Toggle sidebar

Fantasy GM Thread | Two Minutes to Midnight for Horvat?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unfortunately we have not won with this core and the only way to fix that is to change the core. Outside of Pettersson and Hughes everyone should be moved and this was agreed by some of the same fans who are mad at JR/PA for not having the Cap to sign Horvat. Miller is the only move who made this confusing when in fact both players should have been moved including Demko and Boeser. Luckily, there is still time and I’m sure if management was in between before, they aren’t any longer.

It is time though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MarkMM, brock hughes007, 3rd Sedin and 1 other person
LeBrun doubles down and reports that the Canucks are looking to swap Horvat for a similarly aged center or RHD—and not for futures.

theathletic.com

LeBrun rumblings: The Canucks' price for Bo Horvat, Oilers' trade targets and more

Also: With Pyotr Kochetkov breaking out, what will the Hurricanes do when veteran goalie Frederik Andersen is ready to return?
theathletic.com theathletic.com

I assumed the Canucks would be asking for a futures-only package, as selling, retooling teams most often do when they’re dealing with an in-season trade for a pending unrestricted free agent. But so far, it seems that Vancouver is looking instead for more of a hockey deal — to upgrade at center ice and/or right-shot defense if possible and bring in a player in the twentysomething age range this Canucks management group has focused on since coming on board.
Click to expand...
 
StickShift said:
LeBrun doubles down and reports that the Canucks are looking to swap Horvat for a similarly aged center or RHD—and not for futures.

theathletic.com

LeBrun rumblings: The Canucks' price for Bo Horvat, Oilers' trade targets and more

Also: With Pyotr Kochetkov breaking out, what will the Hurricanes do when veteran goalie Frederik Andersen is ready to return?
theathletic.com theathletic.com
Click to expand...
Current Confidence level = 0

Betting we get something like Kotkaniemi, Morrow and a pick...and even that is likely being optimistic on my part, we'll probably have to throw in Hoglander as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mriswith and pitseleh
Canucker said:
Current Confidence level = 0

Betting we get something like Kotkaniemi, Morrow and a pick...and even that is likely being optimistic on my part, we'll probably have to throw in Hoglander as well.
Click to expand...
hmmmmmm interesting take on this
Kotkaniemi has upside still........although I bet he becomes another Galchenyuk in the end......good cap hit with term it would be a gamble there........solve our centre depth. Morrow is a good piece and the pick better be a first as it will be pretty high

Not totally against that return but NO HOGLANDER
 
This is completely consistent with everything that management has said publicly and what's been reported by every other rumour person. Why LeBrun would expect the Canucks to want anything else is the surprising part.
 
My gotta trade top 5 list by order of importance

1. Bo
2. Brock
3. Myers
4. Pearson
5. Kuzmenko
 
The most obvious would be Colorado and Newhook, but our pro scouting needs to nail that or else we’re pooched pretty immediately.

If they go this route though, would much rather they go after a 20ish year old dman that they project to play top 4 in the next 3-5 years but is not currently making an impact at the NHL level, much easier to justify from a team with playoff aspirations.
 
There is a difference between what a player should sign for and what they will sign for. Just because a player is going to get X, doesn't mean you should.
 
Vector said:
Mark Stone brought in Erik Bransstrom (near-NHL ready) as one example. Taylor hall twice brought in young NHL and near-NHL players. It's not some insane ask.
Click to expand...
Trading for AHL players is a futures trade, not a “hockey trade”. Trades like Hall for Larsson happen but only in the offseason. No contender is going to give up useful contributing young players for a rental.

There’s also zero reason to be myopic about the return. Take the best return you can get then reload in the offseason. Lots of good players in their desired age range become available then for various reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bojack Horvatman, Hodgy, mriswith and 2 others
credulous said:
what contender has an impact center or right side dman in their early/mid 20s they can afford to give up going into the playoffs? this is the miller situation all over again
Click to expand...
Yep. These fools are too narrow minded and too fixated on "gotta make the playoffs" to realize that they don't have to trade either Miller or Horvat directly for these coveted pieces, they just have to accumulate assets and capspace and then opportunities will open up in the off-season. Fully expecting them to trade Horvat and Schenn for Carlo and Debrusk and dump Boeser with a pick and act like it's a win.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mriswith, 4Twenty, credulous and 1 other person
pitseleh said:
Trading for AHL players is a futures trade, not a “hockey trade”. Trades like Hall for Larsson happen but only in the offseason. No contender is going to give up useful contributing young players for a rental.

There’s also zero reason to be myopic about the return. Take the best return you can get then reload in the offseason. Lots of good players in their desired age range become available then for various reasons.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the two Hall deadline deals where he returned Anders Bjork and Nick Merkely in both trades. If you are trading for a player that is currently in the AHL but is expected to step into the lineup right away, that's an NHL trade. If the Canucks got Marco Rossi from the Wild and he was immediately placed on the second line, is that a futures trade?

