[Rumour] Bo Horvat Trade/Contract Talks

[Coconuts]

4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

That's the route forward I see as well. I like Garland and Boeser, but wingers are wingers and C's are C's.

 

And over the next year or so, we should also be able to start seeing guys like Karlsson, Klimovich, McDonagh etc reach for those 3rd line spots as well. Never mind who we might unearth from undrafted FA's, unqualified RFA's like Aman etc.

 

Move Boeser/Garland for a RHD and 3C, keep on trucking.

Better to have capable center playing wing on at least one of your top six lines. Injuries happen, wouldn't be a luxury then. 

 

All it's gonna take is one of Horvat or Miller getting hurt for a good chunk of time and our possession game likely tanks. We don't have another center who can play in the top six and capably win draws. 

 

One of Horvat, Pettersson, and Miller playing wing at any given time isn't a bad thing. Pure wingers are much easier to replace. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Coconuts

[SilentSam]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

It's nice to see someone else say it, I've been telling folks I'm skeptical as to whether Pettersson is a center or not for a while. And questioning how management views him long term. Some folks will argue he is til they're blue in the face, there's simply no getting around the fact that being able to at least hold your own in the dot is a must for a center. At least around 50%, ideally better.  

 

Nobody's questioning whether Pettersson is a talented offensive player or not, but questioning his fit as a center is absolutely fair game. Thus far he hasn't proven he's able to hold his own, let alone step into Horvat's shoes as far as deployment goes. Maybe he shows us he can do it but he hasn't yet. While playing with Miller or Horvat there's someone else to take draws but he's not always going to play on a line where there's another player capable of winning draws. 

 

People keep saying we can't afford to spend 7M on three different centers, if Horvat is re-signed I'm not convinced we would be. Pettersson as a top line wing is fine, allows him to focus more on the offensive side of things. And hey, if they want him as a center having both Miller and Horvat to insulate him while he hones his craft in the dot isn't the worst thing. 

This is Horvats 9th full season.

… and Petersson’s 4th full season..

 

try this comparison 5 years from now.

 

Petersson will be fine ,  he has a tool box bigger than Horvats,.   And unlike Horvat,

he will fill it.

[aGENT]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

Better to have capable center playing wing on at least one of your top six lines. Injuries happen, wouldn't be a luxury then. 

 

All it's gonna take is one of Horvat or Miller getting hurt for a good chunk of time and our possession game likely tanks. We don't have another center who can play in the top six and capably win draws. 

 

One of Horvat, Pettersson, and Miller playing wing at any given time isn't a bad thing. Pure wingers are much easier to replace. 

Just look at this offseason, we got one as a UFA, one as an undrafted FA, had another two look promising as a drafted and developed prospect... They're just so readily available.

[canuck73_3]

19 minutes ago, aGENT said:

There was direct comments from Rutherford last TDL that they were taking him off the market and that they prioritized extending him. You believe whatever you want though...

GM’s lie through their teeth in public comments especially regarding trade availability. 

[Coconuts]

7 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

This is Horvats 9th full season.

… and Petersson’s 4th full season..

 

try this comparison 5 years from now.

 

Petersson will be fine ,  he has a tool box bigger than Horvats,.   And unlike Horvat,

he will fill it.

Horvat's been a competent centerman the entire time, and has gotten better on the draw as time has gone on.

 

Pettersson hasn't done either of those things thus far and whether he actually successfully makes the transition is far from a given. Bo's never had a single season under 50% and has never taken fewer than 800 draws in a season, Pettersson's hit 45% (his best year thus far, and he took a total of 140 draws that yet) once thus far and has yet to even take 700 draws in a season. 

 

Dog Horvat all you want but the numbers don't lie. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Coconuts

[HKSR]

45 minutes ago, Got the Babych said:

Great players, and the ultra-rare players that don't slow down in their 30's, don't enter their primes at age 29.

Huh?? Most players are smack middle of their prime at age 29.

[SilentSam]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Horvat's been a competent centerman the entire time, and has gotten better on the draw as time has gone on.

