whytelight Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 While reading some of the trade threads lately, it still surprises me of the emotional attachment and overvaluation of our current roster. Yes, it is public knowledge that JB wants to upgrade our 2nd line. JB has made hockey trades in the past and will do so in the future. We have to ask ourselves: "Who can we stomach to lose to make our team better"? Take Landeskog for example: Colorado's GM will not give up their captain and 1st line winger for our prospects and spare parts like Cassels, Gaunce, Burrows, Subban, and Sibsa. Is our 9th overall center (Horvat) worth more or less than their 2nd overall winger/captain? Would our team be better without Horvat and Juolevi, Tanev, Edler, or Hutton while adding a player like Landeskog? Name any other big .60ppg winger. Would our team be better off without Horvat, Hansen and/or Edler for a big winger that can consistently give us 50 points a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Vintage Canuck- Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, whytelight said: Is our 9th overall center (Horvat) worth more or less than their 2nd overall winger/captain? He is worth more to the team than in a trade right now. It's better to just keep him - his value will trend up dramatically in a few years. 5 minutes ago, whytelight said: Would our team be better without Horvat and Juolevi, Tanev, Edler, or Hutton while adding a player like Landeskog? Definitely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 I recently posted a thread much like this under GM and trades etc. I 100% agree with you on what it would take to get a player like Landeskog. He is an excellent two way forward that plays big and has lots of heart, and puts up good points as well. And he is young. Don't know why they would even want to trade him, but if they did, and VAN is the partner, we would lose a valuable piece(s) that is for sure. Won't be Sbisa and some lottery tickets that is for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jam126 Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Horvat is part of our FUTURE CORE, Jim Benning himself said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raymond Luxury Yacht Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 Horvat is the realest deal. He should be untouchable unless a GM covets him so much that they are willing to dramatically overpay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleedblue2017 Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 38 minutes ago, whytelight said: While reading some of the trade threads lately, it still surprises me of the emotional attachment and overvaluation of our current roster. Yes, it is public knowledge that JB wants to upgrade our 2nd line. JB has made hockey trades in the past and will do so in the future. We have to ask ourselves: "Who can we stomach to lose to make our team better"? Take Landeskog for example: Colorado's GM will not give up their captain and 1st line winger for our prospects and spare parts like Cassels, Gaunce, Burrows, Subban, and Sibsa. Is our 9th overall center (Horvat) worth more or less than their 2nd overall winger/captain? Would our team be better without Horvat and Juolevi, Tanev, Edler, or Hutton while adding a player like Landeskog? Name any other big .60ppg winger. Would our team be better off without Horvat, Hansen and/or Edler for a big winger that can consistently give us 50 points a year? Good post, lots of truth here. I do not believe that our team would be better with Landeskog, esspecialy if we have to give up someone like Horvat. I do disagree with you assesed value of Horvat, this guy has shown us a ton already, and has way more to show yet, i think he is every bit as valuable as someone like Landeskog, Horvat could very well end up our Captain once Hank is done. There are only a couple of guys that could be moved without missing them 1.) Burrows and 2.) Sbisa The rest of the team does not look bad, infact it looks pretty good. Again the key to this is the T R A N S I T I O N part of the equation and being patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aircool Posted July 17, 2016 Share Posted July 17, 2016 1 hour ago, -Vintage Canuck- said: He is worth more to the team than in a trade right now. It's better to just keep him - his value will trend up dramatically in a few years. Definitely not. I disagree that his value will be higher in the future. I think, if Horvat progresses as we all hope, he will still have great value. But he will be older, and on a more expensive contract. Young players on their ELC with lots of team control have extraordinarily high value. To the point where they are ONLY ever traded for other players in such contractual situations... At least the good ones. What I'm trying to get at though is a simple thought. What's the point of not trading him? I don't want to trade him... But if people on these boards are theorizing that we should just hold onto him for 4-5 years then trade him... Then I don't see why we don't trade him now. Because he will get a good return at 25-26 years old... But he won't fetch a 22 year old stud. Because teams won't trade those for anything but another 22 year old stud at a different position. If his value doesn't appreciate, which I can't imagine in any tangible way that it would, then aren't we just limiting ourselves in terms of the return. It would be some sort of package involving 2-3 assets, of which none are premium assets... I'll say this again, I don't want to trade Horvat at all, but I just don't follow the idea that some present that somehow his value will increase. Teams WANT 21-22 year old players who are offensively capable, but ALSO defensively responsible at the NHL level such that they can be trusted late in playoff games. They don't grow on trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytelight Posted July 17, 2016 Author Share Posted July 17, 2016 42 minutes ago, Aircool said: I disagree that his value will be higher in the future. I think, if Horvat progresses as we all hope, he will still have great value. But he will be older, and on a more expensive contract. Young players on their ELC with lots of team control have extraordinarily high value. To the point where they are ONLY ever traded for other players in such contractual situations... At least the good ones. What I'm trying to get at though is a simple thought. What's the point of not trading him? I don't want to trade him... But if people on these boards are theorizing that we should just hold onto him for 4-5 years then trade him... Then I don't see why we don't trade him now. Because he will get a good return at 25-26 years old... But he won't fetch a 22 year old stud. Because teams won't trade those for anything but another 22 year old stud at a different position. If his value doesn't appreciate, which I can't imagine in any tangible way that it would, then aren't we just limiting ourselves in terms of the return. It would be some sort of package involving 2-3 assets, of which none are premium assets... I'll say this again, I don't want to trade Horvat at all, but I just don't follow the idea that some present that somehow his value will increase. Teams WANT 21-22 year old players who are offensively capable, but