Fantasy GM Thread | Two Minutes to Midnight for Horvat?

[Canucker]

So we start with a bad asset in OEL, trade him and Horvat for little, then use the cap space to gain assets by acquiring bad contracts. Isn't it easier to just keep OEL as the bad contract and trade Horvat for something good originally? What's the difference?

Don't get me wrong - I understand the concept. And sure, if you gain enough value along the way then it will make sense. I just think Horvat is a blue-chip asset here and this is a rare time to get a blue-chip asset/assets in return. I think I prefer that to de-valuing the asset by including OEL.

Now obviously if you get an insane offer from a complete idiot in charge of another team like what Arizona did to us, then you do it. But if we are talking a "fair" deal in terms of value.. not the way I would go.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was rooted in a discussion of adding OEL to Horvat...thats a more difficult discussion, at least for me...as much as I'd love to be able to dump OEL I'm not sure how well that works out...I'd have to see a hypothetical deal and think out how it would compare to a hypothetical deal trading Bo straight up for assets. Adding OEL to Horvat really could kickstart a real reboot, but does little to help our prospect pool necessary for a reboot...other moves would be required as well. Interesting thoughts but will likely never happen.

 

[jd22]

I was switching pages and must have been looking at the signing page.

True Garland has another 3 years after this starting when he turns 27 on March 11, 2023

It is irrelevant because he can be bought out and save money and I always felt it was a horrible contract for a part time NHL RFA making league minimum with no negotiating leverage.

You're not wrong about the part that he earned too high of a contract for his track record.

That said, he's not terrifically if at all overpaid - it would be a poor choice of buyouts when you also have the options of Pearson, OEL, Myers, Boeser etc. He (almost?) earns his keep. But probably would suit another team. Would not say he is a part timer. He's a good tweener.

 

[BrentSopelsHair]

This just seems odd.

I feel like this is a PR program run by the most naive goofs in the world.

"If I put out a blanket statement, it will answer all of the questions that reporters will want to ask for the rest of the season and they won't ask me about my future"

Such a weird move

 

[wonton15]

In b4 we sign Horvat to 8x$7.75m and commit further to the perpetual 20 year retool on the fly

 

[Bobby9]

If youre tearing it down then EP, QHughes and Demko have to go.

It will take 3-5 years to do it right and they will hate playing for the Canucks by the time we are done a rebuild.

 

[Ernie]

So, management considers the Boeser contract too unwieldy? Hate to be the people who gave him that contract.

It really wasn't a bad bet that a 25 year old who has averaged 30g / 35a per 82 games would bounce back.

The bet went the wrong way, clearly, and the whole strategy re-signing the top players on the team is coming into question given the team's results to date.

I still would rather have the Boeser at $6.6m x 3 than Miller at $8m x 7 or Horvat contract at $8m x 8.

But Boeser is the whipping boy because he hasn't lived up to he expectations that were set when he was runner up for the Calder trophy.

 

[VanillaCoke]

Clown show, still..

 

[mriswith]

It really wasn't a bad bet that a 25 year old who has averaged 30g / 35a per 82 games would bounce back.

The bet went the wrong way, clearly, and the whole strategy re-signing the top players on the team is coming into question given the team's results to date.

I still would rather have the Boeser at $6.6m x 3 than Miller at $8m x 7 or Horvat contract at $8m x 8.

But Boeser is the whipping boy because he hasn't lived up to he expectations that were set when he was runner up for the Calder trophy.

I think the weirdest part about the Boeser situation is giving term and then giving up on him this early. It's almost like they didn't watch him at all last year and just expected him to come out guns blazing right out of the gate, that's simply not how Boeser works. Even in his best seasons he starts slow and runs hot/cold the entire season, alternating stretches of weeks where he carries his line with weeks where he disappears.

Like I was an advocate of bringing Boeser back because I thought and still think he's a good bet to bounce back, but I thought worst case scenario was you give him his QO and then if he bounces back you have the option to either sell him retaining half at the deadline or make a better decision on a longer deal in summer.

Either have long term faith in him to bounce back, in which case it's premature to try and dump him, or have no faith in him and don't give him term. But giving him term and then immediately giving up is so bizarre.

 

[pitseleh]

It really wasn't a bad bet that a 25 year old who has averaged 30g / 35a per 82 games would bounce back.

The bet went the wrong way, clearly, and the whole strategy re-signing the top players on the team is coming into question given the team's results to date.

I still would rather have the Boeser at $6.6m x 3 than Miller at $8m x 7 or Horvat contract at $8m x 8.

But Boeser is the whipping boy because he hasn't lived up to he expectations that were set when he was runner up for the Calder trophy.

I agree that Boeser was a reasonable bet to make, but the team chose to take on the much riskier bet of a multi-year contract versus just extending the QO. It is hard to fault them for keeping him around, but not for the choice of contract.

I’m not sure I agree on the relative value of those three players, but more importantly the team doesn’t seem to either but can’t keep the ones they want because of their earlier decision on Boeser.

 

[andora]

I am interested to hear what everyone thinks bouncing back is for boeser.. his problems right now at his age arent exactly bounce back items.. skating, board play, puck retrieval, puck choices etc...

Shooting yeah.. i see that one but all the other problems are re work your game type things..

 

[mriswith]

I am interested to hear what everyone thinks bouncing back is for boeser.. his problems right now at his age arent exactly bounce back items.. skating, board play, puck retrieval, puck choices etc...

Shooting yeah.. i see that one but all the other problems are re work your game type things..

For me, I exclusively mean his even strength production which has been remarkably consistent his entire career outside of last season.

 

[Ernie]

I agree that Boeser was a reasonable bet to make, but the team chose to take on the much riskier bet of a multi-year contract versus just extending the QO. It is hard to fault them for keeping him around, but not for the choice of contract.

I’m not sure I agree on the relative value of those three players, but more importantly the team doesn’t seem to either but can’t keep the ones they want because of their earlier decision on Boeser.

Well the benefit of the Boeser contract is that it ends in 3 years, covers what should be his prime years, and he had a decent chance of living up to that salary. I still think there's a decent chance he bounces back and I don't think the Canucks should eat salary or take another bad contract back to move him.

At this point though he may need a change of scenery to regain his form.

There's a general rule that a player under 30 who is in a funk has a good chance of bouncing back to his previous form, but the opposite is true of a player over 30.

That's why I don't like the Miller contract and a potential Horvat contract. They may live up to that salary for a few years but you're pretty much guaranteed those contracts to be bad for a big chunk of them. Way more downside than upside over the long term.

 

[Ernie]

Sorry, I didn't realize this was rooted in a discussion of adding OEL to Horvat...thats a more difficult discussion, at least for me...as much as I'd love to be able to dump OEL I'm not sure how well that works out...I'd have to see a hypothetical deal and think out how it would compare to a hypothetical deal trading Bo straight up for assets. Adding OEL to Horvat really could kickstart a real reboot, but does little to help our prospect pool necessary for a reboot...other moves would be required as well. Interesting thoughts but will likely never happen.

The only team that OEL is traded to is one that is harvesting picks / prospects while they bottom out. It make zero sense that a contender who was renting Horvat would want them on their books.

 

[TruGr1t]

I agree that Boeser was a reasonable bet to make, but the team chose to take on the much riskier bet of a multi-year contract versus just extending the QO. It is hard to fault them for keeping him around, but not for the choice of contract.

I’m not sure I agree on the relative value of those three players, but more importantly the team doesn’t seem to either but can’t keep the ones they want because of their earlier decision on Boeser.

Maybe. Giving Boeser, Mikheyev and Miller the contracts they did was bloody stupid in totality though.

They are now going to lose Horvat down the middle and probably buyout Garland.

I’m not sure what they envisioned happening throwing all their money at the wings, but I’d argue the outcome was pretty obvious and it’s exactly what’s happening right now.

 

[theguardianII]

I think the weirdest part about the Boeser situation is giving term and then giving up on him this early. It's almost like they didn't watch him at all last year and just expected him to come out guns blazing right out of the gate, that's simply not how Boeser works. Even in his best seasons he starts slow and runs hot/cold the entire season, alternating stretches of weeks where he carries his line with weeks where he disappears.

Like I was an advocate of bringing Boeser back because I thought and still think he's a good bet to bounce back, but I thought worst case scenario was you give him his QO and then if he bounces back you have the option to either sell him retaining half at the deadline or make a better decision on a longer deal in summer.

Either have long term faith in him to bounce back, in which case it's premature to try and dump him, or have no faith in him and don't give him term. But giving him term and then immediately giving up is so bizarre.

I am interested to hear what everyone thinks bouncing back is for boeser.. his problems right now at his age arent exactly bounce back items.. skating, board play, puck retrieval, puck choices etc...

Shooting yeah.. i see that one but all the other problems are re work your game type things..

Boeser has always been more of a complimentary player, not really one to drive a line.
At a guess they might have looked at his numbers and thought he was also a playmaker.
He does hit more than Horvat or Miller though.

His shooting percentage has plummeted and shots on goal. I still think his wrist bothers him. But it could be an upper body injury too, not right in the head

Kidding there but it could be the culture has got a hold on him.

 

[TruGr1t]

Well, that's disappointing.

Oh look, another unrealistic assumption management made to accommodate their plan didn’t come to pass. Shocking.

Probably don’t assume a base case where everything has to go exactly perfect for you to have success.

 

[pitseleh]

Well the benefit of the Boeser contract is that it ends in 3 years, covers what should be his prime years, and he had a decent chance of living up to that salary. I still think there's a decent chance he bounces back and I don't think the Canucks should eat salary or take another bad contract back to move him. …

That's why I don't like the Miller contract and a potential Horvat contract. They may live up to that salary for a few years but you're pretty much guaranteed those contracts to be bad for a big chunk of them. Way more downside than upside over the long term.

For sure, but the counterfactual was having Boeser a bit more money but only one year of risk. Which was the better bet depends on how you projected Boeser at the time, and it’s clear management’s projection was way off given the choice they made.

The question of Boeser vs. Miller/Horvat is a fair one, and for a team in the Canucks’ circumstances I’d be inclined to agree. But for a team looking to compete over the next 3-4 years Miller and Horvat would clearly be better options than Boeser, even with the likely dead money at the end of their contracts.

Maybe. Giving Boeser, Mikheyev and Miller the contracts they did was bloody stupid in totality though.

They are now going to lose Horvat down the middle and probably buyout Garland.

I’m not sure what they envisioned happening throwing all their money at the wings, but I’d argue the outcome was pretty obvious and it’s exactly what’s happening right now.

Oh absolutely. The bet on Boeser makes little sense once you factor in targeting Mikheyev in UFA.

 

[Vector]

Oh look, another unrealistic assumption management made to accommodate their plan didn’t come to pass. Shocking.

Probably don’t assume a base case where everything has to go exactly perfect for you to have success.

Hmm? This doesn’t have anything to do with management. The projection going into the season was 1m. It wasn’t until about a month ago that Friedman reported there’s a possibility it could rise significantly higher a season earlier.

The issue with this is, league-wide, it could depress the trade market again. The counter to that many prominent teams have a lot of salary coming off the books. There has to be more movement this off-season just because of that.

 

[Gstank]

Very odd. Not sure if I've ever seen anything like this before.

Ill give you one guess who wanted this put out there and it rhymes with Francisco Aquilini

 

[racerjoe]

Boeser has always been more of a complimentary player, not really one to drive a line.
At a guess they might have looked at his numbers and thought he was also a playmaker.
He does hit more than Horvat or Miller though.

His shooting percentage has plummeted and shots on goal. I still think his wrist bothers him. But it could be an upper body injury too, not right in the head

Kidding there but it could be the culture has got a hold on him.

I would argue its his legs. He can't seem to get to pucks or create the separation needed to shoot.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

I wonder if Nashville will be interested in Horvat? They are currently outside of the wild card spot but has played less games than most teams in the conference. Granlund and Johansen aren't that great at C and both are pass-first players. A goal scoring C might be good for them, especially if it moves Granlund over to the wing.
A 1st round pick has to come back, but what else? Tomasino is a RH center, might be interesting as he is buried by the coach for some reason. That 1st might end up being a lotto pick which is nice, although I'm sure Nashville would put a condition on it (like top 10 protected). But that ain't bad as they don't look overly strong for next season either.

I hope the Nucks start selling before teams blow all their assets on Tarasenko/Kane/etc. Would put us in a horrible situation if we wait too long and the contenders spent all their cap space and assets already.

 

[TruGr1t]

Hmm? This doesn’t have anything to do with management. The projection going into the season was 1m. It wasn’t until about a month ago that Friedman reported there’s a possibility it could rise significantly higher a season earlier.

The issue with this is, league-wide, it could depress the trade market again. The counter to that many prominent teams have a lot of salary coming off the books. There has to be more movement this off-season just because of that.

If you don't think management's current plan, in at least some part, hinged on a near-term rise in the cap, I don't know what to tell you. They're probably already preparing the messaging on how Miller's contract "is actually a steal" under a rising cap environment.

It was likely also part of the equation in terms of the mobility of the last two years of the Boeser contract.

 

[Diamonddog01]

I wonder if Nashville will be interested in Horvat? They are currently outside of the wild card spot but has played less games than most teams in the conference. Granlund and Johansen aren't that great at C and both are pass-first players. A goal scoring C might be good for them, especially if it moves Granlund over to the wing.
A 1st round pick has to come back, but what else? Tomasino is a RH center, might be interesting as he is buried by the coach for some reason. That 1st might end up being a lotto pick which is nice, although I'm sure Nashville would put a condition on it (like top 10 protected). But that ain't bad as they don't look overly strong for next season either.

I hope the Nucks start selling before teams blow all their assets on Tarasenko/Kane/etc. Would put us in a horrible situation if we wait too long and the contenders spent all their cap space and assets already.

I’d suggest a first and Svechkov - not sure how long he is under contract for but would fill a huge need that has remained unaddressed for years now.

 

[Nucker101]

I wonder if Nashville will be interested in Horvat? They are currently outside of the wild card spot but has played less games than most teams in the conference. Granlund and Johansen aren't that great at C and both are pass-first players. A goal scoring C might be good for them, especially if it moves Granlund over to the wing.
A 1st round pick has to come back, but what else? Tomasino is a RH center, might be interesting as he is buried by the coach for some reason. That 1st might end up being a lotto pick which is nice, although I'm sure Nashville would put a condition on it (like top 10 protected). But that ain't bad as they don't look overly strong for next season either.

I hope the Nucks start selling before teams blow all their assets on Tarasenko/Kane/etc. Would put us in a horrible situation if we wait too long and the contenders spent all their cap space and assets already.

If the Blues decide to have a firesale that would really be annoying.

 

[Vector]

If you don't think management's current plan, in at least some part, hinged on a near-term rise in the cap, I don't know what to tell you. They're probably already preparing the messaging on how Miller's contract "is actually a steal" under a rising cap environment.

It was likely also part of the equation in terms of the mobility of the last two years of the Boeser contract.

Not for the upcoming season, no. They would have banked on the buyouts and Ferland expiring while also shedding other salary in order to absorb the raises they wanted to give. They were probably looking at the projected large cap increases in the following seasons as means to supplement the roster.

Basically, this doesn’t really change any team’s plans.

Edit: Just so we’re clear, these comments by Bettman just cast doubt on the recent report that the large cap increase will come a season earlier. The large increase is still expected the follow off-season and is tied into the players paying off their escrow.

It’s also still possible for it to happen but will depend on playoff revenues.