[Rumour] Bo Horvat Trade/Contract Talks

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, stawns said:

If you get rid of bo, you might as well get what you can for Petey, Hughes and demko as well.

I'm not convinced that isn't the best solution long-term.

[SilentSam]

30 minutes ago, stawns said:

I cant put a finger on which direction they'll go.  I refuse to believe they're dumb enough to choose Miller over Bo, but they've also haven't shown me anything to think they're forward looking enough to see it.  They had a good opportunity to re-shspe and balance the roster and completely missed the obvious.

 

However, I do think if they trade Bo, they will make a good deal..........I love the Bear/Pedersen trade and, despite the pitchfork parade, I actually don't mind the Stillman deal either.  I also like the actual signings they made over the summer, even if they weren't the right parts of the roster, they did the identify good players and got good deals done.

 

I like their eye for players, their negotiating skills for trades and contracts.  However, I have no faith in that they have a unified long term vision or understand the steps to get there, which is kind of the most critical aspect of building a team.

It’s not quite managements first full season .

 

what time frame would you give yourself as a “unified long term vision” being basically 1 summer and 3 months into a season if you were GM Stawnzy?

 

All of their moves so far have been positive,  and yes include Miller for 8m , who continues to produce 1ppg here.

that’s not saying he will or won’t get traded.

that’s a good contract.

Bo has not signed, and that handcuffs management to trade him or let him walk.

If he has played better last season, perhaps this management would have considered Bo a priority over Miller.

They Signed Martin,  add Kuz , Mihkey, Studwinka , Joshua, Aman, Pedersen, Bear, Lazar, Dreis, Bains.

 

That’s  a busy list with more foresight in it than 

perhaps the Magna / Chaput days.

 

However,  you, “have no faith in that they have a unified long term vision or understand the steps to get there”.    ??

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

I'm not convinced that isn't the best solution long-term.

Yup.  If our younger key core pieces aren’t good enough, even provided a strong supporting group, to compete as a top team then rebuilding through the draft to get a new key core makes sense.  I think we have two key pieces in Petey and (a healthy) Demko.  Need more young guys as good as, or close to their level. Guys who can play all 200 feet, with and without the puck, is preferred.  

[steviewonder20]

6 hours ago, stawns said:

how many teams have been successful selling most of their top players for picks?  Compared to teams who "re-tool" with good hockey trades?

I’m not in favor of trading most of our top players, as I would keep Petey, Hughes, Demko and Bo. I also love the line of Kuz, Petey and Ilya. I’d trade Miller (although that ship has sailed), Boeser, Myers (after bonus is paid) , and a few others we have discussed ad nauseum, like Pearson.  I believe we need picks and prospects as well as replacement players who are fast and big. My concern is reading that management doesn’t want picks and believes we can compete with a few tweaks. This re-tooling on the fly crap has made us a joke of a franchise with unending mediocrity and constant drama. We need a prospect pool than can feed our roster. 

[Gawdzukes]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

Myers is the actual problem there. OEL can fit just fine. What we need to do is replace Myers and his cap allocation, with a more complementary D. Hopefully next year *fingers crossed*

Yeah I agree with your general theme of OEL isn't "the problem". However my general theme is no one on this team is so important we can't use their cap space to solve our problems either. Except for Petterson, maybe Hughes, and maybe Demko. This should have included Bo as well.

 

OEL and Garland eat $12 mil together. It's part of what's holding us back from improving elsewhere. Would I like to move other players first, sure, but they're all redundant in this ménage of mediocrity, and are getting us nowhere fast.

 

Here's to hoping we somehow magically fix the team and OEL becomes relevant. I can only assume Garland (somehow) must go in order to get better. Additionally part of the problem is that we need Myers cap to get off the books before we can use it. That will be tricky as well because no way this group can wait a year so they'll have to pick up "our" new #1 RD at the exact same time. Without OEL's money tied up we could have been working on that all along, and then redeployed Myers cap elsewhere.

