"Blow the Zone" Horvat Strikes Back

[racerjoe]

It is because they chose to slow play it, unless you have a report suggesting otherwise? Were there multiple early attempts?

They didn’t even meet with his agent on the occasions when they were in the same town (Dhaliwal). They also chose to sign Miller first and let Horvat hang.

They let him torch the league and completely squander their early negotiating position. Would you call that smart management?

You are mixing up a lot of things here, and making a ton of assumptions, just to blame management. Its a bad take.

Look at my posting history. I originally wanted to sign Horvat over Miller. I thought this because I thought Miller would want at least 8.5 mil x 8. I thought Horvat would come in around Schenn money of 6.5 mil.

Now with Hindsight (yes I can admit its hindsight) I can say it was so much better to sign JT and market value to slightly below market value, than Bo at way above market value. This is good management.

How do you know it was managements decision to slow play and not Horvat betting on himself? Do you think management maybe said we are not signing Horvat for above what we think is market value?

It takes two parties to come to the table... but lets just blame management.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Except he did the moment a new coach came in

I would not bet on his... what is it now 5th or 6th coach being the one who finally gets to him.

Now with Hindsight (yes I can admit its hindsight) I can say it was so much better to sign JT and market value to slightly below market value, than Bo at way above market value. This is good management.

This is only true if we compete for the cup these next 2-3 years before that contract gets really ugly.

 

[drax0s]

This is only true if we compete for the cup these next 2-3 years before that contract gets really ugly.

Horvat's is already ugly.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Horvat's is already ugly.

So is Millers.


edit. I think I've missed something here...

Team in our situation OBVIOUSLY should not be signing either of these contracts.



The way I see it is we won't compete for shit before JT Miller declines significantly and we might compete for shit while Horvat will still be a good player... I obviously rather take Horvat than Miller.

3% chance we compete while Miller is still a good hockey player.

Higher than 3% chance we compete while Horvat is still a good hockey player.

To me it OBVIOUSLY makes zero sense to create these kinds of time bomb contracts when you are a shit tier team like the Vancouver Canucks.

 

[MarkMM]

I’m saying this management team actually should have signed him to a much more manageable figure, earlier. They initially tried to with the RNH comparison. That wasn’t going to work, but a deal in the mid $6m range would have made sense for both sides.

It’s because this management team decided to low ball and slow play him, and risk his performance in season that his price became too rich. Had they not done so, he would still be a Canuck.

Miller/Horvat was not mutually exclusive either. Horvat’s money is just going to go to Hronek instead. Meaning, the budget to sign both was there. They just screwed it up and moved laterally as a consolation.

I agree that's how it played out, but I'm glad it played out that way. Even if we could have had Horvat at that price I think in the end it's better to spend that $$ on improving the defence, maybe Raty turns into something, and I do think it was time for a fresh voice of leadership.

 

[Bleach Clean]

I agree that's how it played out, but I'm glad it played out that way. Even if we could have had Horvat at that price I think in the end it's better to spend that $$ on improving the defence, maybe Raty turns into something, and I do think it was time for a fresh voice of leadership.

Horvat at $6.5m~ AAV is bad? Or are you referring to the $8m+ AAV?

If they had re-signed Horvat to a decent deal early, they could have used assets to jettison cap and then sign a RHD/take on the inflated salary of another RHD. This scenario gives them both Horvat + RHD, not one or the other.

They still expect to move cap from here on out. This needs to be kept in mind when discussing future cap allocation to positions of need.

The same heater that earned him a bigger payday also made him a more valuable trade piece.

Yes and?

This assumes a first hand knowledge of all the goings on. Do you have that? It's easy to say "this is what happened" based on a few media reports and then argue that it was good or bad. I know this is the internet but it's not the best argument.

It's all based off of legitimate third party reporting. I'm not assuming anything further, and that is the best way to make an argument anywhere, base it off of the evidence.

What people are doing here is looking at the end AAV (only part of the evidence) and saying management made the right call because of Horvat's struggles in NYI. That's actually ignoring the previous evidence and timeline to come to a conclusion. Do you see the logic there?

 

[Bleach Clean]

You are mixing up a lot of things here, and making a ton of assumptions, just to blame management. Its a bad take.

Look at my posting history. I originally wanted to sign Horvat over Miller. I thought this because I thought Miller would want at least 8.5 mil x 8. I thought Horvat would come in around Schenn money of 6.5 mil.

Now with Hindsight (yes I can admit its hindsight) I can say it was so much better to sign JT and market value to slightly below market value, than Bo at way above market value. This is good management.