ALSO defensively responsible at the NHL level such that they can be trusted late in playoff games. They don't grow on trees. Good point: Is Horvat more valuable NOW as a rising 40-50 points/year player on a cheap contract as opposed to a 25 year old Horvat that's maxed out at 50 points/year at 4.5m/year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phat Fingers Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 2 hours ago, whytelight said: While reading some of the trade threads lately, it still surprises me of the emotional attachment and overvaluation of our current roster. Yes, it is public knowledge that JB wants to upgrade our 2nd line. JB has made hockey trades in the past and will do so in the future. We have to ask ourselves: "Who can we stomach to lose to make our team better"? Take Landeskog for example: Colorado's GM will not give up their captain and 1st line winger for our prospects and spare parts like Cassels, Gaunce, Burrows, Subban, and Sibsa. Is our 9th overall center (Horvat) worth more or less than their 2nd overall winger/captain? Would our team be better without Horvat and Juolevi, Tanev, Edler, or Hutton while adding a player like Landeskog? Name any other big .60ppg winger. Would our team be better off without Horvat, Hansen and/or Edler for a big winger that can consistently give us 50 points a year? We need centers more than wingers. I would keep Horvat, but offer Virtannen or Boeser to close the deal. Landeskog for Virt or Brock, our 2017 first and Tanev. That at might be too much, but that is what it would take to land him. That would be one hell of a tough deal to pull the trigger on. Colorado might have to add a sweetener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YEGCanuck Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 "While reading some of the trade threads lately, it still surprises me of the emotional attachment and overvaluation of our current roster". Point taken. Most fans tend to over-value their team's players. It seems like a natural tendency and therefore makes it difficult for us not to view a trade from a different perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Biestra Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 I would still rather have Schneider than Horvat, but he is projecting to be very good for 9th overall. The only forward that has been in play that I would have traded Horvat + something decent for was Taylor Hall. I wouldn't start talking about Horvat + something for very many players that are out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captainhorvat Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 This team cant afford to give up anything because it might solve the 2nd line winger problem but only to open a few more issues such as giving up prospects,creating a hole on defense or losing a horvat. Im sure management isnt dumb enough to make such a trade. See what kind of leftover parts are left in free agency or bank on the fact that virtanen can pop 15-20 goals playing on the second line. I hope they just go into training camp with 2nd line winger up for grabs and just create internal competition to see what player will most likely be relied on for that spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naslund.is.king Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 I don't see JB selling off Horvat. Just too much a part of the plan here. It's definatly now Edler Hansen and a second... maybe if Crosby was younger I'd make it a first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HC20.0 Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Horvat, Boeser, Juolevi, and Demko are the untouchables. All 4 will be a big part of our core for years. Losing Edler or Tanev would be tough to swallow, but I'd do it for Landeskog. He fits a need very well, and is a good leader/character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwags Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 14 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said: I don't see JB selling off Horvat. Just too much a part of the plan here. It's definatly now Edler Hansen and a second... maybe if Crosby was younger I'd make it a first I see it as Tanev, Burrows, and a 2nd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_theRyper Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Hold out for 2 more years. See what happens.. Gonna just have more and more $$$$ to make improvements. Do not trade any of our key pieces for another upgrade.. Build from within. Trading key pieces is just a gamble a 9th overall can pan out to be better than a2nd. Horvat is a endless upside kind of guy right now. When Hank is gone who has already shown captaincy qualities... Yeah no thanks...no way this should or would trade Horvat. I know I just made up a word too for the word Nazis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowichan Canuck Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Eastcoast meets Westcoast said: We need centers more than wingers. I would keep Horvat, but offer Virtannen or Boeser to close the deal. Landeskog for Virt or Brock, our 2017 first and Tanev. That at might be too much, but that is what it would take to land him. That would be one hell of a tough deal to pull the trigger on. Colorado might have to add a sweetener. Don't want to involve Brock and Virt/Boeser, 2017 1st plus Tanev is way too much for Landeskog. Love Landeskog and all, but that is three really solid pieces for 1 winger. If he was a #1C or #1D, maybe, but not that much for a winger. If trading Tanev, a Dman needs to come back this way. If trading Edler, I'm ok with no d return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nex is my ex Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 R, B, and a 1st being Raymond, Ballard and a 1st i presume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, HC20.0 said: Horvat, Boeser, Juolevi, and Demko are the untouchables. All 4 will be a big part of our core for years. Losing Edler or Tanev would be tough to swallow, but I'd do it for Landeskog. He fits a need very well, and is a good leader/character. realistically.. maybe except horvat for now.. there's no one on this team is untouchable for the right price.. all of those players you mentioned have potentials.. but none of them have set foot in NHL yet.. in general a prospect with potential have a far bigger chance of not reaching anywhere close to potential than they are to reach.. so if the right deal comes along for a young proven players that have a proven track record for success and realizing his potential.. you'd take that any day over prospect.. as long as it doesn't cost you an arm and a leg.. virtanen hansen and sbisa and maybe a 2nd or 3rd i'd do for landeskog.. if they want tanev they'd have to add like a 2nd or a grade B prospect coming back.. those of you that's saying Virtanen will be a Landeskog lite in the future.. the chances of Virtanen to become an average player in the league is probably 50x better than him becoming a Landeskog 2.0.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whytelight Posted July 18, 2016 Author Share Posted July 18, 2016 27 minutes ago, Nex is my ex said: R, B, and a 1st being Raymond, Ballard and a 1st i presume? yup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.