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, steviewonder20 said:

I’m not in favor of trading most of our top players, as I would keep Petey, Hughes, Demko and Bo. I also love the line of Kuz, Petey and Ilya. I’d trade Miller (although that ship has sailed), Boeser, Myers (after bonus is paid) , and a few others we have discussed ad nauseum, like Pearson.  I believe we need picks and prospects as well as replacement players who are fast and big. My concern is reading that management doesn’t want picks and believes we can compete with a few tweaks. This re-tooling on the fly crap has made us a joke of a franchise with unending mediocrity and constant drama. We need a prospect pool than can feed our roster. 

Want fast and big?  Garland for Anthony Mantha.  Boeser for Josh Anderson. 

[jyu]

1 hour ago, Gawdzukes said:

Ya it's kind of hilarious actually. Hi it's JR, we'd like to trade you Bo. Oh yeah we just need to get younger players who are better than he is so we get better, make the playoffs, and I look like a genius.

I wish this is just a joke but what you are describing here is what they are actually asking for from other teams. 
 

Here we have a player who is walking into UFA. JR is asking for a player that is similarly good while being younger and is signed to a contract. 
 

[aGENT]

1 hour ago, Shayster007 said:

You started this conversation in regards to OEL by jumping in while I was having a conversation with another poster. This isn't a witch hunt, this is me expressing my opinion on a subject that I have been expressing for a year and a half. If you came to stop a "witch hunt", you came to the wrong place.

 

He will always be judged along side that trade. That's how these things work. Just like how a player is always judged along side his contract. Again, that's just reality.

 

I disagree with you at a fundamental level about OEL. It's a huge contract that is likely immovable. It does change the way this team has to move forward with trying to fix this lineup for the worse. Without making that trade, this team would be in a better position right now. 

 

You're entitled to your opinion, as I'm entitled to mine. My opinion has not changed, and it's so far been proven right in my eyes. That trade, and by extension having OEL on this team is one of the bigger problems around this roster that we have to navigate if we want to move forward. In my opinion, we are building around OEL on the roster, not building a team with OEL on the roster. Those are different things to me.

The witch hunt comment wasn't directed specifically to you FWIW. Just the general sentiment on the board. You've read the same comments I have in the trade thread, game threads etc. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

The amount of whinging and hyperbole here, surrounding a top 4 D getting paid top 4 pay on a team lacking top 4 D is ridiculous. Regardless of what you our I think of the player or the trade.

 

The only reason the contract is immovable, is the NMC IMO. I'm sure a team lacking D (Florida for example?) would happily add him, so long as they can send cap back and he'd waive. But he hasn't shown much interest. Which is his prerogative. 

 

This team would have had yet another winger prospect and possibly more cap space with worse D, or roughly the same cap space and a different (not necessarily better) D   There's no guarantee they would have spent that cap space any better, if they had it.

 

Forgive me if I don't lose sleep over it.

 

Again, OEL, nor this trade are the road block holding this team up, regardless of what you think of the trade. There have been numerous other avenues to improve this club with him, a capable top 4 D, on the roster.

 

Having good players on the team isn't the problem. Getting the right mix around them is.

[aGENT]

15 minutes ago, Gawdzukes said:

Yeah I agree with your general theme of OEL isn't "the problem". However my general theme is no one on this team is so important we can't use their cap space to solve our problems either. Except for Petterson, maybe Hughes, and maybe Demko. This should have included Bo as well.

 

OEL and Garland eat $12 mil together. It's part of what's holding us back from improving elsewhere. Would I like to move other players first, sure, but they're all redundant in this ménage of mediocrity, and are getting us nowhere fast.

 

Here's to hoping we somehow magically fix the team and OEL becomes relevant. I can only assume Garland (somehow) must go in order to get better. Additionally part of the problem is that we need Myers cap to get off the books before we can use it. That will be tricky as well because no way this group can wait a year so they'll have to pick up "our" new #1 RD at the exact same time. Without OEL's money tied up we could have been working on that all along, and then redeployed Myers cap elsewhere.

Yup, Hoglander has made Garland redundant IMO. Does a less developed/refined job of the exact same role/size, at a lower cost, with more prime years ahead of him.

 

Hopefully we can use Garland 's cap to acquire the Myers replacement (Zub?).

 

And yes, getting Myers cap in to a player more suited to partner either Hughes or OEL will be a HUGE push forward for this roster IMO.

 

Miller's cap could/should have also been used to fill a hole there (Marino).

 

If only we'd done that could have added Marino this past summer and Zub this summer...

 

Hughes, Zub

OEL, Marino

Dermott, Bear

 

...next year would have looked pretty darn alright IMO. *Sigh*

 

I mean that still likely requires us to actually draft a "push us over the top" guy. But that's at least a legit playoff capable D that could work with a good forward group.

[stawns]

40 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

It’s not quite managements first full season .

 

what time frame would you give yourself as a “unified long term vision” being basically 1 summer and 3 months into a season if you were GM Stawnzy?

 

All of their moves so far have been positive,  and yes include Miller for 8m , who continues to produce 1ppg here.

that’s not saying he will or won’t get traded.

that’s a good contract.

Bo has not signed, and that handcuffs management to trade him or let him walk.

If he has played better last season, perhaps this management would have considered Bo a priority over Miller.

They Signed Martin,  add Kuz , Mihkey, Studwinka , Joshua, Aman, Pedersen, Bear, Lazar, Dreis, Bains.

 

That’s  a busy list with more foresight in it than 

perhaps the Magna / Chaput days.

 

However,  you, “have no faith in that they have a unified long term vision or understand the steps to get there”.    ??

I don't really have an issue with the fairness of Millers deal, in fact I thought he deserved more.  However, it's not the right deal or player for the timeline of the young core of guys here and they should have seen it.  At the very least they should have signed Bo first and waited to see on Miller.

 

They made a massive blunder on the path they thought this team was going to, or should, follow.  There's still time to fix it, but that's going to be tough to do and would certainly make them lose face to some degree.

[MeanSeanBean]

18 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Having good players on the team isn't the problem. Getting the right mix around them is.

Having a redundant player on a huge contract, that cost a fortune to acquire, on a team that's capped out and the bottom half of the league is a problem to me. Dunno what else to tell you. I view OEL and Miller in the same light. Good players, wrong team.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Shayster007

[SilentSam]

13 minutes ago, stawns said:

I don't really have an issue with the fairness of Millers deal, in fact I thought he deserved more.  However, it's not the right deal or player for the timeline of the young core of guys here and they should have seen it.  At the very least they should have signed Bo first and waited to see on Miller.

 

They made a massive blunder on the path they thought this team was going to, or should, follow.  There's still time to fix it, but that's going to be tough to do and would certainly make them lose face to some degree.

You do realize Bo has never had a season like this before,  and is probably getting pumped to dump?

he’s scoring yes,  but only 9 helpers says a lot more.

so your saying keeping Miller is a massive blunder?  You have said nothing to defend your point of this management group having no foresight,  or offered anything positive about the work / acquisitions they’ve made in basically 9 months at the helm.  
yet you question they’re vision?

 

Not quite sure what your vision is?  Or what you would have done differently in their position?

    Sign Bo first ?   Big Whoop .   He’s not bringing a Stanley Cup. Lol

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

Having a redundant player on a huge contract, that cost a fortune to acquire, on a team that's capped out and the bottom half of the league is a problem to me. Dunno what else to tell you. I view OEL and Miller in the same light. Good players, wrong team.

I don't see OEL as remotely redundant. Properly partnered, the ability to have him or Hughes out there +/-50 minutes a night would be HUGE. That's what contending teams have. Waves of capable players, on multiple lines/pairs, that can "play up" with injuries etc.

 

I was hoping that's where we were headed but after steps 1 and 2 (Hughes and OEL), the team has been sleeping on steps 3 and 4, with Myers, and our ridiculous winger over-depth (and corresponding cap) causing a major roadblock from acquiring those pieces.

 

I get how the two are similar (and as I stated, I get the "wrong time" argument for the trade) but OEL' s contract ends 2 years younger, and D also don't tend to regress (and less severely) until 34-35 vs F's at 32-33. Miller's extension is far, FAR more worrisome/risky IMO.

[MeanSeanBean]

13 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't see OEL as remotely redundant. Properly partnered, the ability to have him or Hughes out there +/-50 minutes a night would be HUGE. That's what contending teams have. Waves of capable players, on multiple lines/pairs, that can "play up" with injuries etc.

 

I was hoping that's where we were headed but after steps 1 and 2 (Hughes and OEL), the team has been sleeping on steps 3 and 4, with Myers, and our ridiculous winger over-depth (and corresponding cap) causing a major roadblock from acquiring those pieces.

 

I get how the two are similar (and as I stated, I get the "wrong time" argument for the trade) but OEL' s contract ends 2 years younger, and D also don't tend to regress (and less severely) until 34-35 vs F's at 32-33. Miller's extension is far, FAR more worrisome/risky IMO.

To me, having both our best left handed defensemen being offensively minded players isn't a great defense composition. I don't want either of those players playing big minutes on the pk, and would want both of them playing first line pp. That's why I say it's redundant. It's not like this team has a glut of talent so it's ok if you double up. I 100% think that cap would have been spent better off on a more defensive minded player. Like Tanev who was a victim of the cap, or Marino who we were rumored to be in on but couldn't open up the cap.

 

Cap is king, we have none, OEL takes up lots, OEL isn't utilized to the best of his potential on this team. 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

To me, having both our best left handed defensemen being offensively minded players isn't a great defense composition. I don't want either of those players playing big minutes on the pk, and would want both of them playing first line pp. That's why I say it's redundant. It's not like this team has a glut of talent so it's ok if you double up. I 100% think that cap would have been spent better off on a more defensive minded player. Like Tanev who was a victim of the cap, or Marino who we were rumored to be in on but couldn't open up the cap.

 

Cap is king, we have none, OEL takes up lots, OEL isn't utilized to the best of his potential on this team. 

Tanev was a victim of a moron n GM.  Benning went out and traded a third for a guy making 6 x five years. He could have definitely signed Tanev for a lot less and less term.  

[BigTramFan]

9 hours ago, Gawdzukes said:

Did you forget about

 

OEL 7.25

Boeser 6.65

Myers 6

Garland 4.9

Mikeyhev 4.75

Pearson 3.25

[Petey 10]

[Miller 8]

[Bo 8]

[Kuz 7]

 

All the players you listed are actually super valuable to a top notch team. Look at the difference in quality. Our team is still riddled with holes and bad contracts. They don't have 33 million in dead weight. They are champions and we are a joke team that gives up 4 goals a game.

 

I don't think the numbers are feasible. Same crap we always do. Spend to the cap trying to fix everything at once and then have no money left to complete the puzzle. 

I'm not really sure what your point is. You seem to be making an argument for something that I agree with (namely that TBL get full value out of their contracts whereas VAN does not).

 

However, my original point is that Petey (10m), Horvat (8m), Miller (8m) and Kuz (6m) are all quite feasible.

 

Did you forget that Myers and Pearson will be gone before Petey is resigned? (as will Holtby & Virtanen's buyouts)

 

Also very likely Boeser is gone by then too.

[aGENT]

19 minutes ago, Shayster007 said:

To me, having both our best left handed defensemen being offensively minded players isn't a great defense composition. I don't want either of those players playing big minutes on the pk, and would want both of them playing first line pp. That's why I say it's redundant. It's not like this team has a glut of talent so it's ok if you double up. I 100% think that cap would have been spent better off on a more defensive minded player. Like Tanev who was a victim of the cap, or Marino who we were rumored to be in on but couldn't open up the cap.

 

Cap is king, we have none, OEL takes up lots, OEL isn't utilized to the best of his potential on this team. 

OEL has enough two way/defensive chops (and size) to separate himself from Hughes IMO. He's good enough defensively to play some D/hard minutes/match ups/2nd PK. While also good enough offensively to play PP2 and cover for any Hughes injuries on PP1 (as he did quite well last year). 

 

That's not redundancy, that's depth. That's what good teams have.

