Yeah his play making or play driving isn’t his strong suit, otherwise he would play on the top line. He’s solid everywhere though but that’s not worth the 7 million he can get though.
Proposal: Are you in favor of trading Bo Horvat?
- Thread starter RussianRacket
- Start date
Yeah his play making or play driving isn’t his strong suit, otherwise he would play on the top line. He’s solid everywhere though but that’s not worth the 7 million he can get though.
If Wayne Gretzky can be traded, anyone can. But unless the Canucks had an 'impact center' coming back in any deal for Horvat it would make little sense to trade him. Canucks might have the worst center depth in the league, so Horvat is almost an 'automatic' to keep in the lineup.
I voted "yes" mainly because I agree with others that, in theory, no player should be considered untradeable. Hell, the Oilers even won a Cup after trading Gretzky.
However, JR/PA should only trade Horvat if it's a necessary step to making the Canucks a legit contender for the Cup. I figure it's going to take at least 2 more seasons after this one to dig the Canucks out of the deep hole Benning dug. By that time, Horvat will be 29 and Miller will be 31. I like both players, but age related decline is a real thing and there's no reason to believe they'd be exceptions to that curve.
In other words, by the time the Canucks are good enough to have Cup aspirations, Bo and JT are likely too old to be indispensable to those aspirations. What the Canucks will need to compete for a decent number of seasons are quality, young players on ELC/RFA contracts to complement the more expensive core players. Trading players like Horvat and Miller are probably the best way at this point to getting that cheap, young talent, given the barren wasteland left behind by Benning.
The only players I would not want to see traded are Hughes, Demko, and Pettersson (in order of priority). In the case of Hughes and Demko, I think it would be next to impossible to get better value given their age and what they've shown themselves to be capable of. For Pettersson, as disappointing as this season has been, it's too soon to give up on him.
I'd say it's important to determine what BH is looking for in his next contract, since there's a good chance it will be his last big contract. I have a hard time seeing the Canucks competing for a Cup if BH and BB are the two most expensive forwards on the team.
However, JR/PA should only trade Horvat if it's a necessary step to making the Canucks a legit contender for the Cup. I figure it's going to take at least 2 more seasons after this one to dig the Canucks out of the deep hole Benning dug. By that time, Horvat will be 29 and Miller will be 31. I like both players, but age related decline is a real thing and there's no reason to believe they'd be exceptions to that curve.
In other words, by the time the Canucks are good enough to have Cup aspirations, Bo and JT are likely too old to be indispensable to those aspirations. What the Canucks will need to compete for a decent number of seasons are quality, young players on ELC/RFA contracts to complement the more expensive core players. Trading players like Horvat and Miller are probably the best way at this point to getting that cheap, young talent, given the barren wasteland left behind by Benning.
The only players I would not want to see traded are Hughes, Demko, and Pettersson (in order of priority). In the case of Hughes and Demko, I think it would be next to impossible to get better value given their age and what they've shown themselves to be capable of. For Pettersson, as disappointing as this season has been, it's too soon to give up on him.
I'd say it's important to determine what BH is looking for in his next contract, since there's a good chance it will be his last big contract. I have a hard time seeing the Canucks competing for a Cup if BH and BB are the two most expensive forwards on the team.
Good post. I just wanted to comment on this part. JR has essentially said that he foresees a 2 year retool before the Canucks are contenders. If that is the plan does that change your opinion? In two years time, neither Bo nor Miller are "too old."
To be blunt, I'm wary of a GM declaring a 2 year time-line to retool a non-playoff team into contender status. Blame Benning for that. If Rutherford can do that he'll get my full applause. But just because he's declared this will be the case doesn't mean I'm going to accept it as something that is a sure thing to happen.
And I wanted to clarify the bolded part. I don't think JT and BH will be too old to be valuable contributors to the Canucks' success at 29 and 31. I just think they will be too old to be considered indispensable to the Canucks' Cup hopes. I even said that JR/PA should only trade Horvat if it's necessary for the Canucks to be a legit contender at the end of the 2 year retool.
Even Rutherford has said that the Canucks need to replenish the system. Trading JT and/or BH seem to be the best way to accomplish that in just 2 years.
I agree. And I do find it funny that people are impressed with communicated plans. In reality it means nothing except it offers a glimpse of what management is thinking or planning.
