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

So impressed with Bo Horvat


Matt_T83

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

CS was not an old asset. Whatever, I get your point, very base one to make actually, just didn't care for the spit polishing a turd-thing.

 

Like I said, there were two X Canuck goalies for the East team in that all-star game. When Is Bo going to be an all-star? Or our backup goalie?

 

Now tell me, out of Florida, New Jersey and Vancouver, which team made the playoffs that year, and which 2 didn't?

 

Making the all-star game is pretty useless as anything other than an individual acomplishment when your a non-playoff team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Butters Stoch said:

Schneider was a future for now trade, a risky one, but its looking like it'll work out now with Bo reaching his potential. Gillis was just getting started with the rebuild after our two goalies were traded away. Unfortunately, he never got a chance to do it and JB was brought in to try and make the team competitive again instead of rebuilding. 

 

Its a shame ownership didn't let him rebuild when he wanted too, imagine having Mitch Marner on this team right now alongside Bo Horvat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Bo has yet to put up over 60 points or even break 20 goals  The players above 6.0 did, along with 30 goal seasons.

 

Monahan 6.3

Scheifele 6.125

Forsberg 6.0

Barkov 5.9

Kucherov 4.8

Trochek 4.7

 

Bo should be somewhere in between..

5.3 for long term sounds about right. 

 

Bo is on pace for 57 points this year and every week grows more and more expensive. His two way game is also a cut above most and his intangible are impossible to quantify. 6m will be chump change by year two. I would be stoked if it was less, but I'm just preparing realistically for what his contract will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Not much to tell. And yes, I expected the twins to slowly disappear and for Horvat to be that 220lb Backes type, scoring 65 points a year.

And no, that does not impress me, its expected.

 

In year 3? What's this Friday's lotto numbers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

Bo has yet to put up over 60 points or even break 20 goals  The players above 6.0 did, along with 30 goal seasons.

 

Monahan 6.3

Scheifele 6.125

Forsberg 6.0

Barkov 5.9

Kucherov 4.8

Trochek 4.7

 

Bo should be somewhere in between..

5.3 for long term sounds about right. 

 

IF Bo keeps playing the way he's playing I'd say his best comparable is Monahan.... so 6-6.5 seems to be the ball park imo.  

 

Its fair to say he hasn't put up those numbers in a season, but if I'm Bo's agent I add the numbers since January and I think that's a fairly strong case for 6 mil kind of money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

CS was not an old asset. Whatever, I get your point, very base one to make actually, just didn't care for the spit polishing a turd-thing.

 

Like I said, there were two X Canuck goalies for the East team in that all-star game. When Is Bo going to be an all-star? Or our backup goalie?


Fans vote for the allstars....
It's a popularity contest.

Neither Cory nor Lu are in the top 10 netminders at this point.
Way to downplay Markstrom's work this year too, man. I personally feel VERY confident with a 6'6 Marky in net.
He's looking like a Ben Bishop/Devan Dubnyk crossbreed. 

Are you seriously that salty that we traded Cory for our future captain? I consider Schneids the best goalie I've ever had the privilege on watching on any sort of regular basis, but moving him did not set us back at all...

You blew right past Thatcher Demko too. We have the next Cory waiting in the wings... 
One of Thatch and Markstrom WILL be moved, so prepare yourself for that inevitability right now.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Where is Horvat in league scoring compared to other 1st line centers?

When the season is over, you will know his worth. Then he will get a deal based on that. Happens to players every year.

 

Horvat is currently 27th among all NHL centers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, nergish said:




Are you seriously that salty that we traded Cory for our future captain? I consider Schneids the best goalie I've ever had the privilege on watching on any sort of regular basis, but moving him did not set us back at all...

You blew right past Thatcher Demko too. We have the next Cory waiting in the wings... 
One of Thatch and Markstrom WILL be moved, so prepare yourself for that inevitability right now.

 

I'm not blowing by anything.

Horvat is my fav Canuck, but to say MG isn't lucky this panned out as well as it has, and which is debatable... just not on here apparently, is so CDC.

And considering we once had two all-star goalies and now have Horvat and Marky... you guys can have your pet-fest, I'm ok with it because its working out, but there were some "bumps" since those trades.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 189lb enforcers? said:

Where will he finish the year?

Or do you just want to pay him now on optimistic, homer projections?

No way he gets 6 million a year, even though its not my money!

 

Quoted for later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on comparable players and their contracts, Bo should be within the 4.7-5.3 range. I'm glad that you guys who are suggesting he get Monahan money just because he's on pace for good numbers 20 games into the season for the first time aren't GMs. I'm just afraid that his agent will use the contract JB gave Eriksson as leverage to get closer to 6mil, but even then, Eriksson has been consistent throughout his career to earn that contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mattrek said:

 

Bo is on pace for 57 points this year and every week grows more and more expensive. His two way game is also a cut above most and his intangible are impossible to quantify. 6m will be chump change by year two. I would be stoked if it was less, but I'm just preparing realistically for what his contract will be.

 

If you're going to be realistic you'll have to provide some evidence to how you got to that logic. 

 

Monahan had 3 seasons in the NHL 2x 20 goal season, a 30 goal season and back to back 60 point seasons. He had consistent stats to back up his numbers.

 

Forsberg had 2 seasons in the NHL with a 26 goal season and a 33 goal season and back to back 60 point seasons. He had consistent stats to back up his numbers.

 

Scheifele is a closer comparable,  Mark had a 49 points season followed up with 61 points (29 goals) in 71 games.

 

Horvats career high last year was 40 points.  Will he match Schiefele's .86ppg production? Possibly, but that doesn't justify him getting more.

 

All those players had multiple, back to back good years in production.  Consistency is was earns big dollars. If you're going to call a one strong year before contract then he's in Barkov territory. That's if he's in the high 50's.  Low 50's puts him in the Trocheck money.

 

Realistically middle 5's is where Bo should be.  He hasn't earned long term over 6 yet.  But that's why JB wants to lock him up long term to keep the cost down.  If Bo was concerned about the money, he would want a bridge contract to build up his resume more so that he can earn more.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said:

 

Now tell me, out of Florida, New Jersey and Vancouver, which team made the playoffs that year, and which 2 didn't?

 

Making the all-star game is pretty useless as anything other than an individual acomplishment when your a non-playoff team.

All-stars are generally the top of their class, playoffs or not. Not a bad distinction, unless you're John Scott. To call it a useless accomplishment...

 

How many All-star games do you think Horvat will be in?

If he does get in, say in a non-playoff year, will your standards still apply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, J-Dizzle said:

 

IF Bo keeps playing the way he's playing is say his best comparable is Monohan.... so 6-6.5 seems to be the ball park imo.  

 

Its fair to say he hasn't put up those numbers in a season, but if I'm Bo's agent I add the numbers since January and I think that's a fairly strong case for 6 mil kind of money. 

No Monahan had a much more impressive resume and consistency.  Scheifele and Barkov are closer comparables but they had even better numbers. 

 

If Bo wants over 6 he will have to take a bridge contract in the 4 range and continue to play good to build up a bigger case to justify that type of deal. 

 

I think Bo will be worth more than 6 eventually.  But right now he doesn't have a big enough history to reach that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

No Monahan had a much more impressive resume and consistency.  Scheifele and Barkov are closer comparables but they had even better numbers. 

 

If Bo wants over 6 he will have to take a bridge contract in the 4 range and continue to play good to build up a bigger case to justify that type of deal. 

 

I think Bo will be worth more than 6 eventually.  But right now he doesn't have a big enough history to reach that.

 

I don't disagree with you.  I'm mostly going off of Benning's stated desire to sign him long term.  I don't think that's going to happen for less than 5.5 and could see it being 6.  If the Canucks want to lock him up long term I don't think they have a choice but to pay him that kind of money whether he's worth it now or not.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, iceman64 said:

Glad your not our GM...  that's way too much for a guy his age not named ovechkin, 4 yrs @ 16 mil-ish would be more like it for his age with production bonus

 

Pretty sure you become UFA after 7 full years in the NHL when your deal expires.  Even if still 25 or 26? See Lucic.

 

This would make Bo a UFA at the youngest conceivable, possible age. 

 

That makes your suggestion a horrible proposal...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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