Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Horvat is a Boss

Members
  • Posts

    3,450
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Horvat is a Boss

  1. Pettersson at 7.7M for 3 years is more expensive than I would have thought but nothing ridiculous. I would have liked him close to 7M given the Barzal comparable but he could have been between 7-7.5M. Overall solid I guess. Hughes for 6 years is nice; I would have been happy going up to 8 years even with a cap hit over 8M to be honest. This one is pretty great. I think both players woke up and decided to get a deal done today.
  2. I wonder how open they are to moving Keller. He's a good young piece but he's not on a cheap deal and hasn't broken out as a top-end point producer. If they were willing to move Garland after the year he had then maybe Keller could be a possibility. It would take something valuable to get him though, something like Hoglander+. Miller - Pettersson - Garland Keller - Horvat - Boeser Pearson - Dickinson - Podkolzin
  3. I was really high on Jasek early as I think he has good physical traits that could make him an NHLer in the mold of Jesper Fast. But at camp last year, he still looked like a kid playing against men. He would get worked over along the boards rather easily and was definitely more reactive than proactive. I expected him to get stronger and use that in combination with his speed and quickness to be a fast, annoying, tenacious forechecker, but it didn't look like that materialized. Lockwood seems to have overcome his injury history and taken that role. I think he'll need a special order of some Brian Burke truculence to become an NHLer in the role the Canucks want him in.
  4. They did, and Seguin did pretty well in the Playoffs for a rookie. He scored that big goal against Tampa where he turnstiled the defenseman and buried it. Even after that, their management team (which included Benning) decided to move him.
  5. I don't think Makar is a good comparable for Pettersson at all as they play different positions. Your assessment of who should get 10M+ on a deal is pretty reasonable. Again, that has no bearing on what Pettersson or any other RFA does; It's a case by case thing that depends on the demeanor of the player, the team, the owner, the fit, etc. Heiskanen definitely could have gotten a more expensive deal (especially for 8 years), but he prioritized staying in Dallas over everything else. William Karlsson did the same thing in Vegas; he prioritized term over cap hit. Then there are players like Tkachuk (either one) who set the bar high and never waiver. For every Pastrnak or MacKinnon that is willing to take less, there are other players like Stone or Werenski that take every dollar that they feel they deserve. I think one important distinction to make in this situation is that a player fighting to get what they feel they are worth is not related to their commitment to winning. As fans, the two are intertwined from our perspective because we are only invested in the cap hit that the team has to deal with. From the player's perspective, the money that they get on their contract effects their entire life outside of hockey. Player's aren't actively trying to sabotage their team by getting high numbers, they're employees trying to get the best paycheck possible. It's management's responsibility to build the team around the contracts that they give out. If and ony if, management feels that they won't be able to sign someone for under 10M AND they feel that they can't win with someone making 10M+, then they have a responsibility to make a tough call and trade them. These are the tough decisions that the big boys in management are paid for. Boston probably has the two best modern examples of this: the Thornton and Seguin trades. Management felt that for whatever reasons, these guys did not fit with the team that they were trying to build to be successful. They made the tough decision and moved them. They were probably motivated by reasons other than cap, but the principle is the same. You can argue whether or not their assessment was accurate or not, but they made a call and followed through with it. If management comes to the conclusion that Pettersson won't fit with their idea of a winning team, then they should move him. If they sign him for 10M+, then it should be because they feel they can win with him at that cap hit. The motivation shouldn't be any more complicated than that.
  6. That's a pretty optimistic, team friendly perspective. I would want Pettersson on a long term deal similar to what you outlined, but the chances of that happening have gone down based on the last ~3 years. Even if you exclude Matthews and Marner as Toronto anomalies, RFAs everywhere around the league have held more power in negotiations recently than they used to. Your reasoning makes sense, but prominent RFAs have looked at that arguement and said "screw that, I want X per year." The problem is that it's becoming more common that teams are actually giving them those numbers. Werenski signed a more expensive contract than Makar; its a case by case thing with no rules, just guidelines. One of the closest comparables for Pettersson on a long term deal is Eichel, who signed an 8 year, 10M cap hit deal. Pettersson's point production has been very similar, but he's also been PPG in the Playoffs too. Both players also had injury concerns prior to the deal. If you take Eichel's cap hit percentage and give it to Pettersson now, he would end up with an 8 year deal at 11M+. To avoid that, there are really only two options: Hope that he'll take a team friendly deal or trade him. But if Pettersson wants to get what he's worth and not a penny less, then I think the number on a long term deal will be higher than 9M for sure.
