Roster and Fantasy GM Thread Pt. XVIII
- Thread starter Bleach Clean
- Start date
- Status
Black Noise
Flavourtown
TruGr1t
Proper Villain
- Jun 26, 2003
- 23,640
- 7,787
Yeah. Adding Pettersson AND a 1st to Bo is the sort of massive haul that teams would like to get but likely never will. Don't think I'd be very happy if Jimbo pulled that. Pastrnak also likely has his market value decrease further away from that McDavid/Eichel/Matthews/Laine tier because a) he didn't have a huge pedigree until this year, and we all know how important that is to NHL GM's, b) he's a winger.
Horvat + two blue chip assets should only be talked about for the above or possibly the next value tier, which IMO would be Barkov, Draisaitl, Scheifele, Werenski, etc. Think Pastrnak falls into the one after with guys like Nylander, Marner, Ehlers, Granlund.
Agreed. Sweeney doesn't strike me as particularly bright, and Horvat's reputation seems like something the Bruins would want to target.
Horvat is no doubt the most important player on the Canucks right now. But we'd be insane not to pull of a one for one on Pastrnak if that were available. It's a massive win.
If there's anyway possible for Vancouver to grab Pastranak without giving up Bo, we have to do it.
On a separate note, do you think there's anyway Van could pick up another top 6ish draft pick for 2018? I would love to see them pick up one of the good D available (obviously Dahlin being the big prize but there are several very interesting D prospects) as well as grabbing Brady Tkachuk. Watching Brady and Matt compete against each other multiple times a year would be amazing.
On a separate note, do you think there's anyway Van could pick up another top 6ish draft pick for 2018? I would love to see them pick up one of the good D available (obviously Dahlin being the big prize but there are several very interesting D prospects) as well as grabbing Brady Tkachuk. Watching Brady and Matt compete against each other multiple times a year would be amazing.
Really? You'd make Bo available in that trade?
I understand why Boston would demand that from a value perspective but I just don't see that being a positive trade for us.
pastrnak is a more valuable player than bo horvat right now and is younger. id make that trade instantly if thats all they wanted
I think in terms of value in a vacuum or to many other teams, absolutely. I think Bo is too valuable to Vancouver moving forward, I can't see myself trading him for a scoring winger, even an exceptional one.
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,229
I wouldn't trade Horvat for Pastrnak, though I do think the value is around the same. Much of the difference in points is because the Canucks haven't used Horvat on the PP1.
Factor in team needs, likely contracts, and Horvat's ties to the team and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Factor in team needs, likely contracts, and Horvat's ties to the team and it doesn't really make sense to me.
Hollywood Burrows
Registered User
Pretty sure Pastrnak is a better scorer and likely a better player than Horvat, but I would like to see how Bo does with a full season on PP1.
It seems like it, ya.
$2.5M is a lot to pay someone you view as a backup. Plus the Canucks have never given Markstrom a chance to prove he's a starter.
bo has a value that is equal to his value. hes not worth more or less to any specific team
Get where you're going with this, but nah, not to that extent.
A player inherently has more value to a team with a serious dearth of talent in a position. Without getting into "Sutter will be a beast when he isn't stuck behind Crosby/Malkin" logic, Bo is simply more valuable to the Canucks than the Penguins. This concept probably holds more true when taking into consideration cap hit.
At the same time, if Horvat has less value than Pastrnak in a vacuum, positional needs are never a reason to not make that trade. You acquire the most valuable pieces and deal with roster management to optimize value later.
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,300
- 10,319
a players value ultimately is the maximum of [utility to team, market value]. because of the point in your second paragraph, i dont really consider the first
thats maybe pedantic; practically speaking you are correct
edit: gave it more thought in the shower and there are two situations where it leads to weird conclusions
A: the canucks have a deal on the table where they're trading some collection of stuff for david pastrnak, say value v. this deal is almost dead even for both teams. suddenly a screaming deal happens where we move brock boeser for a non-winger return. if the team in the pastrnak deal decided ok nah you gotta give us 1.2v for pastrnak now, should we do it because we suddenly have a dearth of winger talent?
B: we're a decent team thats a virtual lock for the playoffs. the deadline passes and boston suddenly panics because pastrnak met a citizen of their filthy racist city and doesnt want to live there anymore. they offer pastrnak for gagner or some mediocre roster player and maybe a pick if you care about full realism. pastrnak at this time has zero value to us - he cant play in the playoffs and we're a lock to make it. if we care about or consider pastrnaks immediate value to us, we wouldn't make the trade - which would be an insane decision
so ultimately, if considering that value leads you to crazy decision making unless you make decisions off of my original point, why consider it in the first place?
Last edited:
A: It's not a hard no. Pastrnak would indeed have more value to the team suddenly if Boeser was to not be in the same position and an upgrade was made in a complementary position. Now instead of a player who has to share PP minutes on the RW, they can essentially play as many minutes as needed to maximize their production and also in theory have a non-brain dead defenseman running the PP instead of the one in that spot before Boeser was traded. The premise of being wrung for more value would be annoying in principle, but that utility to team factor has now undoubtedly increased so if that value still surpasses the market value then yes you make the trade.
B: Value as assessed by rational people is never just considering immediate value? To take that to the extreme, it's like suggesting a GM shouldn't trade Mackenze Stewart for a 2067 first round pick (and the NHL rights to you or me to even out the contracts) because Stewart has some immediate value as a warm body whereas that future pick might come at a time when the league/world doesn't even exist. Just caring about immediate value would indeed be insane, so assuming we're using rationality as a fixed premise not sure how that pertains to value=value regardless of the team.
The point moreso applies though if there are dumb character based external factors - like a PK Subban situation - where the value of the player is certainly not diminished in reality, but may be perceived to be, both on the ice and in the market. In that case, an 70 point defenseman is a 70 point defenseman, regardless of if they hot dog after goals or go to sleep at 9:30 on off days. So if your original point was that Bo shouldn't be paid more because of a supposed character premium on a team void of future leaders, I agree.
it wasnt. it was simply that i think pastrnak contributes more utility than horvat and i would make the trade even if my centre depth was literally horvat - stewart - me - a corpse - a hole in the ice
i would also basically always trade the worse player for the better player, independent of position, because hockey is a strong link game and having a bunch of 10s and a bunch of 2s is better than a team full of 6s. this point is, however, independent of the other discussion
Last edited:
Interesting. One premise for your position seems to be that we have a "bunch of 10's" to begin with? See, I believe that Horvat may become a 10 and Pasta might approach being a 10, but we do not have a bunch of 10's and a bunch of 2's.
I would rather have a team of 6's, lose a whack of the time and try to draft for a 10 or some 10's than have 1 10 and a team full of 2's.
Both the team full of 2's and the team full of 6's will be drafting top 5-10 anyways. I would rather have a group of players that could be considered NHL caliber while we lose than have that full of 2's team not be watchable.
To the players in the discussion, I would not trade Horvat for Pasta. Not sure where he ends up, but Horvat can be a valuable piece for us. Who the heck would Pasta play with here. If I was him, i would run from this environment the second I had the chance. Hopefully, Horvat won't be doing that to the team.
JuniorNelson
Registered User
Mr.Horvat is a power forward. A team of weaklings, like Vancouver certainly is and has been for years probably doesn't recognize his potentials or know what to do with him. Evidence? They embarrassed him last season by making him play on the fourth line and tried to force the system on him. This is dumb as ****! If you have a player like Horvat, you build a roster to compliment him, you do not prop up the elderly. Duh!
Vancouver's best D prospect left for Russia. Their best hope to make the playoffs signed elsewhere. They hired another non NHL coach. They will feature Sedins again. there is no indication of managerial change or growth. Why would Horvat sign here and doom his career?
If Vancouver ever makes a play for legitimacy they will need a complete makeover. So, the owner would have to abandon his hand picked band of lunatics and remover himself from the decision making process. Hahahaha! It will never happen and Canucks will always be a joke. Horvat holds zero value if you don't value him, which the Canucks have demonstrated adequately in the past three seasons.
mathonwy
Positively #toxic
- Jan 21, 2008
- 19,300
- 10,319
- Marchand steal
- Clear breakaway, empty net
- Marchand draws 3 and Liles to Pastrnak
- Off of Enstrom's skate
- Nice pass from Chara, nice drive to the net by Pasta
- Inadvertent deflection off of Pasta
- Amazing tip by Pasta
- Rebound and then garbage time
I only have the patience to watch his first 8 goals but based on those 8 goals, I can not see any way Pasta can replicate the success he's had so far if he's on this tire fire of a team.
Bo actually drives play. He pushes the play forward and he does it with equal parts speed and strength.
Marchand the rat is also a very strong play driver.
Pasta is talented but I don't see him anywhere close to driving play as effectively as Bo or Marchand.
If Pasta came to the Canucks, I could totally see him doing an Eriksson. Get paid 6M a season and being a complimentary winger.
You DO realize that Sutter can not realistically be considered as adding value to any deal that he's apart of right?
---
"Oh yah Jimbo? You wanna trade me a 3rd/4th line tweener and his 4.375M with NTC/modified NTC until 21-22 contract?"
<Click>
---
Not gonna happen.
Sutter will be a Canuck till the bitter bitter end.
Besides, we don't need wingers. We need centers!!!
I know it is in fashion to say Sutter and Granlund are terrible. There was an article that showed they were the best forwards on the pk and if both did not have wrist injuries they likely world have been the top two goal scorers. The problem is they are two of the best forwards on the team. Sutter can play the pk, chip in around 20 goals and not be terrible in matchups vs good players. He has value though he is fully paid and maybe then some for that value. Can you show some other 3rd and 4th line tweeners who produce like him? I would say he is a solid 3rd line player, who has some extra intangibles.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 3 WALTER CUP FINAL - Boston @ Minnesota - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 3Staked: $400.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 4 Milwaukee Admirals @ Grand Rapids Griffins - Milwaukee Admirals leads series 2-1Wagers: 4Staked: $300.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
Game 2 Florida Panthers @ New York Rangers - Florida leads series 1-0Wagers: 9Staked: $9,942.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Dallas Mavericks @ Minnesota Timberwolves - Dallas leads series 1-0Wagers: 6Staked: $2,400.00Event closes- Updated: