Fantasy GM Thread | Two Minutes to Midnight for Horvat?

[TruGr1t]

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.

Well, I was talking about the plan in totality, especially the multi-year deals they signed this summer, especially Boeser (I think they assumed even if it went bad, they could probably move him, which they now clearly cannot). But I'd argue even near-term (as in next season) they were banking on a bigger cap increase than has been reported.

 

[Vector]

Well, I was talking about the plan in totality, especially the multi-year deals they signed this summer, especially Boeser (I think they assumed even if it went bad, they could probably move him, which they now clearly cannot). But I'd argue even near-term (as in next season) they were banking on a bigger cap increase than has been reported.

Fair enough. I don’t think they would have been since the report to all teams was to expect a minimal increase and it would be very unusual to go against that.

I do think that they expect to have more cap room to facilitate the extensions they want to make. Granted, they’ve almost completely failed on that from so far.

 

[Ernie]

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.

What would be the point in even qualifying him then? Seems like you're just overpaying a player that you should let walk in that situation. The 3 year deal was a bigger bet for sure, but at least the upside potential was there.

 

[Gstank]

Sadly Bo will probably never be position value on his contract after this season so its time to move on. Especially since this years draft is loaded with C's in the top 10

So my plan would be
Draft one of those C's in this years draft

Get a young top 4 RH Defense and a 1st round pick for Horvat
Use that first to draft one of the Dman in this years draft who are rated in the lower halfs of the first round

Sign a 3C or trade for a RFA/UFA (preferable someone in there mid 20's) to fill the 3rd C roll and then wait 2-4 years for our two drafted players to Develope into their roles while trying out younger players in their spots to see if we can find some positive value in a reclamation project like Bear.

Shred Salary but don't go out of our way to shed contracts like Boeser, Pearson, Myers as they would have value as a rental

 

[Ernie]

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.

Yeah, it will just result in an even bigger jump in 2024. On a deal with an 8 year term it doesn't make a huge difference.

 

[Vector]

I think this is interesting as a conversation starter about potential destinations and returns.

Johnston mentions the Avalanche, Flyers, and Panthers as teams he’s heard would be interested. Strangely, says the Panthers don’t love Ekblad. That is a massive stretch.

 

[mathonwy]

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.

That’s the cost of a decade of f*** ups.

Might be a good idea that we all accept that as our reality.

 

[Gstank]

I think this is interesting as a conversation starter about potential destinations and returns.

Johnston mentions the Avalanche, Flyers, and Panthers as teams he’s heard would be interested. Strangely, says the Panthers don’t love Ekblad. That is a massive stretch.

Ekbald is consistently injuried so I can see why.

Florida would have to give up Samoskevich + 2nd and other prospect or /Lundell for Horvat IMO. I could see them giving up Samoskevich + as he is a winger but I dont see them trading Lundell

Flyers have some interesting prospects in Attard, York, and Gauthier and maybe add Frost in as well. Maybe Frost, Attard and a 3rd is decent enough offer to get Horvat? or something like Attard and a 2nd as I doubt they give up their 2023 1st for Horvat

Avalanche I would think they would offer Girard and a mid round pick for Horvat. That clears up some cap space to potentially resign him or give them flexibility to resign Byram and Newhook. Or the obvious one would be Newhook + 2023 1st, and a cap dump for Horvat

 

[pitseleh]

What would be the point in even qualifying him then? Seems like you're just overpaying a player that you should let walk in that situation. The 3 year deal was a bigger bet for sure, but at least the upside potential was there.

They had two years of team control left, so you lose a bit of upside in exchange for much less risk. It only really made sense if they weighed the upside outcome as a quite likely outcome.

If Boeser is an $8 million player over his current contract, the team gets ~$5 million in surplus value. If they signed him to the QO, they would have gotten a minimum of $1 million in surplus value through two QOs, with the potential for more surplus value if they could extend him next offseason. Realistically I’m not sure there was much more upside than this.

If he’s a $7 million player, they get ~$1 million in surplus value under his current contract. If they signed him to the QO they would have some negative value this year but with the option to trade him at the deadline to a contender if out of it. This is probably a wash in terms of outcomes.

If he’s the $4-6 million/year player he was prior to this season, then the QO is obviously the better route, especially because you can likely find a taker at the deadline with some retention as a de facto rental.

There’s a question as to whether you should keep Boeser at all (whether through the contract they gave him or through a QO) but that question applies to both options.

 

[Ernie]

They had two years of team control left, so you lose a bit of upside in exchange for much less risk. It only really made sense if they weighed the upside outcome as a quite likely outcome.

If Boeser is an $8 million player over his current contract, the team gets ~$5 million in surplus value. If they signed him to the QO, they would have gotten a minimum of $1 million in surplus value through two QOs, with the potential for more surplus value if they could extend him next offseason. Realistically I’m not sure there was much more upside than this.

If he’s a $7 million player, they get ~$1 million in surplus value under his current contract. If they signed him to the QO they would have some negative value this year but with the option to trade him at the deadline to a contender if out of it. This is probably a wash in terms of outcomes.

If he’s the $4-6 million/year player he was prior to this season, then the QO is obviously the better route, especially because you can likely find a taker at the deadline with some retention as a de facto rental.

There’s a question as to whether you should keep Boeser at all (whether through the contract they gave him or through a QO) but that question applies to both options.

Ah, I forgot that they had 2 years of team control left because they burned the first year of his ELC.

That bridge deal with a $7.5m QO was even worse than I thought. I thought it kinda made sense as he'd be signing a UFA level deal in his last year. But no. They basically incinerated the benefits of two years of team control.

 

[Donuts]

whether or not they trade horvat, Miller has to go. Dont know how, but management better think of something and do it

 

[4Twenty]

Ah, I forgot that they had 2 years of team control left because they burned the first year of his ELC.

That bridge deal with a $7.5m QO was even worse than I thought. I thought it kinda made sense as he'd be signing a UFA level deal in his last year. But no. They basically incinerated the benefits of two years of team control.

3 years to Boeser was a mistake instantly. Better off qualifying him. The praise they got for getting barely a league minimum salary off the QO was dumb at the time and only looks worse now.

Nothing wrong with a one year deal to reassess.

 

[credulous]

to make a deal with florida the canucks would have to take back money. probably a lot of it if florida intend on extending horvat. ekblad and reinhart probably have more value than horvat so that probably means something around bennett? that probably means any additional return is going to be modest. i can see something like that happening but i don't think it's a great direction

the flyers probably wait for the summer to take a swing at horvat? i can't imagine it's worth it for them to give up assets in a non playoff year even if they think they can extend him. it's philly tho so who knows

the avalanche i already mentioned earlier but i just don't like what they have to offer. girard is not good enough given his contract and his play lately. not a fan of newhook or any of their prospects really and they are short of picks

carolina i can't see getting involved as horvat really isn't their kind of player but they have some nice pieces. morrow, koivunen and ponomaryov would all be interesting. maybe kochetkyov too but they'd probably be reluctant to move him and i doubt the canucks would really want to take back a goalie

detroit is the team i hope get involved. they have a ton of really intriguing pieces that might be available. kasper or edvinsson would be a phenomenal get but their system has a ton of depth and even if those two are off the table they've still got a lot of high end prospects to offer

other than those teams maybe boston or the rangers can put together something but they don't have a lot to offer that vancouver would be interested in that they'd actually give up. same with calgary and edmonton

other teams either aren't in a position to pursue horvat or don't have the pieces to move

 

[Lindgren]

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.

Hey, Vector, can you do anything about the missing "w" in the thread title? It's triggering me.

 

[Lindgren]

Hey, Vector, can you do anything about the missing "w" in the thread title? It's triggering me.

Thank you for your kind and prompt action., @Vector.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

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

It's just a matter of time IMO. They are inconsistent this year with 2 pending UFAs that they can cash in on. If they are able to trade ROR before us, it could be a huge problem to get value for Horvat.

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.

I doubt Nashville will trade Svechkov for a rental. Unless Horvat agrees to an extension before the trade. But that's impossible if JRPA won't let teams talk extension with Bo. So stupid, why wouldn't you try to increase Bo's trade value?

 

[racerjoe]

It's just a matter of time IMO. They are inconsistent this year with 2 pending UFAs that they can cash in on. If they are able to trade ROR before us, it could be a huge problem to get value for Horvat.


I doubt Nashville will trade Svechkov for a rental. Unless Horvat agrees to an extension before the trade. But that's impossible if JRPA won't let teams talk extension with Bo. So stupid, why wouldn't you try to increase Bo's trade value?

I don't know which way it will go, but I think sometimes it ends up being better to hold the guy and wait for the reaction move. For instance Col makes a move for ROR and then Vegas or someone guys crap now we need to make a move.

Could go the other way too, seems to be a year to year thing, I think you just have to take a deal that you want, whenever it is offered.

 

[Peen]

fwiw the reports were that the canucks also felt like they made their most fair offer for JT before the draft, then were more open to trading him but they couldn’t get it over the line, and then got desperate and upped their ~7.5x6 to 8x7 before the season started

also sat the whole time was saying that they would want to sign jt and hes saying the same here, although that it’s slightly less likely than last time

but yeah i don’t think this ship has sailed (sadly).