  7. This is a pretty rough contract for the team. Hopefully the Toronto effect doesn't continue to extend. I think people are undervaluing Pettersson a long term deal. For 7-8 years he could reasonably get over 10M. Looking purely at offensive numbers, his comparables put him at over 11M for 8 years. Throw in a PPG Playoff performance and that's insurance that he could actually get closer to his higher bound. The thing dragging him back are his injuries, which may pull that number down. I still think Pettersson is destined for a bridge while Hughes may be the one going long term.
  8. I forgot Tavares, he could slot in over one of the vets for sure. I'm not sure who Marner would displace on RW; even if you take out Hyman I would rather have Stone or Scheifele. Stamkos is a good option for an extra forward, but I don't think he's at the same level he used to be. He would be a power play specialist and a vet for the room like Thornton in 2016. I think Canada could really value Horvat's playstyle and skillset. He can play the bumper position as well as anyone and can be thrown out there to play heavy minutes. Of course its still a stretch considering its Canada; I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't make the team. Forgot about Tavares and Ekblad. I agree that the defense and goaltending doesn't look as strong as it has in the past. Version 2: Marchand - Crosby - MacKinnon Tavares - McDavid - Stone Huberdeau - Barzal - Point O'Reilly - Toews - Bergeron Horvat, Scheifele Toews - Makar Theodore - Pietrangelo Pelech - Pulock Reilly, Ekblad, Morrissey Price Fleury Blackwood, Kuemper
  9. Marchand - Crosby - MacKinnon McDavid - Horvat - Hyman Huberdeau - Barzal - Point O'Reilly - Toews - Bergeron Scheifele, Stone, Marner Toews - Makar Theodore - Pietrangelo Pelech - Pulock Reilly, Morrissey, Chabot Price Fleury Blackwood, Kuemper Lots of pre-existing chemistry here, which is usually a key for Canada. The top line all trains together. McDavid and Hyman will be teammates and McDavid played with Horvat at the WJC. The third line all plays in the same conference and have played Playoff rounds against each other. The fourth line is full of experience and two way play. Hyman is obviously only there to be with McDavid and having Horvat that high in the lineup is also debatable. Toews' experience will be valued highly and his matchup ability will be very useful, but this assumes he looks good this year. Defense is all teammates playing together. Canada's defense isn't as stacked as it used to be. Pelech and Pulock make it as a pairing because of their defensive and two-way ability. Goalies are Price and whoever is playing the best.
  10. I don't think Svechnikov would be used as a direct comparable for Pettersson. Pettersson could definitely get over 9M on a long term deal. His career numbers are very similar to Eichel's (with both players having injury issues), so if Pettersson signed for the same cap hit percentage he would be over 11M. Meeting somewhere in the middle, I don't think it's unreasonable for Pettersson to ask for 10M x 8 years, and I think that's a good deal for the team as well. We might not even have the cap space to do that though, which is why I expect a bridge deal right around Barzal's 7M. Signing Hughes long term could be a possibility though.
  11. None of what you listed are on ice factors. Ownership looks at the franchise as a business (or close to it) and we finished worse than the Senators. That is unacceptable given very strong showing in the bubble.
  12. I'm not saying our defense is as good as theirs, I'm saying it's built the same way in terms of how the minutes will be spread (especially as Rathbone earns a greater role).
