there will probably be about 4 teams that actually look to take on salary, there are a lot of options that look a lot better than Roussel either in the player being dumped or the pieces that will come with that dump. If a trade like this happens then great, but I don't think it will. The only other thing I would say is that Baertschi is done in Vancouver, rightly or wrongly. I still don't think he should have ever been sent down, but I don't think he plays any more significant time in the NHL with the Canucks, which is unfortunate to say the least.
  11. The price tag will vary depending on the player obviously, but trading for a younger player is more worthwhile for any team. The struggle would be moving Eriksson, Beagle, Roussel and/or any of the other contracts that we would need to move in order to lock Pettersson and Hughes up to 8 year deals.
  12. Off the top of my head, here are some other players that teams with cap space will likely be able to pursue: Palat/Johnson/Killorn Strome/Georgiev Sundqvist/Bozak/Blais Hinostroza Bennett Laughton/Raffl Conolly/Acciari Komorov/Ladd/Boychuk Panik/Jensen Johnsson/Kerfoot Comeau/Cogliano Some of those guys are cap dumps that will come with extra assets, some of those guys are younger than Roussel and some are just better players. This is not even close to a comprehensive list either. If any one of these guys aren't going to be moved, then someone else on their team will be. The 3-5 teams with space will have plenty of options as the buyers and it'll be tough for the Canucks to stand out unless they make it worthwhile for them. Not to mention any UFAs that will be available. If we're fine with not having the option of signing a long term deal, then the situation becomes easier. Personally, I would much rather prefer to lock up our stud franchise players as long as possible. The list of things that take priority over that is extremely short in my mind and well worth the extra struggle we'd face to get that opportunity.
  13. I've discussed this deal with many Detroit fans and the consensus is that we can't dump Eriksson there unless Demko is coming with him. They need a young goalie for the future and that would fit the bill. Eriksson + Demko + 2nd 2021 for a pick That's the exact deal that has been negotiated. Hopefully we could bring the 2nd down to a 3rd and add another small piece, but that's the structure of it.
  14. I specifically said I won't hold you to it. Can you please explain why Roussel is "saleable?" As you said, there are ~26 teams that are in similar cap situations as us and they will be looking to dump similar contracts as well. What makes you so confident that Roussel will be an easy sell when there will be a lot of similar players/contracts on the market on only 3-5 teams that would be in a position to take them? I think Gaudette could get around 2M - 2.5M on a deal. I also think your projections for Hughes and Pettersson are a bit low. Hughes played a decent amount of time against the other team's top lines this season and wasn't fully sheltered. He played effective defense even if he wasn't physical, which means he put up more points than McAvoy and Werenski while not sacrificing much defense if any at all compared to them. Werenski is strong, but I wouldn't say he's a physical player. Chabot is also a better comparable for both of them who signed for 8M on a long term deal and Hughes has been a bit better than him. For Pettersson, the best comparable is Eichel who signed after his second year. Compared to Eichel's first two years, Pettersson has scored at a higher rate and been healthier over that stretch. Eichel signed for 13.33% of the cap when it was at 75M. Using that as a baseline for Pettersson would put him at about 10.9M with an 81.5M cap, without considering that Pettersson could realistically ask for more. Unless the plan is simply not have enough cap space to lock our young franchise players up to long term deals if given the chance and be forced to sign them to bridge deals for better or worse, some moves will have to be made before that offseason.
  15. By simply re-signing those three UFAs to the amounts you specified (Markstrom at 5.75M, Toffoli at 5M and Tanev at 4.5M even though he could likely get more) we have about 1M in cap space with a roster of 18 players. This includes 1.7M in performance bonuses for Hughes and Pettersson and doesn't include the re-signing of any of our RFAs like Gaudette, Virtanen, Motte, Stetcher or MacEwan. That's a pretty bad spot to be in. Do you really believe we'll be able to dump all of Roussel, Benn and Eriksson this summer? That seems optimistic considering that, as you said, 26-27 other teams will be looking to dump similar players as well. We'd have to add some assets to get it done since we'd essentially be competing with the entire league to dump money. I'd like to hear more about how we'll be able to dump about 5 players over the next two years, re-sign our 3 UFAs for this year and maintain enough cap space to both sign Pettersson (10M ish) and Hughes (8M ish) next offseason while maintaining a competitive roster. Seems like an impossible task so I'd love to see how it'll happen. I'm not going to hold you to any of the dollar amount you propose, so just throw some realistic numbers out there. 5M for Toffoli and 5.75M for Markstrom seem about right, but 4.5M for Tanev seems a little low. Again, throw some numbers in for the next two years, I'd like to see how you think we'll navigate this.