How do you know it was managements decision to slow play and not Horvat betting on himself? Do you think management maybe said we are not signing Horvat for above what we think is market value?

It takes two parties to come to the table... but lets just blame management.

Please outline what is being mixed up here. Maybe I am? I'm open to new evidence being brought forth.

What you construe as good management action at the end decision point ignores nearly everything that comes before that decision point. Do you not see the massive error you're making when doing this?

 

[racerjoe]

Please outline what is being mixed up here. Maybe I am? I'm open to new evidence being brought forth.

What you construe as good management action at the end decision point ignores nearly everything that comes before that decision point. Do you not see the massive error you're making when doing this?

I am going to take a page out of your book.

Would it have been good to sign Bo Horvat? If so at what Cap hit?

 

[Bleach Clean]

I am going to take a page out of your book.

Would it have been good to sign Bo Horvat? If so at what Cap hit?

It's good to sign good players, yes. $6.5m AAV. Over to you.

Edit: Forgot to add the term: 8 years.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

It's good to sign good players, yes. $6.5m AAV. Over to you.

Even 7 would still be good. I think 7 gets it done last summer.

 

[racerjoe]

It's good to sign good players, yes. $6.5m AAV. Over to you.

Yes I would even agree, and did agree earlier.

We also agreed Horvat asked for 7.75.

We also agreed the Canucks offered similar to a deal at 5.25.

If we split that difference it is 6.5.

Yet somehow this is all on the Canucks for slow playing it? Seems to me both parties dug in.

Good for Horvat, he got his pay day.

Good for Canucks, they got a top 3 RHD, plus two assets.

Yet again somehow this is all on the Canucks.

 

[Bleach Clean]

Yes I would even agree, and did agree earlier.

We also agreed Horvat asked for 7.75.

We also agreed the Canucks offered similar to a deal at 5.25.

If we split that difference it is 6.5.

Yet somehow this is all on the Canucks for slow playing it? Seems to me both parties dug in.

Good for Horvat, he got his pay day.

Good for Canucks, they got a top 3 RHD, plus two assets.

Yet again somehow this is all on the Canucks.

Did the Canucks offer $6.5m AAV in the summer?

What is the advantage to management to dig in during a contract year?

 

[racerjoe]

Did the Canucks offer $6.5m AAV in the summer?

What is the advantage to management to dig in during a contract year?

Checks end result... a top3 RHD, a top prospect, and a player...

 

[Bleach Clean]

Checks end result... a top3 RHD, a top prospect, and a player...

If the advantage was trade value, why attempt to sign him at all? Why did they up their offer in January (per Dhaliwal)?

Also, please answer my question regarding management: Did they offer him $6.5m AAV in the summer?

 

[iceburg]

It's all based off of legitimate third party reporting. I'm not assuming anything further, and that is the best way to make an argument anywhere, base it off of the evidence.

What people are doing here is looking at the end AAV (only part of the evidence) and saying management made the right call because of Horvat's struggles in NYI. That's actually ignoring the previous evidence and timeline to come to a conclusion. Do you see the logic there?

First and again, your conclusions are essentially assumptions based on incomplete reporting from third parties. By definition these reports only have part of the story, if any at all. Even if the sources are reputable, they cannot have the complete picture. To take such a strong position based on these reports is a weak argument.

Second, you're make an assumption that management wanted to sign both Horvat and Miller. I think it's far more likely that they decided they would keep one and trade the other. Once the decision was made to sign Miller, the Horvat outcome was determined, unless of course they could sign him for a real bargain. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but the reporting that you are using to support your argument just as easily, perhaps even more, supports this keep one trade one strategy.

 

[rypper]

Even 7 would still be good. I think 7 gets it done last summer.

I've always contended (to some pushback here) that if they made Bo a priority in the summer and worked out a fair deal (ie not the RNH low ball) it could have been done and at 7 or below, high 6s.

They could have had 2 strong top lines or utilized the three as a strong back bone for the team. Make the defense better through other means.

I think if Horvat stayed on the canucks he would have continued to have a career year, and then some, and had a handful of equal years into his next deal. I don't think the Horvat were seeing to finish the year and in the playoffs for the island is indicative of who he would be here.

But it is what it is. The team needed change.

 

[racerjoe]

If the advantage was trade value, why attempt to sign him at all? Why did they up their offer in January (per Dhaliwal)?

Also, please answer my question regarding management: Did they offer him $6.5m AAV in the summer?

To answer your question, I don't know... neither do you.

Did Bo's camp come down from their offer? You don't know do you...