Who's being myopic? It's not even Christmas yet. The ask is set high and then comes down the closer to the trade deadline. As we've heard for years and years and years. They may end up taking a futures deal purely for this reason.
 
Vector said:
I'm talking about the two Hall deadline deals where he returned Anders Bjork and Nick Merkely in both trades. If you are trading for a player that is currently in the AHL but is expected to step into the lineup right away, that's an NHL trade. If the Canucks got Marco Rossi from the Wild and he was immediately placed on the second line, is that a futures trade?

Who's being myopic? It's not even Christmas yet. The ask is set high and then comes down the closer to the trade deadline. As we've heard for years and years and years. They may end up taking a futures deal purely for this reason.
Click to expand...

The quote itself is also not great saying we are looking for an upgrade at centre. The way it is written is inferring we are going to Col and asking for an upgrade from them on Bo... like hey give us Mac... or a player in Bo's age range. Judging from they way these trades always go it will be more like Newhook, first and the salary dump coming back will be a 20's something guy that can play... which is what we have all speculated so far anyway.
 
Canucks looking for good young roster players who play C or D


Rebuilding teams: “no we’re keeping them”

Contending teams: “no, we need good young cheap talent to stay under the damn cap and win”

Every team: “but here, you can have our version of Studnicka, Bear, Dermott, Vey, Granlund, Gudbranson, Baertschi, Sbisa or hey about this middle 6 skilled winger?"

Canucks: “(frank) it, we’ll take ‘em. Maybe we can turn that player around with our great development structure, right...right?????

Canucks at draft: "wow how is this skilled winger falling?"

Rinse and Repeat
 
Vector said:
I'm talking about the two Hall deadline deals where he returned Anders Bjork and Nick Merkely in both trades.
Click to expand...
Neither Merkeley nor Brannstrom were both futures trades seeing as neither could crack some of the worst lineups in the NHL right after being traded.

Bjork was a nothing 24 year old when he was traded.

Vector said:
If you are trading for a player that is currently in the AHL but is expected to step into the lineup right away, that's an NHL trade. If the Canucks got Marco Rossi from the Wild and he was immediately placed on the second line, is that a futures trade?
Click to expand...
If a player is only being held down because the team they are on has too much depth, sure. But trading for a player who is clearly not a contributing NHLer at this stage is a futures trade.
Vector said:
Who's being myopic? It's not even Christmas yet. The ask is set high and then comes down the closer to the trade deadline. As we've heard for years and years and years. They may end up taking a futures deal purely for this reason.
Click to expand...
Management. Having a high ask is not the same thing as asking for the wrong thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hodgy, sandwichbird2023 and 4Twenty
Peter Griffin said:
Yep. These fools are too narrow minded and too fixated on "gotta make the playoffs" to realize that they don't have to trade either Miller or Horvat directly for these coveted pieces, they just have to accumulate assets and capspace and then opportunities will open up in the off-season. Fully expecting them to trade Horvat and Schenn for Carlo and Debrusk and dump Boeser with a pick and act like it's a win.
Click to expand...

It's ownership imo. It's a completely different management group with the same fatally flawed plan (age gap players, not trading for futures, reluctance to use buyouts, reluctance to take on cap dumps for futures, etc). The execution and pro-scouting is perhaps a bit better than the former regime but their employer (ownership) is telling them what they want and it's their job to try to do it.

I'm starting to believe more and more that it won't matter who the GM is or even who the players are as long as Aquilini is setting the direction at the top. I mean we all know this is true but I guess it bears repeating here and there as many (including myself) start judging management as though they had some sort of independence or agency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drax0s and mriswith
Diamonddog01 said:
It's ownership imo. It's a completely different management group with the same fatally flawed plan (age gap players, not trading for futures, reluctance to use buyouts, reluctance to take on cap dumps for futures, etc). The execution and pro-scouting is perhaps a bit better than the former regime but their employer (ownership) is telling them what they want and it's their job to try to do it.

I'm starting to believe more and more that it won't matter who the GM is or even who the players are as long as Aquilini is setting the direction at the top. I mean we all know this is true but I guess it bears repeating here and there as many (including myself) start judging management as though they had some sort of independence or agency.
Click to expand...
They’re no better at “managing up” then the previous? That’s my interpretation of this.


——-

Weird that Bo is thriving with a better linemate eh? Your old knock was he wasn’t good enough to get a good linemate. He produced. Then got a good linemate. I couldn’t help but laugh when you held his late 20’s breakout (Same age as Miller when he broke out here) against him because his contract expires this season (completely disregarding his highly productive stretch to finish last season ).

I get not wanting to pay him but I never agreed with your stance and I find it funny how the stance got altered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom