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

Jason Botchford: Horvat takes big strides to make Canucks forget about Schneider


HOFsedins

Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Beeekz37 said:

Horvat will be a beast for us. I hope he turns into that 1c we need, but I will be just as happy with him as our 2c.

If he ends up taking over as a legit #1 then it will be one of the most fortuitous things to happen to this franchise

 

either way a lot of people. nearly everyone around here owes Gillis an apology, I recall this trade beeing universally disliked back then.

 

Me? I thought the trade was great and exactly what needed to be done, but I had a synergistic thing with Gillis, nearly;y EVERY move he made made sence to me even if it didn't work out. There is no other GM this team has had I can say that about, not even Pat Quin. With Gillis I always felt like "yep, that's what I would have tried to do"

 

To me it was simple, we needed to start finding the next generation, and everything starts at center ice, so I thought this made total sense, although once3w I learned about Bo the skating thing made me uneasy, my expectations dropped and I started to wonder if Gillis had made the right move, but gotten the wrong player, I am shocked by what Bo seems to be developing into

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So was Nail Yakupov. There is no such thing as a "Can't Miss Pick". You do the best you can looking at the maturity of a kid and you hope that you get it right, but there is no such thing as can't miss unless its McDavid.

 

IMO, cant miss does not apply to Russian players because they might go to the KHL and burn the NHL team that drafts them. Yak was this kid, but he fizzled for different reasons.

The Russian pick is almost a gamble, definitely not a "cant miss". It adds an element of drama at the draft.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, theilluminati said:

Cue the droves of fanboys that normally hate Botchford and every article he writes and say how bias he is etc. They will all be saying this is such a well written piece, bang on etc.

HAHA I'm not seeing very much "..another Botchford garbage article.."  or "..the media hates us.."  whining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So was Nail Yakupov. There is no such thing as a "Can't Miss Pick". You do the best you can looking at the maturity of a kid and you hope that you get it right, but there is no such thing as can't miss unless its McDavid.

 

It was a risky return for a guy who was showing that he was ready to be a #1 goalie, and I think most would still agree with me, no matter how well Horvat is turning out.

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy wadr.

 

Some picks are far, far riskier than others.

 

There are a lot of reasons people considered Horvat a lock to be a serious, solid two way NHLer.   You don't have veteran NHL execs and draft people likening you to Patrice Bergeron because you're a high bust potential.

 

There are Yakupovs, Kessels, etc - and then there are complete players.  Almost everyone with a clue saw that in Horvat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem with the trade is that this is the best case scenario. A 9th overall pick, even in a great draft, has some inherent risk. Schneider is an all star caliber goalie. If Bo horvat ended up like nichuskin, nurse or morrisey, this would have gone down as one of the worst canucks trades in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, drsofthands said:

the problem with the trade is that this is the best case scenario. A 9th overall pick, even in a great draft, has some inherent risk. Schneider is an all star caliber goalie. If Bo horvat ended up like nichuskin, nurse or morrisey, this would have gone down as one of the worst canucks trades in history.

The trade was at the time of the pick though - the Canucks weren't going in blind - they knew the player they were getting.

That may not eliminate the risk, but it makes it far, far easier to assess, particularly with the type of player they were targetting.

 

The thing about the Edmonton deal that people don't consider - aside from being inside their divison (where the Canucks were probably far more comfortable sending Schneider to the Eastern Conference) - in context at the time of the Edmonton offers before the draft, the Canucks don't know who they'd be getting at that spot.

It's all speculation, but in hindsight it is easier.    As McGuire mentioned - one team had Horvat at 4.

Now if Vancouver had a pair of key targets in that draft - say Monahan and Horvat - they were guaranteed of neither of them if they cut that pre-draft deal with Edmonton.

 

In any event I think the people that projected him closer to 5 were probably the better scouts / draft people.

 

Schneider is a great starter - but he was also one of Gillis' late 1sts (26th overall) that he converted into a top 10 pick that might better be considered closer to a top 5 pick.

People can rip and mock Gillis all they want - but there are two very clear things he deserves a lot of credit for.

 

1) Identifying and developing Schneider into a legit NHL starter and upticking his value.

2) Identifying Horvat as a key foundational piece for the future of the franchise - and making the hard decision to look further to the future (while in a tight competitive position) to ensure the team had a future cornerstone in their system before the prospect gap grew even larger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, oldnews said:

You couldn't have picked a worse analogy wadr.

 

Some picks are far, far riskier than others.

 

There are a lot of reasons people considered Horvat a lock to be a serious, solid two way NHLer.   You don't have veteran NHL execs and draft people likening you to Patrice Bergeron because you're a high bust potential.

 

There are Yakupovs, Kessels, etc - and then there are complete players.  Almost everyone with a clue saw that in Horvat.