 

Pettersson hasn't done either of those things thus far and whether he actually successfully makes the transition is far from a given. Bo's never had a single season under 50% and has never taken fewer than 800 draws in a season, Pettersson's hit 45% (his best year thus far, and he took a total of 140 draws that yet) once thus far and has yet to even take 700 draws in a season. 

 

Dog Horvat all you want but the numbers don't lie. 

As many would say about Miller,.   
 

those stats make for great trade bait

 

 

.. the better thing about Horvat is he is not our best player,  there will be 4 or 5 players who outshine him.

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

As many would say about Miller,.   
 

those stats make for great trade bait

 

 

.. the better thing about Horvat is he is not our best player,  there will be 4 or 5 players who outshine him.

Could, but bottom line is we don't have a single player in the system who can effectively replace him outside of maybe Miller and you don't want that. Move Horvat and suddenly your precious Miller isn't able to freewheel offensively as much because he'll have to play more of a two-way game by necessity. Miller doesn't hit 99 points last season without Horvat doing the heavy lifting he did, he'd have been utilized differently by necessity. Having Horvat backing him makes Miller's life easier. 

 

Horvat may be miscast as a defensive center but he absolutely carries the load for this club, or at least has thus far. Nobody's been able to take that role away from him, and he's provided top six offense while doing so. If you look at his pace he's been roughly on pace for 25 goals the last five seasons too. 

 

Horvat doesn't have to be your best player to be a valuable piece of your team. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Coconuts

[Darius]

There are a myriad of other problems bigger than Bo Horvat on this team.  its astounding how the fan base has turned on this kid.  The hysteria has hit a crescendo after losing to the the McDavid show where he and Drai dismantled our special teams.  My opinion is they should probably trade him - not because he is bad.  They have backed themselves in a corner.  Either they give up a myriad of first rounders to fix the D  or they trade a legit top 6 roster player that is a desirable asset. A youngish 30 goal scoring center that is one of the best face of guys in the league is a desirable asset no matter what is said in here. Drafting their way out of this will take 3-4 years at mininum.  Bo fits the trade piece better than anyone right now.  I wont get into who I think they should have traded this summer to fix the issues instead.

 

It reminds me of Lindens last months here.  Fan base kinda turned on him too.  Doesnt fight enough, cant lead the team (believe it or not), looks like he doesnt want to be here - same arguments (i can probably find the usenet archives where Canucks fans posted in the mid 90s if anyone wants to read).  LInden was a great player who got us a great package in return...some of those pieces fed trades that got us other pieces that resulted in core players of the 2011 team years later.  If they do trade the kid i pray they dont whiff on the trade.  e

[Coconuts]

20 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Just look at this offseason, we got one as a UFA, one as an undrafted FA, had another two look promising as a drafted and developed prospect... They're just so readily available.

You see a handful of top six caliber wingers walk to UFA every offseason, you see maybe two or three top six centers. Centers will always be more valuable. 

[SilentSam]

9 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

Could, but bottom line is we don't have a single player in the system who can effectively replace him outside of maybe Miller and you don't want that. Move Horvat and suddenly your precious Miller isn't able to freewheel offensively as much because he'll have to play more of a two-way game by necessity. Miller doesn't hit 99 points last season without Horvat doing the heavy lifting he did, he'd have been utilized differently by necessity. Having Horvat backing him makes Miller's life easier. 

 

Horvat may be miscast as a defensive center but he absolutely carries the load for this club, or at least has thus far. Nobody's been able to take that role away from him, and he's provided top six offense while doing so. If you look at his pace he's been roughly on pace for 25 goals the last five seasons too. 

 

Horvat doesn't have to be your best player to be a valuable piece of your team. 

But at 7m that’s not going to work .

 

Were better off looking for a team who could use his FO numbers / points NOW, and give us the next upcoming Horvat, or A solid D man back..

use Rathbone with Horvat ,   And perhaps get both.

Ottawa .   Horvat would look solid there,

 

Shane Pinto .     Artem Zub.

 

 

[Coconuts]

23 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

But at 7m that’s not going to work .

 

Were better off looking for a team who could use his FO numbers / points NOW, and give us the next upcoming Horvat, or A solid D man back..

use Rathbone with Horvat ,   And perhaps get both.