 

[Vector]

fwiw the reports were that the canucks also felt like they made their most fair offer for JT before the draft, then were more open to trading him but they couldn’t get it over the line, and then got desperate and upped their ~7.5x6 to 8x7 before the season started

also sat the whole time was saying that they would want to sign jt and hes saying the same here, although that it’s slightly less likely than last time

but yeah i don’t think this ship has sailed (sadly).

Pretty much. The only real difference is that Horvat is an extremely appealing rental that, despite less offense than Miller had last season, has none of the negatives that seemingly reduced Miller’s value. Hell, if the other reports are correct it seems other teams hold Horvat in even higher regard. That certainly wasn’t the same for Miller.

 

[racerjoe]

Pretty much. The only real difference is that Horvat is an extremely appealing rental that, despite less offense than Miller had last season, has none of the negatives that seemingly reduced Miller’s value. Hell, if the other reports are correct it seems other teams hold Horvat in even higher regard. That certainly wasn’t the same for Miller.

I would also add the difference being even though I don't think we should have signed Miller, 8x7 for him was a fair deal... I don't think that holds true for Horvat. If we signed him to that type of deal it wouldn't just be a move that we shouldn't do, but also a bad contract.

 

[Gstank]

Miller is a flawed player which I assume is why people werent willing to pay a high price for his services. But its kind of ironic because Horvat is a flawed player as well but he is excellent on the dot and a good leader which seems to hide his flaws as a player to other team.

I wouldnt go above 7.5 for Horvat, As much as he is the C and a good leader his lack of ability to distribute the puck and defensive awareness isnt ideal for a 7.5 + mill C because if the goal scoring drys up he becomes a 1 dimensional player.

Take the Assets use the top 10 pick to draft a replacement for Horvat. (hopefully someone who has similar leadership quality but better defensive awareness) and use the other assets to try and build a cost effective top 4 so you can ride out some of these bloated contract/OEL contract.

That would be my gameplay moving forward.

 

[Gstank]

It's just a matter of time IMO. They are inconsistent this year with 2 pending UFAs that they can cash in on. If they are able to trade ROR before us, it could be a huge problem to get value for Horvat.


I doubt Nashville will trade Svechkov for a rental. Unless Horvat agrees to an extension before the trade. But that's impossible if JRPA won't let teams talk extension with Bo. So stupid, why wouldn't you try to increase Bo's trade value?

Because you are trying to keep him and his Agent is 100% going to use those talks as leverage against the organization

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Because you are trying to keep him and his Agent is 100% going to use those talks as leverage against the organization

Are we really still trying to keep him? Our offer went from starting with the never 5, to now meeting Horvat's asking price of $9m per?

I don't know which way it will go, but I think sometimes it ends up being better to hold the guy and wait for the reaction move. For instance Col makes a move for ROR and then Vegas or someone guys crap now we need to make a move.

Could go the other way too, seems to be a year to year thing, I think you just have to take a deal that you want, whenever it is offered.

Normally it's possible, but with how many teams at or very near the cap, there's really not many teams that can even afford to acquire a rental. I'm not sure there's going to be many buyers for a 2C. Seems like even right now, we have Colorado and that's pretty much it. Larkin is also potentially on the market, so waiting might leave the Nucks without a dance partner.

 

[racerjoe]

Are we really still trying to keep him? Our offer went from starting with the never 5, to now meeting Horvat's asking price of $9m per?


Normally it's possible, but with how many teams at or very near the cap, there's really not many teams that can even afford to acquire a rental. I'm not sure there's going to be many buyers for a 2C. Seems like even right now, we have Colorado and that's pretty much it. Larkin is also potentially on the market, so waiting might leave the Nucks without a dance partner.

I have no clue like I said, but it did sound like there was teams that were interested that were not for just this season. I take these reports with a grain of salt, but the point just being I have no clue.

 

[me2]

Are we really still trying to keep him? Our offer went from starting with the never 5, to now meeting Horvat's asking price of $9m per?


Normally it's possible, but with how many teams at or very near the cap, there's really not many teams that can even afford to acquire a rental. I'm not sure there's going to be many buyers for a 2C. Seems like even right now, we have Colorado and that's pretty much it. Larkin is also potentially on the market, so waiting might leave the Nucks without a dance partner.

This isn't an issue for a horvat trade. They can send Horvat and take back offsetting salary around $5m. They can even retain 50% of his salary and take back an offsetting $2-3m salary.