 

Where we need that hard minute/PK guy (on the left) is the third pair (and why I don't see Rathbone as a fit here, and would have been fine moving him + for Marino). And a couple of those guys on the right as well, opposite Hughes and OEL.

 

The cap for a "Tanev" needs to come out of Myers and/or our over-depth/cap on wing. Getting rid of good, top 4 D doesn't help fix our lack of good top 4 D. It just creates another hole.

 

Cap IS king, we need to free it up on actual redundant, ill fitting players. Not good ones.

Edited December 18, 2022 by aGENT

[stawns]

22 minutes ago, SilentSam said:

You do realize Bo has never had a season like this before,  and is probably getting pumped to dump?

he’s scoring yes,  but only 9 helpers says a lot more.

so your saying keeping Miller is a massive blunder?  You have said nothing to defend your point of this management group having no foresight,  or offered anything positive about the work / acquisitions they’ve made in basically 9 months at the helm.  
yet you question they’re vision?

 

Not quite sure what your vision is?  Or what you would have done differently in their position?

    Sign Bo first ?   Big Whoop .   He’s not bringing a Stanley Cup. Lol

When they took over last season, they talked about getting younger, faster and harder to play against and that the dcorp needed a lot of work.  Yet they have the chance to move two players that would have gone a long way to making them younger and improving the dcorp.  They say on their hands and let the tdl go by.  

 

At the draft, they could have made the same moves, with a lesser return most likely.  Again, they missed their chance to use two moves to change the lineup and create some cap space and they say on their hands again.

 

Then, rather than getting younger and harder to play against they sign Boeser to a ridiculous contract for a play who has beenbumped out of his position in the lineup and miller to a retirement contract, rather than committing to their captain first and waiting to see how Miller responds and if he can legitimately play C.

 

They preached younger, faster and harder to play against and sign a massive contract for an aging player and another for a guy who is slow and has lost his spot in the lineup.

 

And though I liked their signings this summer, they did nothing to fix the D......the bear was good, but they could have pushed for UFA dmen and saved the 2nd rounder from the Bear trade, or have Bear as a #5-6

 

They've made some good moves, but those are cursory to the two moves they didn't make.  They preached one long term vision and pursued a different one.

 

 

 

[Gawdzukes]

26 minutes ago, aGENT said:

I don't see OEL as remotely redundant. Properly partnered, the ability to have him or Hughes out there +/-50 minutes a night would be HUGE. That's what contending teams have. Waves of capable players, on multiple lines/pairs, that can "play up" with injuries etc.

 

I was hoping that's where we were headed but after steps 1 and 2 (Hughes and OEL), the team has been sleeping on steps 3 and 4, with Myers, and our ridiculous winger over-depth (and corresponding cap) causing a major roadblock from acquiring those pieces.

 

I get how the two are similar (and as I stated, I get the "wrong time" argument for the trade) but OEL' s contract ends 2 years younger, and D also don't tend to regress (and less severely) until 34-35 vs F's at 32-33. Miller's extension is far, FAR more worrisome/risky IMO.

I think part of the concept of redundancy isn't the player per se, but that for a cashed strapped non playoff team a second LD at over $7mil is redundant, or at least a weird luxury. We should have at least one half ass top 4 RD before we have two top LD.  

 

On a better team sure you want good depth but how many teams run 7 mil two deep on their defence? OEL also comes attached to one of those "ridiculous over-depth" wingers.  

 

On a normal hockey team and without Garland involved sure, you could work with OEL and his larger contract. Now it depends on other moves to get done.

[Gawdzukes]

19 minutes ago, BigTramFan said:

I'm not really sure what your point is. You seem to be making an argument for something that I agree with (namely that TBL get full value out of their contracts whereas VAN does not).

 

However, my original point is that Petey (10m), Horvat (8m), Miller (8m) and Kuz (6m) are all quite feasible.

 

Did you forget that Myers and Pearson will be gone before Petey is resigned? (as will Holtby & Virtanen's buyouts)

 

Also very likely Boeser is gone by then too.

Oh, I was referring to next year when they'll both still be here. They will also have to fill those spots. I agree Tampa  does get full value for their contracts.