Ottawa .   Horvat would look solid there,

 

Shane Pinto .     Artem Zub.

 

 

It could work though, it'd just require a sacrifice somewhere else. You've mentioned you're not against moving out Boeser in the past, that's the avenue I'd explore. I think having Miller, Horvat, and Pettersson in our top six is more beneficial to the club than having Miller, Pettersson, and Boeser.  

 

Horvat compliments Miller, ideally there'd be a better 3C behind him to free up some of the load he carrier so he could focus more on offense. Having Miller and Horvat to insulate him benefits Pettersson too if the idea is that he eventually transitions to center. Miller holds his own in the dot too, that's not a bad couple of guys to be practicing with. And hey, if Pettersson just ends up being a top line winger that's still a great piece to have. 

 

Move Horvat and you've got to replace what be brings to the team somehow, that's not an easy thing to do given our lack of cap flex. We arguably already need a 3C and we'll need two top 4RD sooner than later. We don't want to be looking for a top six center on top of that if Pettersson can't carry the weight. 

 

As @aGENT mentioned I'd be taking a much harder look at moving wingers out before centers. One could argue wing is actually an area we've got more depth. Hell, our top prospect is a wing and Klimovich is stewing too. I like both guys, and both players, but I'd be moving out Garland or Boeser before Horvat if only because of Horvat's value as a center alone. 

 

Yes, there might be a drop off in goals if you move one of them out, but there'll be a drop off in goals anyway if we move out Horvat. 

Edited October 14, 2022 by Coconuts

[Darius]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

It could work though, it'd just require a sacrifice somewhere else. You've mentioned you're not against moving out Boeser in the past, that's the avenue I'd explore. I think having Miller, Horvat, and Pettersson in our top six is more beneficial to the club than having Miller, Pettersson, and Boeser.  

 

Horvat compliments Miller, ideally there'd be a better 3C behind him to free up some of the load he carrier so he could focus more on offense. Having Miller and Horvat to insulate him benefits Pettersson too if the idea is that he eventually transitions to center. Miller holds his own in the dot too, that's not a bad couple of guys to be practicing with. And hey, if Pettersson just ends up being a top line winger that's still a great piece to have. 

 

Move Horvat and you've got to replace what be brings to the team somehow, that's not an easy thing to do given our lack of cap flex. We arguably already need a 3C and we'll need two top 4RD sooner than later. We don't want to be looking for a top six center on top of that if Pettersson can't carry the weight. 

 

As @aGENT mentioned I'd be taking a much harder look at moving wingers out before centers. One could argue wing is actually an area we've got more depth. Hell, our top prospect is a wing and Klimovich is stewing too. I like both guys, and both players, but I'd be moving out Garland or Boeser before Horvat if only because of Horvat's value as a center alone. 

Excellent points, I agree with almost everything(sorry to jump in here btw)

 

But when I read trade Boeser, or trade Garland to fix the D...I dont get it.  Not because Im against trading those guys - but will those guys get you a dman that will move the needle here.

 

There are a lot of questions around Brock right now (and this comes from a big fan of his).  Can he live up to the contract.  Have all the injuries summed up to the point where he is permanently confined to be a 20-25 goal guy.  I dont know if many teams will part with what we are looking for to take a chance on Brock.  Maybe next year if he puts up 30 goals?

 

Garland is good too. But.. Small one time 50 point wingers arent that hard to find.  Can he get us that impact D man.? Would you give up an impact D man for Garland?

 

There are 5 players on the team that can get us what we are looking for IMHO.  We arent trading 2 of them, one guy plays goal, and the other was signed in the summer.  That leaves Bo IMHO. I dont want to trade him...but  In light of the fact that they are trotting out one of the most expensive, and at the same time underwhelming, D cores in the league I dont know how they are going to make this all work without moving him.  

 

[SilentSam]

20 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

It could work though, it'd just require a sacrifice somewhere else. You've mentioned you're not against moving out Boeser in the past, that's the avenue I'd explore. I think having Miller, Horvat, and Pettersson in our top six is more beneficial to the club than having Miller, Pettersson, and Boeser.  

 

Horvat compliments Miller, ideally there'd be a better 3C behind him to free up some of the load he carrier so he could focus more on offense. Having Miller and Horvat to insulate him benefits Pettersson too if the idea is that he eventually transitions to center. Miller holds his own in the dot too, that's not a bad couple of guys to be practicing with. And hey, if Pettersson just ends up being a top line winger that's still a great piece to have. 

 

Move Horvat and you've got to replace what be brings to the team somehow, that's not an easy thing to do given our lack of cap flex. We arguably already need a 3C and we'll need two top 4RD sooner than later. We don't want to be looking for a top six center on top of that if Pettersson can't carry the weight. 

 

As @aGENT mentioned I'd be taking a much harder look at moving wingers out before centers. One could argue wing is actually an area we've got more depth. Hell, our top prospect is a wing and Klimovich is stewing too. I like both guys, and both players, but I'd be moving out Garland or Boeser before Horvat if only because of Horvat's value as a center alone. 

 

Yes, there might be a drop off in goals if you move one of them out, but there'll be a drop off in goals anyway if we move out Horvat. 

But I don’t think it will work if he is asking anything above what Boeser is signed for right now .  6.25 ?? 
Even then if Bo signed for 6.25 ,  those 2 are fighting to stay with the Canucks.

 

If a trade comes that makes sense,  is the option that Management is not going to give away right now.

 

To quote Tina Turner

“2 men enter ,  1 man leaves.”

 

Also,

Something interesting is happening in the league dynamically now with signings.

Some Teams are willing to go “all in” on RFA’s,  

or risk losing them because they don’t want to stay with a club.

Other RFA ‘s. are opting to just ask for a trade.

Not trying to flip a table here Nuts,  but patience is certainly a virtue right now.

 

Personally ,  I’d like to see Horvat consistently play with a fire in his belly, and only wish he was mentored by Smyl , back when, and not the Twins.

 

 

          

 

 

 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Darius said:

Excellent points, I agree with almost everything(sorry to jump in here btw)

 

But when I read trade Boeser, or trade Garland to fix the D...I dont get it.  Not because Im against trading those guys - but will those guys get you a dman that will move the needle here.

 

There are a lot of questions around Brock right now (and this comes from a big fan of his).  Can he live up to the contract.  Have all the injuries summed up to the point where he is permanently confined to be a 20-25 goal guy.  I dont know if many teams will part with what we are looking for to take a chance on Brock.  Maybe next year if he puts up 30 goals?

 

Garland is good too. But.. Small one time 50 point wingers arent that hard to find.  Can he get us that impact D man.? Would you give up an impact D man for Garland?

 

There are 5 players on the team that can get us what we are looking for IMHO.  We arent trading 2 of them, one guy plays goal, and the other was signed in the summer.  That leaves Bo IMHO. I dont want to trade him...but  In light of the fact that they are trotting out one of the most expensive, and at the same time underwhelming, D cores in the league I dont know how they are going to make this all work without moving him.  

 

While I'd certainly LOVE a "McAvoy", that's a want, not a need. And expiring Horvat isn't likely returning that either.

 

All we "need" is a couple solid #2-#4D that compliment our heavy lifters in Hughes/OEL. Guys like Pesce/Tanev/Marino or Cernak/Carlo etc 

 

That level of D is more attainable than what you're talking about. Boeser/Garland + Rathbone +/- ought to cover it.

 

 

[Darius]

2 minutes ago, aGENT said:

While I'd certainly LOVE a "McAvoy", that's a want, not a need. And expiring Horvat isn't likely returning that either.

 

All we "need" is a couple solid #2-#4D that compliment our heavy lifters in Hughes/OEL. Guys like Pesce/Tanev/Marino or Cernak/Carlo etc 

 

That level of D is more attainable than what you're talking about. Boeser/Garland + Rathbone +/- ought to cover it.