 

So by the looks of things you look at the draft the same way I do.  When looking at a player, being able to judge their ability to transfer their own game to the NHl is one of the biggest determining factors for drafting a certain player. (Other than the obvious entangibles)

 

 Oh ans and saying yakapov was was a cant miss is crazy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, TheOgRook said:

 

So by the looks of things you look at the draft the same way I do.  When looking at a player, being able to judge their ability to transfer their own game to the NHl is one of the biggest determining factors for drafting a certain player. (Other than the obvious entangibles)

 

 Oh ans and saying yakapov was was a cant miss is crazy!

I think it's reasonable to take risks under certain circumstances, but by the same token, I think it's easier to project certain types of players' success.

 

When you have some of the attributes Horvat did - great hockey intelligence, ability to play a high end two way game, very strong in the faceoff circle, produced while playing his team's hardest minutes, pk, pp, all situations, built like a teenaged man-tank, backbone type player - leader, champion - that's not nearly as risky as a one dimensional top 6 or bust type winger.

 

It's part of the reason I really liked the Granlund deal.  Their development was a few draft+ years when that deal was made, but you coulf see the hockey intelligence clearly - combined with some gifts of talent and a relatively developed two way game - imo that mediates the risk relative to a 'younger minded' offensive forward whose game may not as likely emerge. 

 

The Canucks didn't have multiple high picks in their back pocket - they were taking the lower risk foundational piece imo and they made the right decision, buy let's not pretend it was by mistake.  Gillis knew what he was doing - he took a risk - but it was a well scouted and conceived risk.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theilluminati said:

Cue the droves of fanboys that normally hate Botchford and every article he writes and say how bias he is etc. They will all be saying this is such a well written piece, bang on etc.

Just because Botch writes a happy, fluff piece we can all join hands and sing kumbaya around, doesn't mean he isn't normally a biased, click baiting, waste of oxygen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, terrible.dee said:

If he ends up taking over as a legit #1 then it will be one of the most fortuitous things to happen to this franchise

 

either way a lot of people. nearly everyone around here owes Gillis an apology, I recall this trade beeing universally disliked back then.

 

Me? I thought the trade was great and exactly what needed to be done, but I had a synergistic thing with Gillis, nearly;y EVERY move he made made sence to me even if it didn't work out. There is no other GM this team has had I can say that about, not even Pat Quin. With Gillis I always felt like "yep, that's what I would have tried to do"

 

To me it was simple, we needed to start finding the next generation, and everything starts at center ice, so I thought this made total sense, although once3w I learned about Bo the skating thing made me uneasy, my expectations dropped and I started to wonder if Gillis had made the right move, but gotten the wrong player, I am shocked by what Bo seems to be developing into

owe gillis an apology? are you for real

he completely mishandled our goaltending situation

and was basically forced to trade schneider and later luongo

it was a terrible situation to be in

trading a well developed goalie in shneider for an unproven (even if can't miss in most eyes) prospect is simply unwise

he did what he had to do and in the end salvaged the predicament with a solid young player

things could have gone worse

i still am miffed that he traded schneider only for the 9th overall pick

and did not force new jersey to take on ballard in that trade as well

we could have used that contract dump

but gillis could not manage that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fateless said:

The trade was excellent in my opinion. At what point since Schneider was traded has goaltending been the reason the Canucks have failed to ice a good team? Never. Whether we have Luongo, Schneider, Miller or Markstrom in net, this team was going to go downhill as we rebuilt our aging core. Schneider would age during our transition period and would be past his peak by the time we are ready to compete again.

 

While Schneider is obviously a better goalie than the two currently playing for the Canucks, he wouldn't have been a difference maker and with Demko in the long-term plans of this teams future - trading for Horvat was the best move Gillis ever made.

 

You hit the nail on the head. 

 

Schneider is probably the best goalie this franchise has ever seen. Obviously he doesn't have the resume to back it up, having been stuck behind Lu and then stuck playing in NJ, but man oh man is he ever good. He's just so fundamentally sound and his lateral movement is elite. Plus he has the size that you want in a goalie and he's a solid character guy to boot.

 

But as an organization, we have been blessed with a lot of good goalies before and after Schneider and as you already stated, Schneider wouldn't have made a difference as we approached our rebuild. 

 

I'd say this was one of those rare trades that really worked out for both teams. It's just too bad that NJ hasn't been able to assemble a better team around Schneider. Even after acquiring an elite scoring talent like Hall, they're still on the outside looking. Although, I believe Hall was injured earlier this year. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, VegasCanuck said:

So was Nail Yakupov. There is no such thing as a "Can't Miss Pick". You do the best you can looking at the maturity of a kid and you hope that you get it right, but there is no such thing as can't miss unless its McDavid.

 

It was a risky return for a guy who was showing that he was ready to be a #1 goalie, and I think most would still agree with me, no matter how well Horvat is turning out.

 

I think Edmonton just screwed up yakupovs development

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...