Value of: Bo Horvat

[elitepete]

triple post lmao

 

[elitepete]

Or something like OEL+Grabner for Horvat+Eriksson?

Canucks accept.

Horvat for #7 & Mittelstadt seems about right value-wise

Mittelstadt has little value

 

[Rowlet]

Horvat for #7 & Mittelstadt seems about right value-wise

Middlestadt is valueless and it makes no sense for the Canucks to trade their young top 6 C and captain for a pick only 2 spots above him after 5+ years of development.

 

[Neutrinos]

Middlestadt is valueless and it makes no sense for the Canucks to trade their young top 6 C and captain for a pick only 2 spots above him after 5+ years of development.

It may not be something you would do, but it makes sense when you take into account Horvat will be a UFA in 3 years, whereas the incoming prospect will be under team control for at least what, 7 seasons?

This is a strong draft, and it's probable that a better player than Horvat will be available at #7

So, again, it might not be a trade you would consider, but there's merit to it from Vancouver's perspective

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

It may not be something you would do, but it makes sense when you take into account Horvat will be a UFA in 3 years, whereas the incoming prospect will be under team control for at least what, 7 seasons?

This is a strong draft, and it's probable that a better player than Horvat will be available at #7

So, again, it might not be a trade you would consider, but there's merit to it from Vancouver's perspective

It is not probable, gimme a break, Horvat himself was drafted 9th overall in one of the deepest drafts in recent history. He is a 60+ point 2 way
centre, players like that don't grow on trees. Getting rid of Horvat for anything short of an overpayment makes zero sense. He means too much
to the team, the OP is about as clueless as it gets to this.

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

It may not be something you would do, but it makes sense when you take into account Horvat will be a UFA in 3 years, whereas the incoming prospect will be under team control for at least what, 7 seasons?

This is a strong draft, and it's probable that a better player than Horvat will be available at #7

So, again, it might not be a trade you would consider, but there's merit to it from Vancouver's perspective

It is not probable, gimme a break, Horvat himself was drafted 9th overall in one of the deepest drafts in recent history. He is a 60+ point 2 way
centre, players like that don't grow on trees. Getting rid of Horvat for anything short of an overpayment makes zero sense. He means too much
to the team, the OP is about as clueless as it gets to this.

 

[Neutrinos]

It is not probable, gimme a break, Horvat himself was drafted 9th overall in one of the deepest drafts in recent history. He is a 60+ point 2 way
centre, players like that don't grow on trees. Getting rid of Horvat for anything short of an overpayment makes zero sense. He means too much
to the team, the OP is about as clueless as it gets to this.

Considering the number of players that will be available at #7, it's very reasonable to assume that one of them becomes a better player than Horvat

 

[Nucklehead Supreme]

Considering the number of players that will be available at #7, it's very reasonable to assume that one of them becomes a better player than Horvat

Based off of what exactly?

I think your wildly undervaluing Horvat here, have you watched him play?

 

[Cogburn]

Don’t smoosh. Jumble.

Hvyrok?
Daotan?

I mean one sounds similar for sure that way.

 

[Neutrinos]

Based off of what exactly?

I think your wildly undervaluing Horvat here, have you watched him play?

Based on the fact that in most drafts there's a player available at #7 that is comparable or better than Horvat

 

[Eternalize]

What would be the asking price from the Wings for Horvat (career 50.65pt avg./82gp)? That's baseline 2C offensive production. I'm sure he has room to improve, how is he defensively? Speed?

2021 1st (top 3 protected)? +prospect(s)?
(50% retention on any roster players available)

Not available barring drastic overpayment: (Seider, Zadina, Veleno, Larkin/Mantha/Bertuzzi/Fabbri/Hronek) as we're so bereft of talent at all positions, we'd be creating 1 hole to fill another.

Some of our decent to good (but not top 3 prospects) are: J.McIsaac, J.Berggren, A.Tuomisto, A.Johansson, G.Lindstrom, M.Rasmussen, D.Cholowski needs more AHL time, E.Svechnikov when his knee fully heals, R.Mastrosimone.

All of them have/are: Top6 F/Top4 D potentials. Based on reports throughout this season, personally I'm really high on: J.McIsaac, J.Berggren, A.Tuomisto, A.Johansson, G.Lindstrom, M.Rasmussen.

Is this an actual serious post or am i missing something? So you're reluctant to part with players like Fabbri, who couldn't even crack the Blues this year, and Veleno, who wasn't even a 0.5 ppg this year in the AHL, for a TWENTYFOUR YEAR OLD center who has been on a 60 point pace both this year and last year, playing in a shutdown role with players like Loui Eriksson. Yeah, im sure it would create a huge hole for the Wings,losing players like those mentioned for an old man like Horvat, who's an entire whole year older than Fabbri. I believe i saw a picture of Horvat walking with a cane the other day. And no, it's not relevant at all how high Horvats career ppg is. You value a player on how good they are now, and how good they have been recent years.