That's the decision though. In terms of long term "Cup Hopes" replenishing the system appears to be the best way. But if 29 and 31 year old players are valuable players to the team's success, are they not indispensable to the team's Cup hopes? Both Yzerman and Ovechkin won their first Cup at age 32. Hossa at age 31.
Certainly, a 31 year old player is more than capable of being indispensable to a team's Cup hopes. Because if you replace that 29 and 31 year old with a younger player not in his prime you might not win the Cup.
You have to factor in cap hits though. There's a practical limit to how many players you can pay $7M+ to and still have enough quality depth to win 4 playoff rounds. If the Canucks could resign Miller for 5 years at his current cap hit, I'd give that contract two thumbs up. But that ain't going to happen.
Plus, 29 and 31 years olds are no longer in their prime either.
You seem to be trying to play semantic games with the word "indispensable." Indispensable it not a synonym for good or excellent or valuable.
Like, the Canucks' chances of a Cup in 2024 shouldn't hinge upon the performance of a 31 year old JT Miller. No one is arguing that Ovechkin, Yzerman, and Hossa didn't contribute to their team's success. Are you arguing that Horvat and Miller are at the same level as those three?
Otherwise, my sense is you are angling for some sort of "gotcha" moment. I'm not interested.
i'm thinking it's probably better for the team to trade bo, but I recall this guy saying on TV (when he was a rookie) that he wants to win the cup in Vancouver.
i don't know man, what can we do to help this guy accomplish that goal?
i don't know man, what can we do to help this guy accomplish that goal?
If the team can’t be competitive in the final year of his contract then he absolutely should be considered a trade chip.
Don’t get me wrong Bo is my fav player but if that Gretzky guy can be traded then anyone can.
Still hope we keep him around though.
Don’t get me wrong Bo is my fav player but if that Gretzky guy can be traded then anyone can.
Still hope we keep him around though.
Relax man. I'm not angling for anything. I thought we were actually having a good discussion. I simply asked, "But if 29 and 31 year old players are valuable players to the team's success, are they not indispensable to the team's Cup hopes?" To me, hockey is a team game and you need good core players and good supporting players.
It's not about whether the players we have is comparable to the guys who are in or going to be in the HOF. You don't need a generational player to win a Cup. The point is that most Cup winners do have players between the age of 29-31 who are valuable players to the team's success. And if they are valuable players to the team's success are they not indispensable? Of course if you go by the strictest definition of indispensable then probably not. Could the Penguins have won their latest Cups without Bonino and Kessel? If you replace them with comparable players then ya. If not then no.
Miller and or Horvat doesn't have to be Ovechkin, Yzerman, or even Hossa, but could they be Gourde and Killorn type players? Or a TJ Oshie type player during Capitals Cup run?
I get your cap room argument. No one is arguing that and important decisions need to be made. But if JR is thinking that the team will contend in 2 years and plan around this plan then you need players to replace what a 29 year old Horvat or a 31 year old Miller can do if you trade them. That was my point. So if you're saying that a 29 year old Horvat and 31 year old Miller are not too old to be valuable contributors to the Canucks' success then are they not indispensable to the team's Cup hopes? Are you playing a semantics game here?
Alright, fair enough. I think I'm using "indispensable" in a more restrictive or literal sense than you -- i.e. "it would not be possible for the Canucks to win a Cup during the window that would open in 24/25 if they don't have Horvat."
In that sense, I don't think Horvat _specifically_ would be indispensable, even if he's capable of being a valuable player during the downside of his career. It's axiomatic than any Cup winner is going to have 30+ year old veterans who make valuable contributions to the victory run.
The reason I'm using a more literal sense of the word "indispensable" is because I think it gets watered down too much to be useful if you apply it to any player who makes a valuable contribution to a Cup run regardless of their age.
I do think you're using "indispensable" in a more restrictive or literal sense. To me, hockey is a team game and in the playoffs there are certain playoff performances that are hard to do away with. Take our 2011 Cup run. Is Burrows indispensable? In a literal sense yes. But he did "slay the dragon" and he played the 1st line winger role. What about Bieksa? He might have been traded if not for Salo's injury but he played a key role alongside Hamhuis. Lapierre stepped in and played very well. Without him and no Malhotra we would have been in trouble. But he's hardly a player one would consider "indispensable."
Point is that I think it's hard to say that the results would be the same with a different player. Bonino played a huge role in the Penguins last 2 Cups but he's hardly an "indispensable" player in the literal sense. I just think there are important roles that need to be filled and you need to get good performances out of those roles in order to have a chance at winning the Cup.
