Roster & Fantasy GM Thread | 14

[Bleach Clean]

Continue.

Click to read more...

 

[Bleach Clean]

I dont think you could fit horvat as a 3c in a cap world. hes making 5 million minimum. 6 or 7 for the 2c. 7 + for the 1c

It is feasible if:

1. The team cannot find an equivalent or better winger instead. If they cannot, then it would be wise to sink the money into the known asset in Horvat.

2. If Horvat is consistently given top PP time, then it can work. All three centres would need to supplement their point totals in this way. Otherwise, the 3C would be seen as a lowly producer by comparison. The SJ model applies here.

3. They get RNH cheap. Without a top6 centre coming in cheap, now (or soon), it makes the whole plan very costly overall.

Why Juulsen?

Steady game, big shot, good reach. I think he projects well into the NHL. His shot can also keep him on the PP for some teams. Sergachev obviously has the higher ceiling, but can range in what he puts forth game to game. Especially away from the puck.

The fact that he's from here is an added bonus.

Horvat as longterm 3C is unrealistic and insulting to his abilities.

Not at all. Has Horvat shown you to be a top PP option? Remember, he is doing most of his damage at ES. This is a good sign, but in order to truly buoy his numbers he needs to become a Wennberg-like Power Play option.

There's also the question about his defensive ability. So far, he has not translated that part of his game from junior. He's 'looking for offense' in the NHL where I felt he was more controlled when playing under Hunter. He needs a taskmaster to whip his defensive game into shape. Willie is not that guy.

All told, the team would count itself lucky if it ever accrued the C depth to relegate Horvat to 3C. But even if that happens, if they feed Horvat 1st unit PP time, his overall numbers should be good -- even with about 15-16 min of ice at ES. It all... depends.

 

[m9]

Not at all. Has Horvat shown you to be a top PP option? Remember, he is doing most of his damage at ES. This is a good sign, but in order to truly buoy his numbers he needs to become a Wennberg-like Power Play option.

There's also the question about his defensive ability. So far, he has not translated that part of his game from junior. He's 'looking for offense' in the NHL where I felt he was more controlled when playing under Hunter. He needs a taskmaster to whip his defensive game into shape. Willie is not that guy.

All told, the team would count itself lucky if it ever accrued the C depth to relegate Horvat to 3C. But even if that happens, if they feed Horvat 1st unit PP time, his overall numbers should be good -- even with about 15-16 min of ice at ES. It all... depends.

Sounds like a coaching issue more than a player issue.

Even if he ends up a 50-55pt center that is average defensively.. that's one of the top 60 centers in the league. That is looking more like his floor than his ceiling as of now.

 

[BROCK HUGHES]

Sounds like a coaching issue more than a player issue.

Even if he ends up a 50-55pt center that is average defensively.. that's one of the top 60 centers in the league. That is looking more like his floor than his ceiling as of now.

it is all coaching.This team is tied to playing more defensive with a bad defense and bad goal tending.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sounds like a coaching issue more than a player issue.

Even if he ends up a 50-55pt center that is average defensively.. that's one of the top 60 centers in the league. That is looking more like his floor than his ceiling as of now.

I think if that were his "floor", he would be defending and creating shot differentials at a top6 level. He is not doing that... yet. In other words, scoring + possession + defense would all be at a top6 level. Do you disagree with that assertion?

Horvat is averaging 1:49 PPTOI... and he has 2 PPPs... That's simply not good enough. Not unless he wants to consistently hit 50 points per year. If his stats ratios held year to year, he would need about 40 ES points in order to keep hitting the 50 point marker. That number would have placed him in the top50 producers last year. As well as the top22 centres last year.

Bottom line: Until I see Horvat succeed on the PP on a more regular basis, or he progresses significantly in defense and possession, I would have no issue insulating him with 2 'better' centres... If he's good enough, he'll take over their position anyways. So there is little harm done here.

 

[Mr Plow]

I think if that were his "floor", he would be defending and creating shot differentials at a top6 level. He is not doing that... yet. In other words, scoring + possession + defense would all be at a top6 level. Do you disagree with that assertion?

Horvat is averaging 1:49 PPTOI... and he has 2 PPPs... That's simply not good enough. Not unless he wants to consistently hit 50 points per year. If his stats ratios held year to year, he would need about 40 ES points in order to keep hitting the 50 point marker. That number would have placed him in the top50 producers last year. As well as the top22 centres last year.

Bottom line: Until I see Horvat succeed on the PP on a more regular basis, or he progress significantly in defense and possession, I would have no issue insulating him with 2 'better' centres... If he's good enough, he'll take over their position anyways. So there is little harm done here.

I guess the harm done would be in opportunity cost that could be spend elsewhere. If Horvat produces like a top line center at even strength I see no reason to try to trade for a guy like RNH who can't be a #1 on a contender.

 

[Beansy*]

Ericksson looking better tonight..........more involved.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I guess the harm done would be in opportunity cost that could be spend elsewhere. If Horvat produces like a top line center at even strength I see no reason to try to trade for a guy like RNH who can't be a #1 on a contender.

There is an opportunity cost, yes. VAN has to weigh that against a winger they can realistically attain.

If Horvat produces like a top line centre at ES, and let's say on the PP as well, then RNH can drop down to the 2C position. The benefit in having a player like RNH here is that he is PP capable. As a result, he can buoy lower ES totals with his work on the PP.

To me, the only impediment to trading for RNH is cost. If that cost is manageable, like for Sutter as a base, then it's an automatic for me.

 

[turkulad]

There is an opportunity cost, yes. VAN has to weigh that against a winger they can realistically attain.

If Horvat produces like a top line centre at ES, and let's say on the PP as well, then RNH can drop down to the 2C position. The benefit in having a player like RNH here is that he is PP capable. As a result, he can buoy lower ES totals with his work on the PP.

To me, the only impediment to trading for RNH is cost. If that cost is manageable, like for Sutter as a base, then it's an automatic for me.

Sutter's long contract may in a strong likelihood kill that idea for Edmonton fans. They already have so many $ obligations at FWD Sutter would be a cog in their system. They're obviously salivating over Tanev, and Tanev/RNH just doesn't work in my mind (where as Tanev/Pulju might)... now if only Edler would waive...

 

[Bleach Clean]

Sutter's long contract may in a strong likelihood kill that idea for Edmonton fans. They already have so many $ obligations at FWD Sutter would be a cog in their system. They're obviously salivating over Tanev, and Tanev/RNH just doesn't work in my mind (where as Tanev/Pulju might)... now if only Edler would waive...

Sutter's contract and RNH's contract each end in 2021.

Right now, Sutter is set to outscore RNH by 6~ points. That should highlight what RNH is doing over there. I know EDM fans won't like it, but there's a time to cut bait with certain players -- I think their management has reached that point with RNH (they tried to trade him for Dumba and MIN balked AFAIK).

Sending Tanev there would be a very difficult deal to manage. He's more valuable to VAN than he is to them. So the payment is unlikely to match the asset for VAN.

 

[racerjoe]

There is an opportunity cost, yes. VAN has to weigh that against a winger they can realistically attain.

If Horvat produces like a top line centre at ES, and let's say on the PP as well, then RNH can drop down to the 2C position. The benefit in having a player like RNH here is that he is PP capable. As a result, he can buoy lower ES totals with his work on the PP.

To me, the only impediment to trading for RNH is cost. If that cost is manageable, like for Sutter as a base, then it's an automatic for me.

I would agree with this, and I am for the trade as long as the cost is down, and not future based. But I am against the trade the moment futures enter the conversation or the value slips to far. He can be a stop gap guy, he was in EDM, he just shouldn't be viewed as a futures guy.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Continue.

Bleach Clean,

I'm opening up to the idea of your RNH idea, although I'm still not really a fan of the Nuge, and believe that him being in Edmonton for far too long on all those bad teams has likely damaged him to a point of no return.....like Eberle.

But - having said all that - if a talented playmaker like RNH can form some chemistry with Eriksson, then the Canucks would have 3 decent scoring lines.

Sedin-Sedin-Hansen
Granlund-RNH-Eriksson
Baertschi-Horvat-Burrows
Megna-Chaput-Skille

The deal would likely involve 'Sutter+', but it all depends on what the plus is.

Again - I'm not entirely sold on the idea as I'm one of the few guys that actually *likes* Sutter on here, and don't like RNH all that much, but the idea of RNH igniting Eriksson is appealing to me.

 

[Horse McHindu]

If we're thinking Edmonton, I'd rather kick the tires on Draisaitl than RNH......even if it means that we'd have to pay a significantly higher price for Draisaitl.

Having Draisaitl and Horvat as a 1-2 punch combo at center for the next decade+ is extremely appealing.

With Draisaitl gone from Edmonton, it also gives Edmonton the opportunity to use RNH in the way that he's supposed to be used.

 

[vancityluongo]

Sutter + Gud for RNH + Fayne. Please new GM make it happen.

Edit: Draisaitl would/should cost Horvat + Tanev + a 1st + more. No **** we'd rather have him than RNH; he's on track to being a top-10 center in the league. They're not trading him.

 

[VanillaCoke]

RNH basically is Sutter.

Complain about sutters contract but errbody wants a 6m version of him instead? !?!

 

[y2kcanucks]

RNH basically is Sutter.

Complain about sutters contract but errbody wants a 6m version of him instead? !?!

Not true at all. RNH is a typical 2nd line center. Sutter is a 3rd line center who performs like a 4th line center.

 

[Beansy*]

Not true at all. RNH is a typical 2nd line center. Sutter is a 3rd line center who performs like a 4th line center.

Yeah, not in the least. RNH is a very good hockey player, very smart, very skilled - nothing like Sutter. I harped on you for your lambasting of Sutter, but I am seeing what it is you have been talking about. He's simply not an impressive player in many respects at all. RNH is sitting in behind players like McDavid and Draisaitl and has battled injuries in the past. He'd be a great addition to the Canucks.

 

[m9]

I think if that were his "floor", he would be defending and creating shot differentials at a top6 level. He is not doing that... yet. In other words, scoring + possession + defense would all be at a top6 level. Do you disagree with that assertion?

Horvat is averaging 1:49 PPTOI... and he has 2 PPPs... That's simply not good enough. Not unless he wants to consistently hit 50 points per year. If his stats ratios held year to year, he would need about 40 ES points in order to keep hitting the 50 point marker. That number would have placed him in the top50 producers last year. As well as the top22 centres last year.

Bottom line: Until I see Horvat succeed on the PP on a more regular basis, or he progress significantly in defense and possession, I would have no issue insulating him with 2 'better' centres... If he's good enough, he'll take over their position anyways. So there is little harm done here.

You really think shot differential is the essential thing to look at to determine if he will be a second line center?

He's made a progression in his ES points this year - from around 28 per 82 to over 40 this season. Trending well.

What do you expect from him on the PP? He's on the second unit with limited surrounding talent. Most people don't understand why he isn't on the 1st unit instead of Sutter. Again, a major coaching issue and nothing to do with the player. Based on his ES stats over the last season (last half of last year, first half of this year) this is a player that deserves more PP1 opportunities.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Extra 2m in cap for 20 ish points. Basically the exact same in every other aspect.
Id rather not.

 

[m9]

I guess the harm done would be in opportunity cost that could be spend elsewhere.

Exactly, especially when Horvat will be making 4-5 million per year. It's unrealistic, and one of things that is easy to say but not practical when building a team. It would be great to have 6 top-four d-men as well, but in a cap world it's not possible.

If you don't see Bo Horvat as a top six fixture on this team going forward, then any suggestion you make should involve trading Bo Horvat as your assessment of his talents is far lower than that of the vast majority and you can take advantage of that in a trade.

 

[Horse McHindu]

Not true at all. RNH is a typical 2nd line center. Sutter is a 3rd line center who performs like a 4th line center.

C'mon man.

If you hate Sutter because he's a "Benning guy," then that's fine, but at least try and be a bit more objective in your analysis'.

https://www.nhl.com/player/brandon-sutter-8474091

9 goals and 18 points in 33 games is not 4th line calibre.

 

[y2kcanucks]

Extra 2m in cap for 20 ish points. Basically the exact same in every other aspect.
Id rather not.

He's a much better puck possession player, and his production is comparable to a 2nd line forward.

Sutter, on the other hand, produces per 60 at a 4th line rate. He's also a 4th line calibre puck possession player.

They aren't the same at all.

 

[y2kcanucks]

C'mon man.

If you hate Sutter because he's a "Benning guy," then that's fine, but at least try and be a bit more objective in your analysis'.

https://www.nhl.com/player/brandon-sutter-8474091

9 goals and 18 points in 33 games is not 4th line calibre.

My dislike of Sutter has nothing to do with him being a "Benning guy." He's simply not a good hockey player.

And yes, those numbers are 4th line calibre when you consider his ice-time and opportunity he's been given.

His 3 year Points/60 average is on par with Nick Spaling, Eric Fehr, Kyle Brodziak, Ryan Garbutt, and Brian Boyle.


He's been slightly better this season, ranking 197th out of 349 forwards who have played 200 or more minutes. But when you factor in the quality of his teammates I think we can explain the slight uptick in his production. Still not very good.

 

[banme*]

P/60 isn't ****ing linear. Comparing a player who's playing significantly more minutes against tougher completion to a 4th liner playing 10 minutes a night against other 4th liners is so dumb.

 

[tyhee]

C'mon man.

If you hate Sutter because he's a "Benning guy," then that's fine, but at least try and be a bit more objective in your analysis'.

https://www.nhl.com/player/brandon-sutter-8474091

9 goals and 18 points in 33 games is not 4th line calibre.

You argue total points scored, he argues play driving and notes the opportunities given Sutter, weak possession stats (ie play driving) and the effect of Sutter on linemates' play. Just because Y2K's arguments lead to a conclusion you disagree with is no reason to get personal and accuse him of hating Sutter because he's a Benning guy nor of failing to be objective.

It isn't just Y2K coming to the conclusion Sutter isn't good. Canucks Army yesterday had a post entitled "Brandon Sutter is the Canucks' 4th Best Centre and Shouldn't be Protected in the Expansion Draft" It isn't just Y2K not being high on Sutter. See http://canucksarmy.com/2016/12/20/b...shouldn-t-be-protected-in-the-expansion-draft. http://canucksarmy.com/2016/12/20/b...shouldn-t-be-protected-in-the-expansion-draft