4 years later: Who won the Schneider for Horvat (9th overall pick) trade? (VIDEO)

[Winter Soldier]

11 hours ago, shiznak said:

No matter how you spin it, we still loss this trade.

 

If the rumour were true, that Edmonton would have given us their first that year (which regardless, we could have selected Horvat), Pääjarvi, and a second. That was a better deal than the 9th overall pick alone.

 

Plus with Schneider, Edmonton wouldn’t have sucked all those years. Which would mean, no McDavid.

You should try listening to the radio.

 

Quote

Gilman: They (Canucks) didn't have a better offer from a western conference team for Schneider. ie: They didn't take a worse trade just to send him to the east.

 

[danaimo]

1.Looking at that draft year there are a lot of first rounders that have been busts; Nurse, Nishuskin, Morin, Pulock, Lazar, Gauthier, Poirer, Shinkaruk, Dano, Klimchuk, Dickinson.

The real gems were Horvat, Theodore and Wennberg and Jones.  Even the top 3, Mackinnon, Barkov and Drouin have been disappointing compared to top3 players in other draft years.  Getting Horvat for Schneids was definately a good trade for the Canucks.

 

2. It has to be remembered that the Canucks were having to lose salary at that time.   Schneids had the better trade value because Louie's contact was so big. 

 

 

3. This trade looks fantastic for the Canucks because goalie trade values have nosedived in the last 5 years

 

 

 

 

[coryberg]

1 hour ago, danaimo said:

It has to be remembered that the Canucks were having to lose salary at that time. 

Correct. At the time of the trade the canucks were 8 million dollars over the cap. The simple solution would have been to buy out ballard AND booth but booth was injured at the time so we couldn't do that.

 

The canucks had to lose salary and not take any back. The whole league knew we were over a barrel. Schieder garnered the highest draft pick ever traded for a goalie. Gillis made sweet sweet lemonade out of lemons that day.

[qwijibo]

16 minutes ago, coryberg said:

Correct. At the time of the trade the canucks were 8 million dollars over the cap. The simple solution would have been to buy out ballard AND booth but booth was injured at the time so we couldn't do that.

 

The canucks had to lose salary and not take any back. The whole league knew we were over a barrel. Schieder garnered the highest draft pick ever traded for a goalie. Gillis made sweet sweet lemonade out of lemons that day.

In 2000 the Islanders sent Weekes, prospect Kristian Kudroc and a second rounder to the Lightning for the fifth-overall pick, a fourth and a seventh.  Not a 1 for 1 deal. But Weekes returned the 5th overall. 

[Gollumpus]

23 hours ago, -AJ- said:

Remarkably even. Schneider was a Top 5 goaltender during the three seasons after the trade, but fell off last season and is looking similar this year so far. If Schneider can't regain his late 20s form, the Canucks have a good shot at coming out on top of the deal, but for now, it's a tie.

Pretty much this. For the current time-,line for the re-build/tool in which the Canucks find themselves, having Horvat and the goal tending prospects in the system is the better option of the two. This suggests a "win" for the Canucks over the long term.

 

                                                                regards,  G.

[appleboy]

I hate these kind of posts. People are always looking to blame someone. Why do we even care? You can't go backwards and trying to find blame never solves anything. It is something that petty people do. Lets just move on and look to the future.

Some people spend their hole lives living in the past sulking over what could have been and some people "live" their hole lives to the full.

I find there is no time to waist.

[coryberg]

5 minutes ago, qwijibo said:

In 2000 the Islanders sent Weekes, prospect Kristian Kudroc and a second rounder to the Lightning for the fifth-overall pick, a fourth and a seventh.  Not a 1 for 1 deal. But Weekes returned the 5th overall. 

As you said thats a package deal.

A player drafted in 1st round the year before + a second round pick are major pieces in a trade. 

 

But If we want to follow that road i guess ron hextall got the biggest return ever. He was traded for the rights to the 1991 first overall pick. 

 

Fun fact... that coveted 5th overall pick in 2000 was none other than Raffi Torres 

[-DLC-]

Hard to define "won" in relation to a trade in that needs factor in and change over time.

 

At the time of a trade, a team may have a reason to move a player or be looking to fill some gaps and acquire future prospects.  

 

So to compare on a "who's better" basis isn't really appropriate.  Hard to say, they're both beneficial to their respective teams and so I feel it's fairly even.  And, at the time, moving Luongo wasn't an easy feat so this was the path that was taken.   So many things come into play and it's not like two kids trading  hockey cards....the value is determined not only on the player's performance and success, but in how voids are filled and the costs involved in that.

[RWMc1]

The slimy toronto gm nonuts offered us Scrivens, a 2nd, and a 3rd for Luongo. Then he demanded a salary retention at the last minute. Gillis was handcuffed and didn't have time to try to get another deal in place. It was a despicable move on their part. After that,(hearsay) other GMs were low-balling us for Luongo. We were in a cap crunch and got a better return for Schneids than we would have gotten for Lou.

 

 

[Slegr]

I remember thinking when the news came out that it was the most insane thing ever, in a tremendously bad way. It was a massive risk to trade a bonafide NHL starter-ready goalie for an unknown. Luckily, it’s looking like a very even trade now. But the move showed some real risk taking and strong talent assessment by Canucks management. Very ballsy, and for that, I give the Canucks the win.

[TonyStrecher]

It is often quite hard to trade goalies for fair value in the NHL as most other teams already have at least a goalie or two that they believe are NHL quality. 

 

I think that even though Schneider might be worth more than Horvat this year, the trade will be better for the Canucks in the long run. If they hadn't traded Schneider, I don't think they would have been a Stanley Cup contender in any of the past few years, because they are rebuilding anyways. If anything not trading Schneider might have meant a few more years of borderline playoff contention and much lower draft picks. 

 

Also imagine where the Canucks would be right now without Horvat. The Sedins would likely still be the top line and Sutter would be the second line center. When the Sedins contracts end at the end of the year, they would have to choose between Sutter or rushing Elias Pettersson as their 1st line center. 

[WHL rocks]

We won't know until another few years. THis young NJD team is very good. It has a chance to do some very good things in next 4 to 5 years. If CS can make a Cup run with this team NJD wins. IF Horvat does same in few years then we win. 

[alt kilgore]

If there is one trade that least demands who won its this one.

 

Both teams won,

And both teams lost.

 

But both filled a needed position, with a player that is playing a prominent role today, so they both came out ahead in the end.

 

My angst comes from dreaming the impossible dream of watching this team develop with both Horvat AND Schneids on the team. If wishes were horseflies.

[IBatch]

This might be unpopular but I believe it's the truth.  Trading a top five goalie in his early prime for a ninth overall is insanity.  Fortunately for us the lottery ticket worked out and we have a young player coming off his first fifty point season with a modicum of intangibles, face off skill, leadership etc.

 

However at this point NJ won this trade and it's not even really close.  Schneider had one off year after playing a huge quantity of games for a rebuilding squad, and it's going to pay off big time now that things seem to be coming around.  You can't win in this league without elite goaltending, which they should continue to get for some time.  

 

Production wise, Vancouver has enjoyed the services of a second line center for one year, and a third line center for two years so far.  It looks like it's possible with Boeser as a wing man his production could improve to a low average first line center for the next six years.  

 

So far NJ has won this trade, second line centers are not nearly as valuable as a top ten goalie, in the future if Horvat becomes a decent two way first line center things will even out a little.

 

For this trade to be even Horvat needs to play out his next six years in the 70-plus point range to make up some ground.  There's no certainty Horvat will play here once he's a UFA, so during that time he needs to become a true all-star, or star player to match what we had in Schneider when we traded him, and what he's mostly done since.  

 

From a team perspective this trade was a win win no doubt, but imagine if we picked a dud.

[flickyoursedin]

Good hockey trade both teams rarely win.

[grumpworsley]

On 11/1/2017 at 11:56 AM, RWMc1 said:

One question: Is Schneider captain material?

I say we start a campaign to "Make Schneider Captain" we all know how well that scenario plays out 

[RWMc1]

1 hour ago, grumpworsley said:

I say we start a campaign to "Make Schneider Captain" we all know how well that scenario plays out 

Yeah, it was more of a rhetorical question. I was basically commenting on what we have in Bo.

 

If we had kept Schneider, we would have had to take a lesser return on Lou. Schneider would have had to play behind some bad teams and the media and fans would have eventually turned on him. We're on a better path whether people want to believe it or not. Also, his latest resurgence has a lot to do with Rollie who wouldn't be here.

[shiznak]

8 hours ago, Winter Soldier said:

You should try listening to the radio.

 

 

Thus, why I said if the rumour were true, because there’s always two sides to a story. So, i’ll take Gilman’s (a former assistant manager of the team) story with a grain of salt. He, of course isn’t going to admit truthfully, if there was a better deal on the table. It will only make him and Gillis look bad as a GM.

[Chris12345]

4 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Thus, why I said if the rumour were true, because there’s always two sides to a story. So, i’ll take Gilman’s (a former assistant manager of the team) story with a grain of salt. He, of course isn’t going to admit truthfully, if there was a better deal on the table. It will only make him and Gillis look bad as a GM.

Ha no $hit. Craig Mctavish's reaction doesn't support Gilman's tale. Not saying I believe one over the other....just two stories.

[Winter Soldier]

40 minutes ago, shiznak said:

Thus, why I said if the rumour were true, because there’s always two sides to a story. So, i’ll take Gilman’s (a former assistant manager of the team) story with a grain of salt. He, of course isn’t going to admit truthfully, if there was a better deal on the table. It will only make him and Gillis look bad as a GM.

I see zero reason why Gilman would lie when neither he nor Gillis are General Managers anymore and he's been so forthcoming with other information in his interviews of late.