But hey what do i know? Im sure the nucks would be all over trading Horvat for a bunch of scrap that your average hfboarder overrate in a regular fashion.

 

[Groo]

Timo Meier for Horvat

 

[Rowlet]

It may not be something you would do, but it makes sense when you take into account Horvat will be a UFA in 3 years, whereas the incoming prospect will be under team control for at least what, 7 seasons?

This is a strong draft, and it's probable that a better player than Horvat will be available at #7

So, again, it might not be a trade you would consider, but there's merit to it from Vancouver's perspective

The draft is a crapshoot. I wouldn't risk moving Horvat for a question mark and a prospect that I didn't even like in 2017. The goal is to win the cup, not to just stay complacent. Trading your 24 year old 1/2C captain for a pick when the rebuild is just finishing is the exact opposite of competing.

Sure, you could get a better player than Horvat, but if you go back to Horvat's draft year, there are few of those players available at 6-8.

2013: Sean Monahan, Darnell Nurse, Rasmus Ristolainen

2014: Jake Virtanen, Haydn Fleury, William Nylander

2015: Pavel Zacha, Ivan Provorov, Zach Werenski

2016: Matthew Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, Alex Nylander

2017: Cody Glass, Lias Andersson, Casey Middlestadt

2018: Filip Zadina, Quinn Hughes, Adam Boqvist

2019: Moritz Seider, Dylan Cozens, Philip Broberg

So we're looking at... maybe if you're generous, a 50% chance of a player with equal skill level but who would reset the rebuild another 5 years and 50% chance of busting and having two Casey Middlestadts. There are few players here that I'd consider to be better than Horvat and maybe 2 that I'd reset the rebuild for, but the Canucks already have Hughes and he should have realistically been picked closer to 3.

 

[Neutrinos]

The draft is a crapshoot. I wouldn't risk moving Horvat for a question mark and a prospect that I didn't even like in 2017. The goal is to win the cup, not to just stay complacent. Trading your 24 year old 1/2C captain for a pick when the rebuild is just finishing is the exact opposite of competing.

Sure, you could get a better player than Horvat, but if you go back to Horvat's draft year, there are few of those players available at 6-8.

2013: Sean Monahan, Darnell Nurse, Rasmus Ristolainen

2014: Jake Virtanen, Haydn Fleury, William Nylander

2015: Pavel Zacha, Ivan Provorov, Zach Werenski

2016: Matthew Tkachuk, Clayton Keller, Alex Nylander

2017: Cody Glass, Lias Andersson, Casey Middlestadt

2018: Filip Zadina, Quinn Hughes, Adam Boqvist

2019: Moritz Seider, Dylan Cozens, Philip Broberg

So we're looking at... maybe if you're generous, a 50% chance of a player with equal skill level but who would reset the rebuild another 5 years and 50% chance of busting and having two Casey Middlestadts. There are few players here that I'd consider to be better than Horvat and maybe 2 that I'd reset the rebuild for, but the Canucks already have Hughes and he should have realistically been picked closer to 3.

You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect

 

[57special]

Yeah, to me you'd have to add to a #7oa to get Horvat. Sadly(as a former Mittelstadt believer), CM isn't it. Why is Horvat being traded, again? Isn't he kind of a perfect 2c, especially as a compliment to Petersson?

OEL isn't enough?

 

[Cogburn]

It may not be something you would do, but it makes sense when you take into account Horvat will be a UFA in 3 years, whereas the incoming prospect will be under team control for at least what, 7 seasons?

This is a strong draft, and it's probable that a better player than Horvat will be available at #7

So, again, it might not be a trade you would consider, but there's merit to it from Vancouver's perspective

We don't have a problem paying/retaining players we want to keep. "UFA on three years" is a terrible reason to trade Horvat. Miller is UFA at the same time, better throw him in too. And Hughes is RFA so should he be traded for a pick that could net us another Hughes?

 

[Rowlet]

You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect

You are incorrect. Will there be players that are better than Horvat taken later in retrospect? Very likely, however nobody would have taken Barzal, Chabot or Larkin at 7 because that would have been insane so it doesn't matter anyways. Those would have been bad picks at the time because everyone thought Provorov, Strome, Meier and Zacha were all head and shoulders better than them. They most certainly aren't now, but it makes no sense to examine players taken at 15 and 20 to determine the quality of pick at 7 because those players were never even going to be considered for selections above 10 in the first place.

You're valuing picks incorrectly, the pick is based on expected value, not historical value. Do you think that in June of 2014 the Sabres should have taken David Pastrnak at 2nd instead of 25th? There would have been people rioting in the streets and the entire staff would have been let go because of the perceived value. I can understand Sabres fans saying they wished they had Draisaitl, but Pastrnak wouldn't have even been on their radar.

 

[Neutrinos]

You are incorrect. Will there be players that are better than Horvat taken later in retrospect? Very likely, however nobody would have taken Barzal, Chabot or Larkin at 7 because that would have been insane so it doesn't matter anyways. Those would have been bad picks at the time because everyone thought Provorov, Strome, Meier and Zacha were all head and shoulders better than them. They most certainly aren't now, but it makes no sense to examine players taken at 15 and 20 to determine the quality of pick at 7 because those players were never even going to be considered for selections above 10 in the first place.

You're valuing picks incorrectly, the pick is based on expected value, not historical value. Do you think that in June of 2014 the Sabres should have taken David Pastrnak at 2nd instead of 25th? There would have been people rioting in the streets and the entire staff would have been let go because of the perceived value. I can understand Sabres fans saying they wished they had Draisaitl, but Pastrnak wouldn't have even been on their radar.

The value of any given pick is based on the best player available at that draft slot

Whether or not teams scout accurately to maximize that value is irrelevant

Agree to disagree if you see things differently, but I'm going to leave it at that

 

[Mac Attack]

You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect

Your logic is absolutely absurd. The only way that it actually would work the way you describe is if a GM had a crystal ball to see the future and pick the best available player in that spot. Him giving the 6 to 8 range is a decent way to show how picks in that range have done.

 

[Neutrinos]

Your logic is absolutely absurd. The only way that it actually would work the way you describe is if a GM had a crystal ball to see the future and pick the best available player in that spot. Him giving the 6 to 8 range is a decent way to show how picks in that range have done.

You're basing your flawed argument on the opinions of 3 random GM's

You're saying the value of a given pick (X) can only equal A, B, or C

That simply isn't true from a mathematical perspective

In this case, the value of X is the greater of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc..

The fact that a random GM failed to maximize the value of a given pick is completely irrelevant to the actual value of said pick

 

[Mac Attack]

You're basing your flawed argument on the opinions of 3 random GM's

You're saying the value of a given pick (X) can only equal ABC

That simply isn't true from a mathematical perspective

In this case, the value of X is the greater of A, B, C, D, E, F, G, etc..

The fact that a random GM failed to maximize the value of a given pick is completely irrelevant to the actual value of said pick

Actually his sample size over those years included 14 different teams picking as well as a couple picks from the same team but under different gms. Doesn't tell you everything but it certainly helps.
The value of X can only be the greater of A, B, C, D, E, F, G and so on if you know the value of those letters before the draft. No one knows for certain how those prospects will turn out. Like I said you would need to have a scouting team that can predict the future.
What you're saying is mathematically incorrect.
You get to open one mystery box out of 5. There $1, $10, $100, $1000, $10000 each in a different box. Your telling me your pick is worth the greater of the values which is $10000. If I tell you which box it's in sure it is worth it, but I won't.

 

[CanadienShark]

Based on the fact that in most drafts there's a player available at #7 that is comparable or better than Horvat

That's no fact. That's protection, and not even a solid projection at that.

 

[CanadienShark]

You can't just select players from 6 - 8 as an accurate measure of the 7th pick. The correct way to assess the value of the #7 pick is by showing every player that could've been drafted with that pick. For example, Dylan Larkin was available to be drafted at #7 in 2014. In 2015, Barzal and Chabot could've been drafted at #7

With that said, I'm not necessarily pushing a Horvat for #7 swap, but the Canucks wouldn't even have Horvat had they not made a similar trade when they moved Schneider

That trade was not well received at the time, and yet, in hindsight, Vancouver fans are thrilled with how it turned out

So, I'm fairly confident there will be a player available at #7 in this year's draft that Vancouver should've given up 3 years of Horvat for when it's looked back on in retrospect

Yeah, all those teams that passed on Kucherov, Datsyuk, etc. are so silly. Of course someone might bloom late. If you want to be even remotely correct, suggest that players ranked in that area are to be considered. So the 6-8 idea is much, much closer to reality than your assertion.

 

[Neutrinos]

Actually his sample size over those years included 14 different teams picking as well as a couple picks from the same team but under different gms. Doesn't tell you everything but it certainly helps.
The value of X can only be the greater of A, B, C, D, E, F, G and so on if you know the value of those letters before the draft. No one knows for certain how those prospects will turn out. Like I said you would need to have a scouting team that can predict the future.
What you're saying is mathematically incorrect.
You get to open one mystery box out of 5. There $1, $10, $100, $1000, $10000 each in a different box. Your telling me your pick is worth the greater of the values which is $10000. If I tell you which box it's in sure it is worth it, but I won't.

But as I said, the value of a pick in any given year is equal to the best player available

A player drafted in 2014 has no bearing on the value of a pick in 2015

 

[Mac Attack]

But as I said, the value of a pick in any given year is equal to the best player available

A player drafted in 2014 has no bearing on the value of a pick in 2015

Did you not even read the section I wrote on your flawed math?