Filip Hronek | #17 | D

[Baggins]

1 minute ago, Where's Wellwood said:

I was more comparing it to how we added a second round pick as well (not to mention the 9th overall)  to dump those contracts

Very different circumstances. I'm talking about adding a young guy that will be waiver elligible, and unlikely to make our team, to get a draft pick back instead. Shed the cap hit, a waiver elligible player, and get a pick back. Does that seem remotely like that Arizona deal? 

[Where's Wellwood]

13 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Very different circumstances. I'm talking about adding a young guy that will be waiver elligible, and unlikely to make our team, to get a draft pick back instead. Shed the cap hit, a waiver elligible player, and get a pick back. Does that seem remotely like that Arizona deal? 

It's palatable sure, but waiver eligible players make it through waivers all the time. Rathbone would probably clear especially if waived when there's tons of equivalent players being waived during pre-season. I'm not convinced the cost of 1 more year of Myers it worth the loss of the prospect even for Abbotsford.

 

I'd do it to dump OEL for sure because the benefit back to us is far greater.

[higgyfan]

On 3/2/2023 at 3:45 PM, AngryElf said:

He's better defensively than Chychrun is with a harder shot, but older and has less offensive instinct. I think these two deals will be very interesting to watch given how close they were in value. 

Chychrun is injury prone as well.  In 3 yrs, he's missed 52 games while our guy has only missed 4.  Ronny has a

great shot and moves the puck out of the d-zone quickly,  He's a huge upgrade for our team.

[Baggins]

31 minutes ago, jyu said:

Yes totally reasonable. If it's Myers + Rathbone , yes, it's time to let Rathbone earn a chance elsewhere.

 

I'd say though that from cap perspective and in a retool, two of the players you listed, Boeser and Garland should be traded ahead of Hoglander and that Hoglander should be given a chance. Neither of them bring good defensive play and while they are putting up decent points, their overall effect on the scoresheet is negative in terms of GF/60 vs GA/60 -- although Garland is about par and you can claim that Garland is earning his money.

 

Garland has positive value and Boeser with cap retention might be tradeable.

 

If it comes down to trading Garland for say a 2nd rounder vs trading Myers + Hoglander for 5th or lower, I'd go with Garland for 2nd to get a breathing room then seek out Myers trade from a better spot without giving up Hoglander.

 

But I agree that I'd seek out Myers trade as early as possible so that we can make other moves come draft and free agency. If we fail to do so, we will "run out of time" again and not be able to upgrade the roster in any meaningful manner.

 

You seem to think Hoglander has some real value. I doubt you could get the 2nd we spent on him right now. He's had a chance (141 NHL games) and got sent down to the AHL. He's a player that has taken too long to get to where he needs to be. Garland is a pretty good NHL player. I don't understand how you would prefer to move positive value over negative value with a maybe, just maybe, one day player to create cap space. You get cap space but it doesn't improve the team when keeping that negative value player. Plus we may just lose Hogs to waivers anyway.

[jyu]

4 minutes ago, Baggins said:

You seem to think Hoglander has some real value. I doubt you could get the 2nd we spent on him right now. He's had a chance (141 NHL games) and got sent down to the AHL. He's a player that has taken too long to get to where he needs to be. Garland is a pretty good NHL player. I don't understand how you would prefer to move positive value over negative value with a maybe, just maybe, one day player to create cap space. You get cap space but it doesn't improve the team when keeping that negative value player. Plus we may just lose Hogs to waivers anyway.

If Hoglander has no real value and he is negative value as you claim then there's no way teams take him for Hoglander. So Myers + Hoglander for 7th is not even an option anyways. Why would a team take on two negative valued assets for a draft pick even if it's a 7th round pick? 

 

I agree Garland being a good NHL player. In a world where we are not cap crunched, he stays on the team 100%.

 

But we don't have other assets of positive value that can be traded to clear cap.

 

You have to understand that we are at a point where we may need to give away a good player like Garland cheaply -- put yourself as the GM of a cap crunched team and other teams are asking for major value for taking on your cap dumps.

You have surplus on wing and one player with the highest cap hit happens to be Garland.

 

Maybe my example of Garland for 2nd vs Myers + Hoglander for 7th is what you are unhappy about?

 

That comes from our differing views on Hoglander. I see 140 NHL games from Hoglander as a positive while you see it as being too slow to make it after being given all the chances in the world to make it.

 

Garland was playing about 130 AHL games before making it full time in his D+4 season. If we are in the same situation with Garland in Hoglander's position coming off his final AHL season, about 130 AHL games, you would have traded Garland? Or you wouldn't because spending 130 AHL games is OK for development and not "too long" because he wasn't given proper chances?

 

 

[Baggins]

3 minutes ago, Where's Wellwood said:

It's palatable sure, but waiver eligible players make it through waivers all the time. Rathbone would probably clear especially if waived when there's tons of equivalent players being waived during pre-season. I'm not convinced the cost of 1 more year of Myers it worth the loss of the prospect even for Abbotsford.

 

I'd do it to dump OEL for sure because the benefit back to us is far greater.