  13. This trade is definitely Benning recognizing that this year has to go well for him on the ice. Last year was unnaceptable and if this year is more of the same, he will lose his job. This is his last chance. The good thing is our team is much better now. OEL is still a very, very good defenseman and we now have 3 play driving LHDs: Hughes - OEL - Rathbone. Each of those guys can be paired with a cheap, complimentary partner like Hamonic and it is a solid defense core. Myers will be with one of them as well. This is the model that Tampa Bay just won the Cup with: Hedman, McDonough - Sergachev on the left side. Rathbone or Hughes can play RD to limit the ice time of other players just like Sergachev does for Tampa. The other thing this makes clear to me is that the defense won't be built on crushing, detail oriented defensive play. Instead it will be built as a transition style defense that specializes in moving the puck out of the zone as quickly as possible. Sustained pressure against will be a weakness, but everyone on the defense core will be active and able to contribute offensively. Shots against will probably be high but that's why we have an amazing goalie. Garland is a great fit as well, but kind of surprising. I would not have thought that management would have wanted a small forward but this is a pleasant surprise. Garland was the engine that drove Arizona's offense this year and should be a great fit. I'm not sure what the contract will look like but something similar to Marchessault's (5M x 6 years) makes sense, maybe with a bit less term given the flat cap market. Overall, our team got much better on paper. I'm not too hung up on losing 9th OA at the moment; I think there were only a couple of players that would have intrigued me. Management likely believes/knows that those players won't be available. Dhaliwal said that L. Hughes and Johnson were the two players they were targeting, so it sounds like both of those guys will be gone before 9th. If you are confident that you won't land your guy, then trading the pick is probably the best return for your value. Anybody who was downplaying the effects of the inflated contracts that were signed now has to own up to it as well; it cost a top 10 pick to undo the mistakes that online posters could see coming 3 years ago. If we didn't have to dump contracts, maybe the pick could have been used to land a prime RHD or Reinhart or something. Overall I'm fairly neutral on the deal but excited to see how it turns out.
  14. That's the lineup if Benning acquires Bertuzzi and does literally nothing else, which won't happen. There will be more moves than that to change the roster whether we land Bertuzzi or not. I think it's optimistic to think that both of Beagle and Roussel won't be on the team; we'll likely have to choose one to stay. Between those two, I take Beagle given that we don't have many other strong options for 4C but we have a plethora of wingers. Plus having a right handed center is useful for matchups given that Horvat and Miller are both lefties.
  15. I think the price would start at a 1st+ but the main thing would be finding a GM that isn't scared by his injury. If health becomes a risk then it could deflate the value quite a bit like it seems to be doing with Eichel. I wouldn't move 9th OA for him but I would consider next year's first. I don't think I'd do much more than that if at all though. Bertuzzi - Pettersson - Boeser Pearson - Horvat Hoglander Roussel - Miller - Podkolzin Motte - Beagle - MacEwan Highmore Ideally another forward could be added do displace Roussel, maybe from a Schmidt trade.
  16. I am too, much more balanced and it allows more players on the team to play in roles they're suited for.
  17. A fun alternate reality to think about is the one where the Canucks draft Makar instead of Pettersson in the 2017 draft. Benning reportedly had Makar ranked 1st in that draft. If that happened, we'd likely still be looking for a dynamic 1C, but our defense core would be set with two franchise players. Imagine adding Hughes AND Makar, to the same blueline, at the same time. Edler - Makar Hughes - Tanev Each one would have a perfect veteran to be paired with in their rookie year. That top-4 alone would make us an extremely dynamic and deadly team.
  18. Some cap will definitely have to be removed from Roussel, Eriksson, Holtby, etc. through trade or buyout, but management has said that they'll be looking at those options anyway.
  19. Gourde is probably the best 3C available this offseason given Tampa's cap constraints. I would desperately look to bring him in, something like our 2nd + a young player like MacEwan or Focht or something. Throw in Stephens from their end and we just got a brand new 3C and 4C.
  20. He's the coach the organization needed. Our young top prospects were given every opportunity to succeed from jump. Boeser, Pettersson and Hughes (and Hoglander to a lesser extent) would not have the same opportunities and trust in most other organizations stepping in as rookies. Look at the Rangers with Lafreniere and Kakko. I'm fairly certain that both would have had great rookie seasons in Vancouver, but both played low in the lineup right away and weren't given much of a chance with prime minutes early on. Green was willing to trust our youngest players in big situations and the organization was rewarded with our young players learning how to lead a franchise. Green played a big role in our elite prospects turning into elite players, which is invaluable and will benefit the organization for the next 10+ years. I wouldn't be upset with moving on from him, as long as its an honest decision. If its purely a financial decision by Aquilini then that's garbage. But if we bring in someone like Gallant then its a competitive move that makes sense. If we bring in some minor league coach then that screams cost management from ownership.
