hockeydude474 Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 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 More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.