Players also get claimed off waivers all the time. Do you think Hogs is bad enough to clear? At 22 he's a decent enough prospect that a rebuilding team would claim him. As I said, late bloomers rarely bloom with the team that drafted them because of waiver elligibilty. There's always rebuilding teams willing to roll the dice on a young boarderline player they can grab for free. Even waiver elligible I think he has trade value with a rebuilding team. I'm far more often surprised at players that get claimed than players that clear.

 

I suspect it would take far more than Hogs to get OEL moved. 

[Baggins]

59 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Sure, we fans would like to see such moves, but will our owner allow it?  I’m not too sure our owner will want to pay Myers a five mil bonus and then have him play for another team. Same as buying out OEL. Our owner might not have the desire to d9 that. 

He had no problem buying out Ballard, Booth, Higgins, Virtanen, Spooner, or Holtby. He had no problem with Lou's cap circumvention contract putting actual payroll above the cap limit. Nor has he taken issue with burying NHL contracts in the AHL. He spent money upgrading their dressing room and workout room. Spent on that chamber that supposedly sped up injury recovery time, a sleep doctor, a sports psycologist, and a nutritionist. He's never shown anything at all to indicate he's cheap. It seems to me the guy happily pays for anything that even offers even a remote chance to improve the team.

[King Heffy]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

He had no problem buying out Ballard, Booth, Higgins, Virtanen, Spooner, or Holtby. He had no problem with Lou's cap circumvention contract putting actual payroll above the cap limit. Nor has he taken issue with burying NHL contracts in the AHL. He spent money upgrading their dressing room and workout room. Spent on that chamber that supposedly sped up injury recovery time, a sleep doctor, a sports psycologist, and a nutritionist. He's never shown anything at all to indicate he's cheap. It seems to me the guy happily pays for anything that even offers even a remote chance to improve the team.

Long-term dead call hurts the team though.  It's entirely possible he steps up and fires Rutherford and his incompetent baboons if he's stupid enough to suggest buyouts.

 

[Alflives]

1 hour ago, Baggins said:

He had no problem buying out Ballard, Booth, Higgins, Virtanen, Spooner, or Holtby. He had no problem with Lou's cap circumvention contract putting actual payroll above the cap limit. Nor has he taken issue with burying NHL contracts in the AHL. He spent money upgrading their dressing room and workout room. Spent on that chamber that supposedly sped up injury recovery time, a sleep doctor, a sports psycologist, and a nutritionist. He's never shown anything at all to indicate he's cheap. It seems to me the guy happily pays for anything that even offers even a remote chance to improve the team.

I hope you’re right and he buys out OEL this summer. Buy out Garland too if we can not trade the little feller. 

[Boudrias]

2 hours ago, Alflives said:

I hope you’re right and he buys out OEL this summer. Buy out Garland too if we can not trade the little feller. 

It isn’t about the cost of buying out these contracts it is about the Cap hit that goes for years afterwards. I wouldn’t buy out either one. Garland is serviceable and I b want to see OEL work with Gonchar and Foote. 

[Captain Canuck #12]

46 minutes ago, Boudrias said:

It isn’t about the cost of buying out these contracts it is about the Cap hit that goes for years afterwards. I wouldn’t buy out either one. Garland is serviceable and I b want to see OEL work with Gonchar and Foote. 

Do you think there's anything Gonchar and Foote can teach him that he doesn't already know?

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, jyu said:

If Hoglander has no real value and he is negative value as you claim then there's no way teams take him for Hoglander. So Myers + Hoglander for 7th is not even an option anyways. Why would a team take on two negative valued assets for a draft pick even if it's a 7th round pick? 

 

I agree Garland being a good NHL player. In a world where we are not cap crunched, he stays on the team 100%.

 

But we don't have other assets of positive value that can be traded to clear cap.

 

You have to understand that we are at a point where we may need to give away a good player like Garland cheaply -- put yourself as the GM of a cap crunched team and other teams are asking for major value for taking on your cap dumps.

You have surplus on wing and one player with the highest cap hit happens to be Garland.

 

Maybe my example of Garland for 2nd vs Myers + Hoglander for 7th is what you are unhappy about?

 

That comes from our differing views on Hoglander. I see 140 NHL games from Hoglander as a positive while you see it as being too slow to make it after being given all the chances in the world to make it.

 

Garland was playing about 130 AHL games before making it full time in his D+4 season. If we are in the same situation with Garland in Hoglander's position coming off his final AHL season, about 130 AHL games, you would have traded Garland? Or you wouldn't because spending 130 AHL games is OK for development and not "too long" because he wasn't given proper chances?

 

 

I never said Hogs is negative value or of no real value. Nor did I mention a 7th. I said he's currently not worth the 2nd we used to draft him if we moved him. The very reason I don't believe he'll clear waivers is because he is still young and has potential. Meaning he still has "some" value. My preference is moving negative value contracts. But moving negative value contracts require some positive incentive to go with them. 