  21. Dealing with the media, especially in Canadian markets, brings so many extra mental hurdles for every player. You constantly have to stay on script and the slightest deviation can bring intense ridicule. Even when you don't give them anything to work with you can still end up in the headlines (ex. Hughes getting IVs). I'm a Canucks fan through and through and have been my whole life. When I daydream about life as an NHL player, playing for the Canucks honestly does not seem fun at all. Dealing with this often toxic media and fanbase constantly would drain all the enjoyment of simply playing hockey over time. Playing somewhere like Tampa Bay, LA, Anaheim, etc. sounds way more enjoyable. As a player I would detest the idea of someone not in the organization stepping into the locker room, which is a daily occurrence. I would get tired of the persisting circus pretty quick. I often wonder what would happen if we cut all game day media sessions for an entire season. Would players be more relaxed and energized? Would it translate to a couple extra points in the standings? Would other players be more interested in coming here? The players wouldn't do anything that wasn't strictly hockey related. Interviews on off days are fine and way more insightful than the game day stuff, which offers nothing of value 99% of the time. I have no idea if Drouin's absence is related to something similar or not and neither does anyone else. Just something that's been on my mind.
  22. I'd rather see a 1 year deal for Tryamking at around 1M per. He's been good in the KHL and that's great to see, but ultimately it doesn't mean much if he still doesn't commit to coming to North America. If he thought he was ready to make the transition but then decides he'd rather go back, he can do that. If he finds that it goes well then we have an NHL sample size to work with for his next deal. If it's expensive then great, we found a massive top-4 defenseman. The biggest concern is off the ice and that's the reason I would be hesitant to go for a multi year deal. On the ice, the only thing working against him is the numbers. Schmidt is already a LHD playing his offside and I don't think the coaching staff would want to run 5 LHDs on a given night. If he can compliment Schmidt or Hughes he would be in a good spot, but building that chemistry can take time as we've seen this year. Juolevi or Rathbone are both LHDs that will likely get regular playing time on the bottom pair. So if he doesn't fit with either one of our two best defensemen right away, which is tough to do, then it looks kind of tough to get him regular minutes right away. Another reason why a 1 year deal would probably give us more flexibility. I think playing with Schmidt would have the potential to be a good fit, but he has to prove he can handle those kind of minutes as well.
  23. I see him as our replacement for Gadjovich as a prospect. Three years ago I said that Gadjovich would need 3+ years in the AHL to adjust to the pace of professional play before potentially being an option for NHL deployment. After 3 years Gadjovich is torching the AHL like he did the CHL and looking to compete for an NHL spot next year. Keppen is just starting at the spot that Gadjovich did when he first got to the AHL. The unfortunate part is that Keppen lost a year of hockey due to the pandemic, so he's essentially hitting the starting point of his AHL development at a disadvantage relative to Gadjovich. Keppen is starting as cold as one possibly could. Given that, my expectations for him are none existent for this year. Hopefully he can simply play games and not get hurt for the rest of the year. It's good that he's getting comfortable with the coaches and his teammates. I would start his hopefully 3-ish year timeline at the beginning of next season barring any more stoppages in play. The reason I think Keppen and Gadjovich are so similar is because they play a similar style of game. Both are at their best when they are stronger than everyone and can manhandle opponents to win pucks. It takes time to gain the strength necessary to do that against pros. More than that, both are extremely high character guys. Based on the limited interviews and behind the scenes footage I've seen, I have full confidence that they have the mental fortitude necessary to stick to the process for that time. They seem to understand what they need to do to be successful at the next level and are willing to put the work in to get there. Gadjovich proved that he could steadily improve over multiple years and I think Keppen can do the same.
  24. After Podkolzin's draft I have actively avoided subjecting myself to management's pronunciation of anything and everything. I can't help you there I'm afraid
×
×
  • Create New...