 

 

Agree that we need at least two top 4 D and they dont have to be a number 1 guy.  But Gent, dont you think they would have done this already if all it took was Garland plus Rathbone, heck throw in a pick?  Everyone knows the problem, a couple of regulars like me and you can see it and see a solution. Are we over estimating what our players can get us in return? Maybe Im not being patient enough and this will happen at some point this year?  Id drive garland to the airport for a #2 or #3 d.  Rathbone can hold his bags.

 

And to beat on a dead horse again, how different would things be if they retained Tanev ...great partner for Hughes, and would move a few of the other guys playing over their head down the ladder where they should be.

 

 

 

 

[Junkyard Dog]

3 hours ago, Darius said:

Agree that we need at least two top 4 D and they dont have to be a number 1 guy.  But Gent, dont you think they would have done this already if all it took was Garland plus Rathbone, heck throw in a pick?  Everyone knows the problem, a couple of regulars like me and you can see it and see a solution. Are we over estimating what our players can get us in return? Maybe Im not being patient enough and this will happen at some point this year?  Id drive garland to the airport for a #2 or #3 d.  Rathbone can hold his bags.

 

And to beat on a dead horse again, how different would things be if they retained Tanev ...great partner for Hughes, and would move a few of the other guys playing over their head down the ladder where they should be.

 

 

 

 

Marino got moved for a pick and elc player. Trying to get a cap for cap deal with quality players is tough to do in the landscape we're in. Easier to do if  you're moving a high quality player, like a Tkachuk-level player. 

 

Anyone we trade who has considerable cap is likely gonna get traded for mainly future assets(picks and prospects). Anyone we trade for is likely gonna cost those same sort of assets. Cap space is the biggest asset in a trade atm. 

 

If you want flexibility with making trades then we need our cupboards stocked and cap space readily available.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Junkyard Dog

[aGENT]

32 minutes ago, Darius said:

Agree that we need at least two top 4 D and they dont have to be a number 1 guy.  But Gent, dont you think they would have done this already if all it took was Garland plus Rathbone, heck throw in a pick?  Everyone knows the problem, a couple of regulars like me and you can see it and see a solution. Are we over estimating what our players can get us in return? Maybe Im not being patient enough and this will happen at some point this year?  Id drive garland to the airport for a #2 or #3 d.  Rathbone can hold his bags.

 

And to beat on a dead horse again, how different would things be if they retained Tanev ...great partner for Hughes, and would move a few of the other guys playing over their head down the ladder where they should be.

 

 

 

 

Marino went for basically peanuts just to clear his cap space. Even if we move Garland for futures, and have the cap space, we should be able to add a guy like that.

 

And yes, Tanev would have been great the last couple years... He's not the longer term solution we're looking for either though.

[Elias Pettersson]

4 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Petey was 27% on faceoffs compared to Horvat's 61% and Petey had triple the amount of giveaways.

We don't need to pay someone over $7 million to take faceoffs.  We also shouldn't be relying on Petey to get us the most hits.  We need a true 3C that can do both and also kill penalties...

Edited October 14, 2022 by Elias Pettersson

[Darius]

17 minutes ago, Junkyard Dog said:

Marino got moved for picks. Trying to get a cap for cap deal with quality players is tough to do in the landscape we're in. Unless you're moving a Tkachuk-level player. 

 

Anyone we trade who has considerable cap is likely gonna get traded for future assets(picks and prospects). Anyone we trade for is likely gonna cost those same sort of assets. Cap space is the biggest asset in a trade atm. 

 

If you want flexibility with making trades then we need our cupboards stocked and cap space readily available.

ok I buy this argument.  Its a good one.  

 

But this carries some risk.

 

So suppose we unload Brock and or Garland for picks/prospects that are used as currency, and the freed up cap is used to accommodate the new salary.  You basically need to find a team willing to part with a proven young asset for 'peanuts' because they need to free up his cap space or he is a redundant type player that they have.  The stars really have to align.  I say proven young asset because thats what we need.

You can also use the freed up cap space to go after players hard in free agency.  11 million dollars is a lot to play with if you trade Brock and Garland for picks...but then you are competing with other teams and will likely overpay if the guy actually agrees to join the team.

 

Regarding Marino - is that calibre of player really a solution for us? @aGENT   Pens fans were not too sad to see him go.  Late round pick, had one really good year...