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

Bo Horvat, do we really need him? A Discussion on imaginations, reality, and the possibility of trading in the context of the NHL


hockeydude474

Recommended Posts

I've been thinking about this topic recently and i'd like to get your guys' take on the issue. To me, I think there is a substantial disconnect between my imaginaries of Bo Horvat and the actual reality of the player himself.

What I mean by this is that, I feel like i'm inclined to root for Bo, prop him up in every single way (since i'm a Canucks fan), and believe that he's a "good" player simply based on the fact that the Canucks have not had young players in their line for a long time. Furthermore, Bo, in a way, represents some sort of idealistic notion of hope for me. HOWEVER, I find that these emotions tend to cloud the reality of the players performance it self. As i'm sure you are all aware, Bo is not playing very well. He produces pedestrian numbers, plays an average defensive game and is definitely out matched by a lot of his peers in the league (hence his minus rating).

As such, I ask a question. Is Bo Horvat really that special of a player? Do we actually need him? Are there any differences or intangibles that make Bo Horvat worth while to keep that we coulden't find from a free agent or other player around the league? If you're confused what I mean to say is that, what separates Bo Horvat from a player like Brad Richardson or someone you could find in free agency? If there's nothing truly substantial they perhaps could we entertain the notion of trading him? Perhaps other teams view his identity and image as being better than the on ice product as well. We might even get a better return while, in essence, losing nothing (that coulden't be replaced in free agency).

 

Discuss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bo Horvat vs Brad Richardson...  Horvat at present is about a Brad Richardson-level player.  Brad Richardson has reached his potential but there is a very reasonable chance Horvat will continue to develop into something substantially better.  And he's on an entry level deal.

Do we need him?  We don't presently have superior players that would push him out of the line-up.

Is he untouchable in terms of a trade?  Everyone seems to think so, but I don't.  I'd be in no hurry to trade him, but there are superior young players.  The Linden comparisons are a little premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about it's only his second season? He's a young player that had a good season last year and is experiencing a sophmore slump and also being asked to take on more and do more. Horvat is still a kid and needs to develop his game.
Typical to see that there a posts wondering if we need him or if he really has any value.

Yes, we need and want him. Sure you could find a free agent but their ceiling is usually established and would cost far far more than Horvat. Teams that win the cup win with developed players not random free agents. He may not be a superstar now or in the future but he can be an important player. We complain about the lack of our secondary scoring and depth. If he doesn't go top line then he is a valuable depth guy. However, just give it time. He's young and growing and Rome wasn't built in a day. As it stands we have no idea what he is or will be. So, sit down, relax and remember development takes time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ajhockey said:

" Bo Horvat, do we really need him?"

Are you trying to become infamous?

I believe the hockeydude474 already is infamous.

He's going through a sophomore slump and being asked to take on 2nd line, unsheltered duties before he is really ready.  Give him cred for effort, but he should also be given some slack.  I think that CDC is giving it to him by and large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, hockeydude474 said:

I've been thinking about this topic recently and i'd like to get your guys' take on the issue. To me, I think there is a substantial disconnect between my imaginaries of Bo Horvat and the actual reality of the player himself.

What I mean by this is that, I feel like i'm inclined to root for Bo, prop him up in every single way (since i'm a Canucks fan), and believe that he's a "good" player simply based on the fact that the Canucks have not had young players in their line for a long time. Furthermore, Bo, in a way, represents some sort of idealistic notion of hope for me. HOWEVER, I find that these emotions tend to cloud the reality of the players performance it self. As i'm sure you are all aware, Bo is not playing very well. He produces pedestrian numbers, plays an average defensive game and is definitely out matched by a lot of his peers in the league (hence his minus rating).

As such, I ask a question. Is Bo Horvat really that special of a player? Do we actually need him? Are there any differences or intangibles that make Bo Horvat worth while to keep that we coulden't find from a free agent or other player around the league? If you're confused what I mean to say is that, what separates Bo Horvat from a player like Brad Richardson or someone you could find in free agency? If there's nothing truly substantial they perhaps could we entertain the notion of trading him? Perhaps other teams view his identity and image as being better than the on ice product as well. We might even get a better return while, in essence, losing nothing (that coulden't be replaced in free agency).

 

Discuss. 

He just turned 20. U are another moment talker...  Last year he was one of the top rookies & now having his expected sophmore (slump) year & he is now worth B.Rchardson at best to U???  :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, hockeydude474 said:

I've been thinking about this topic recently and i'd like to get your guys' take on the issue. To me, I think there is a substantial disconnect between my imaginaries of Bo Horvat and the actual reality of the player himself.

What I mean by this is that, I feel like i'm inclined to root for Bo, prop him up in every single way (since i'm a Canucks fan), and believe that he's a "good" player simply based on the fact that the Canucks have not had young players in their line for a long time. Furthermore, Bo, in a way, represents some sort of idealistic notion of hope for me. HOWEVER, I find that these emotions tend to cloud the reality of the players performance it self. As i'm sure you are all aware, Bo is not playing very well. He produces pedestrian numbers, plays an average defensive game and is definitely out matched by a lot of his peers in the league (hence his minus rating).

As such, I ask a question. Is Bo Horvat really that special of a player? Do we actually need him? Are there any differences or intangibles that make Bo Horvat worth while to keep that we coulden't find from a free agent or other player around the league? If you're confused what I mean to say is that, what separates Bo Horvat from a player like Brad Richardson or someone you could find in free agency? If there's nothing truly substantial they perhaps could we entertain the notion of trading him? Perhaps other teams view his identity and image as being better than the on ice product as well. We might even get a better return while, in essence, losing nothing (that coulden't be replaced in free agency).

 

Discuss. 

Is Hansen worth more than Eichel then???:wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • -DLC- locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...