 

This was the season Hoglander needed to secure a spot. Going into this season Hogs only had around 26 NHL games left before becoming waiver elligible. But next season he is waiver elligible regardless of games played. I have no problem with moving a waiver elligible player, that's likely to claimed off waivers, regardless of his name. If he hasn't earned his roster spot, or is unlikely to because of depth in front of him, moving him is better than losing him for nothing. I had no problem with moving Grabner and I have no problem with moving any other waiver elligible player in that position.

 

I have no problem playing wait and see with Hogs for next preseason. But I also have no problem moving him if it unloads Myers contract or improves the team in some other trade. When prospects hit that point of gift a roster spot when not the best option, lose him to waivers, or move him for something else - my choice will always be move him. And I'd do it without any regrets.

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

I never said Hogs is negative value or of no real value. Nor did I mention a 7th. I said he's currently not worth the 2nd we used to draft him if we moved him. The very reason I don't believe he'll clear waivers is because he is still young and has potential. Meaning he still has "some" value. My preference is moving negative value contracts. But moving negative value contracts require some positive incentive to go with them. 

 

This was the season Hoglander needed to secure a spot. Going into this season Hogs only had around 26 NHL games left before becoming waiver elligible. But next season he is waiver elligible regardless of games played. I have no problem with moving a waiver elligible player, that's likely to claimed off waivers, regardless of his name. If he hasn't earned his roster spot, or is unlikely to because of depth in front of him, moving him is better than losing him for nothing. I had no problem with moving Grabner and I have no problem with moving any other waiver elligible player in that position.

 

I have no problem playing wait and see with Hogs for next preseason. But I also have no problem moving him if it unloads Myers contract or improves the team in some other trade. When prospects hit that point of gift a roster spot when not the best option, lose him to waivers, or move him for something else - my choice will always be move him. And I'd do it without any regrets.

Hogs played with skill and added being a rat back in Europe. He’s got his rat back in the A. Hoping to see him up with the big club soon, and he plays like a rat. We need a skilled rat. 

[jyu]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

I never said Hogs is negative value or of no real value. Nor did I mention a 7th. I said he's currently not worth the 2nd we used to draft him if we moved him. The very reason I don't believe he'll clear waivers is because he is still young and has potential. Meaning he still has "some" value. My preference is moving negative value contracts. But moving negative value contracts require some positive incentive to go with them. 

 

This was the season Hoglander needed to secure a spot. Going into this season Hogs only had around 26 NHL games left before becoming waiver elligible. But next season he is waiver elligible regardless of games played. I have no problem with moving a waiver elligible player, that's likely to claimed off waivers, regardless of his name. If he hasn't earned his roster spot, or is unlikely to because of depth in front of him, moving him is better than losing him for nothing. I had no problem with moving Grabner and I have no problem with moving any other waiver elligible player in that position.

 

I have no problem playing wait and see with Hogs for next preseason. But I also have no problem moving him if it unloads Myers contract or improves the team in some other trade. When prospects hit that point of gift a roster spot when not the best option, lose him to waivers, or move him for something else - my choice will always be move him. And I'd do it without any regrets.

Good post! I like posters like you who back up opinions with sound reasoning. Cheers. 

[Baggins]

4 hours ago, Alflives said:

Hogs played with skill and added being a rat back in Europe. He’s got his rat back in the A. Hoping to see him up with the big club soon, and he plays like a rat. We need a skilled rat. 

I agree. He was a pleasant surprise his rookie season. But even then I said he's really going to need to improve the defensive side of his game. Miidling players need to provide more than just middling production. But the fact is he's at that make it or face waivers this year. The truth is I hoped the Boeser situation would be sorted by the deadline to bring Hogs up for the rest of the season. I honestly don't think he'd clear waivers. So he's at the make it or move him point this year.

[hammertime]

When I think about this trade I also remind myself who are the best RHD to ever play for the canucks????? And I think to myself hmmm Doug Lidster and Kevin Bieksa and.......And then I think to myself those are probably achievable targets for Hronek.  And I get sad. 

[-AJ-]

3 minutes ago, hammertime said:

When I think about this trade I also remind myself who are the best RHD to ever play for the canucks????? And I think to myself hmmm Doug Lidster and Kevin Bieksa and.......And then I think to myself those are probably achievable targets for Hronek.  And I get sad. 

Yeah, Lidster, Bieksa, and Salo are probably the best. Maybe you could throw Lanz into the conversation. If Hronek lasts a long time here, he could reach those levels.

[hammertime]

8 minutes ago, -AJ- said:

Yeah, Lidster, Bieksa, and Salo are probably the best. Maybe you could throw Lanz into the conversation. If Hronek lasts a long time here, he could reach those levels.

I wish Salo could have stayed healthy. But I guess that also goes to my point. It's not unthinkable that Hronek could be in that conversation. 

[Kootenay Gold]

3 hours ago, hammertime said:

I wish Salo could have stayed healthy. But I guess that also goes to my point. It's not unthinkable that Hronek could be in that conversation. 

I feel that way about Tanev; if he could have stayed healthy he might still be with the team

[Sell.the.team]

are there any articles or youtube videos that have done an actual deep dive into Hronek as a player?  Been looking around and haven't really found anything.