To the first part. I am sure they had a number they would be willing to go to, but again it takes two parties. You are making assumptions that it was the Canucks who would not negotiate, despite the fact it looks like they did in that report you just talked about. It looks like it was the Horvat camp who would not come down in price.

But again I don't know, and am not claiming to know. You are the one assuming everything.

 

[Canuckle1970]

A side benefit to me is that while I don't think he was a horriically bad captain he wasn't the captain we needed, but because he wasn't so obviously egregiously bad we were kind of stuck with him as our leader as there wasn't a justification to strip hin of the "C". Trading him off at the top of the market, dodging his cap hit and giving a fresh slate to re-set the leadership right when Tocchet is trying to establish a new way of doing things is a real benefit to me.

I have to agree with you. When he was made captain, I think the management at that time assessed (correctly) that he was a responsible, even keel kind of guy, not a boat rocker. Good for the community.

Not his fault, but I never felt any emotional attachment to him as a fan. Loved what he did in the bubble playoffs to help the team, and appreciated what he contributed as a player, but sad to say, from the moment he was traded away, I didn't miss him.

I look upon the trade as a win/win. Bo got a terrific contract and his family is taken care of. The Canucks win by dodging a financial bullet, and fostering new leadership going forward.

 

[Tables of Stats]

For those curious under Tocchet Miller ended up playing at a 32-goal 94-point pace over a span of 35 games. He scored 32 goals on the season anyway but was down a dozen assists from his later pace.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

For those curious under Tocchet Miller ended up playing at a 32-goal 94-point pace over a span of 35 games. He scored 32 goals on the season anyway but was down a dozen assists from his later pace.

30g+ 103p pace under Bruce, 90p in 86 games including playoffs his 1st season here under Green.

Dudes a stud regardless.

 

[DonnyNucker]

Except he did the moment a new coach came in

Puckmuncher has to be a troll. I hope so because he is great at it but his opinion of Bo can’t be real

 

[Bleach Clean]

First and again, your conclusions are essentially assumptions based on incomplete reporting from third parties. By definition these reports only have part of the story, if any at all. Even if the sources are reputable, they cannot have the complete picture. To take such a strong position based on these reports is a weak argument.

Second, you're make an assumption that management wanted to sign both Horvat and Miller. I think it's far more likely that they decided they would keep one and trade the other. Once the decision was made to sign Miller, the Horvat outcome was determined, unless of course they could sign him for a real bargain. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but the reporting that you are using to support your argument just as easily, perhaps even more, supports this keep one trade one strategy.

Legitimate third party sources are not required to know the entire picture. They report what they've learned, and we infer based upon that information. But in your estimation, even a reputable source cannot form the basis for inference. That's a very suspect (and difficult) position to maintain.

Worse yet, your second paragraph has you place your own supposition at the level of these third party sources. Sorry, no.

It's a simple matter to work forward from the information that we do have. If you take what has been publicly reported, this management team failed to sign Horvat twice, and then he priced himself out of the market with this play.

 

[racerjoe]

Legitimate third party sources are not required to know the entire picture. They report what they've learned, and we infer based upon that information. But in your estimation, even a reputable source cannot form the basis for inference. That's a very suspect position to maintain.

Worse yet, your second paragraph has you place your own supposition at the level of these third party sources. Sorry, no.

It's a simple matter to work forward from the information that we do have. If you take what has been publicly reported, this management team failed to sign Horvat twice, and then he priced himself out of the market with this play.

What you fail to acknowledge here though is where most of the information is coming from. Most of the info you hear has been coming from agents or other teams. So it will lean in the players side.

We know this by seeing how little actually leaks from the team. Like no one heard a thing about Hronek, or Bo to NYI. Moves where agents are not involved we hear nothing until it happens.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

To answer your question, I don't know... neither do you.

Did Bo's camp come down from their offer? You don't know do you...

To the first part. I am sure they had a number they would be willing to go to, but again it takes two parties. You are making assumptions that it was the Canucks who would not negotiate, despite the fact it looks like they did in that report you just talked about. It looks like it was the Horvat camp who would not come down in price.

But again I don't know, and am not claiming to know. You are the one assuming everything.

You dont know their ask.

I know it serves your argument to extrapolate from the Couturiere comparison Couturieres cap hit but thats not how it works.

Sean had a Selke in his cupboard.

 

[racerjoe]

You dont know their ask.

I know it serves your argument to extrapolate from the Couturiere comparison Couturieres cap hit but thats not how it works.

Sean had a Selke in his cupboard.

We know the comparable they were using... why do you think they were using that comparable...

And also you somehow think the team will pay Hronek 8+