Re: the bolded.
I agree. I just don't agree that's a reason to avoid trading Horvat. There are competing priorities here -- the Canucks need to reduce cap hits and replenish the prospect pool to realistically have a chance of being a Cup contender. Ideally, JR would unload deadweight like OEL, Myers, Dickinson, Poolman, and Pearson to be able to afford vets like Horvat.... but alas, Benning has screwed this team over for far longer than his 7.5 year reign of error.
That goes back towards my original response to you. Replenishing the prospect pool gives the team a better chance of being a Cup contender in the long term, but not in the 2 years timeline in which JR believes the team can be a contender. So I don't think we can say that Horvat and Miller will be too old to help the Canucks contend for a Cup under the timeline that JR has given. If JR decides that you can't win with these guys that's another question. How to best allocate cap space is a separate question. But if JR thinks the Canucks are two years away from contending, I don't think you trade Horvat because he'll be 29. Certainly, if a legit contender can add a 29 year old Horvat you would think their odds of winning the Cup increased?
I feel like we're just spinning wheels here.
I don't think JR/PA should trade Horvat "just because" he's 29 when the Canucks cup window should be open, according to JR's plan. As I said initially, it's only necessary to trade Horvat if that's what it takes to turn the Canucks into a Cup contender, given that the window will coincide with Horvat's decline from his prime.
All other things considered, I'm perfectly fine to have a 30+ vet like Horvat on the team if that's compatible with all the other considerations, including cap structure and player roles. But it might not be compatible under JR's plan. If that's the case, then trading Horvat at his max value is probably the best option to see JR's plan through.
Breakers
Make Mirrored Visors Legal Again
I miss the old Horvat where he was a complete load off the rush and dropped his shoulder and just forced his way to hd scoring chances, and didn't do this toe-drag nonsense, and still produced with dogs}t line mates.
It never works now because he's a one trick pony. Extremely easy to read and defend once figured out.
Sure but what leadership exactly does Horvat bring? It’s all speculation but his play doesn’t speak well for it.
The culture needs a big reset.
hellstick
Registered User
Horvat was rumored to be on the short list for Team Canada candidates, probably based on the belief that he's this elite defensive centre. He's not that, but if the belief is out there that he is, you take as much value as you can get from him. Doesn't mean you need to deal him, but all it takes is one crazy offer.
What aspect of the team's culture do you feel needs resetting?
I am all for making significant trades because the team is not performing, but genuinely interested in why you think it is the dressing room culture that needs to change.
Horvat has to be playing with some sort of injury.....I don't think I ever remember a stretch of games where's been less of a factor out there.
And you'd have to say that based on his play this year he's gone from a guy who was an 'untouchable cornerstone player' to a player guy could deal if the price was right. But then he's not alone.....there's hardly a player on this roster they wouldn't trade if they could find a partner. So Horvat is now part of an ever-expanding group as the season winds down.
And you'd have to say that based on his play this year he's gone from a guy who was an 'untouchable cornerstone player' to a player guy could deal if the price was right. But then he's not alone.....there's hardly a player on this roster they wouldn't trade if they could find a partner. So Horvat is now part of an ever-expanding group as the season winds down.
We’ve gone through a GM and few coaches but consistently we see themes in how we play and at some point, some of it does have to come down to the players as well. I can’t speak to the locker room culture obviously but it’s clear this main group isn’t and hasn’t been working. Something feels off and I don’t want to blame it all on Horvat but the more I watch, the more I wonder what he actually brings and if we might win with him. His play is up and down but he doesn’t play with any emotion or (save for like one bubble series) elevate his game. How do we consistently shit the bed in new ways and have no accountability from the core group of players? Horvat has come out with the same robotic answers about being ready to play and “accountability” but will continue to put up poor stat lines and two games later we don’t come out ready to play. In an important game against the Ducks where we got physically dominated, Horvat lays an egg and doesn’t throw a single registered hit. Pull your damn team into the fight instead of whatever performance he gave us. I don’t know what it is, but we do need a bit of a cultural reset.
Last edited:
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
To Advance Marseille @ Atalanta - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: 1-1Wagers: 1Staked: $50.00Event closes- Updated:
-
To Advance Olympiakos vs Aston Villa - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Olympiakos 4-2Wagers: 1Staked: $50.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
GAME 1 - Drummondville Voltigeurs @ Baie Comeau DrakkarWagers: 2Staked: $190.00Event closes- Updated: