The Hockey PDOcast - Where will Bo Horvat go? Harman Dayal on the Kuzmenko extension

Episode Date: January 27, 2023

Harman Dayal joins Dimitri in studio as the guys discuss another busy week for the Vancouver Canucks. They try and make sense of the Andrei Kuzmenko extension, and they discuss the top landing spots for Bo Horvat. This podcast is produced by Dominic Sramaty.  The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate. If you'd like to gain access to the two extra shows we're doing each week this season, you can subscribe to our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thehockeypdocast/membership If you'd like to participate in the conversation and join the community we're building over on Discord, you can do so by signing up for the Hockey PDOcast's server here: https://discord.gg/a2QGRpJc84 The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rogers Media Inc. or any affiliate.

It's the Hockey PEDEOCast with your host, Dmitri Filippovich. Welcome to the Hockey PEDEOCast. My name is Dmitri Filippovich and joining me in studio on this Friday. It's my good buddy, Harman Dial. Haram, what's going on, man? Thank you much. Just another crazy week in Canuckland. Another crazy week in Canuckland.

I think this is the third show in the past week of PEDAOcast, maybe, that we're at least going to lead with Canucks talk, which I think for listeners maybe out of market here. they're like, why are you spending so much time talking about the 27th team and point percentage or whatever this season? Yeah. But you know what? When you see a true train wreck just materializing before your very eyes in slow motion,

I feel like it's okay to stop and stop and stare and talk about it with your buddy. So that's what we're going to do here today. And we're going to talk about especially like we're going to use the Kuzmanko extension that came through yesterday after I'd already recorded my show so we didn't make any mention know that as kind of our entry point into this conversation that we can talk about other sort of especially focus from the business side on like the cap logistics and proceeding with contracts and stuff moving forward so let's get into it i think this is it's a weirdly divisive extension just in the sense that both things two things can be very true at the same time and

they run totally counter to each other right one kuzmanko is a very fine player and is worth every penny of this extension. It's a good deal in just purely based on what he's produced so far this year and what he should get on the open market, but also it makes absolutely zero sense for this Kinecks team based on where they're currently at and what the alternative was. Do you agree with that? 100%. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the terms was going, okay, first five and a half million the A.V was probably about 500K lower than what I thought the cap it would be. I thought the cap it might be around 6 million. And then the term was a year shorter than I thought it'd be. So there's even less downside risk on that. So immediately my thought was, okay, that's cheap. And then my second

thought immediately was, man, there's a, there's a tremendous opportunity cost because ultimately it comes down to this. I'm just looking at the Canucks's window of what they're trying to achieve. And I'm going your, because Meg was going to turn 27 in a week. obviously was a pending UFA. What are you going to win in the next two years as a team that can justify the value that you're going to get out of this bridge contract? Because that's really the point of signing a bridge, right?

Yeah. Is you're hoping to extract short-term value out of this deal, but you may get great value out of him as a player and on that contract, but I just don't know as a team what you're going to really do in that time and how that lack of value relates and sort of contrast what you could have gotten for him at the trade deadline. And I know a lot of people will point to, okay, lack of playoff experience, lack of NHL sample size.

And for sure, those would have been considerations for teams. But it's a unique proposition of this season. He's on his ELC. 31 teams around the league can afford this guy in a market where I was just looking at cat-friendly the other day, only eight teams with two million or more in caps base. Yes. Not every team can go out and afford a Patrick Kane or Teresanko or Timo Meyer in terms of their massive cap hits.

You look at Kuzmiko, the season that he's having 43 points and 47 games, a player like that, who you can add for Century Free to your roster, that would have had significant trade value. And again, that is a sort of situation when you look at the Canucks who've drafted once in the first round the last three years. And Scott Wheeler at the Athletic, who does great work. their prospect pool ranks 28th. The only teams below Vancouver

were the penguins, Bruins, aves, and the lightning. All teams that have won Stanley Cup since 2010 and are still actively contending year in, year out. So you're just in such an asset deficit

and you're so far away from being good that even though I really love the player, even though he's been so exciting, even though he's such a great personality, this team needed the futures. Well, hearing you speak on that, I'm very curious for your take on why Kuzmenko personally, individually, chose to sign this contract.

I understand that he's played, what, less than 50 NHL games so far in his career, and so the sample size is small, and there's something to be said for just like, all right, you're getting whatever, 10 plus million for the next two years. That's not bad, and you're going to get back on the market when you're 29. at the same time though based on the offensive heater he's been on so far it's surprising i guess he really just does love vancouver like is it is as simple as that i'm very curious i know that um our colleague thomas drans had uh his agent dan millstein on the program mr on the knucks talk and and they were they were talking about some of the logistics of that

but i'm very curious for like why what the impetus was for him to sign especially at this point like i'm kind of curious on that yeah i think there are a couple factors number one is the comfortability where Vancouver just as a pure city is beautiful, right? Guy comes over from Russia, gets his pick of all these destinations and it's like, do I want to live in Edmonton, which is another finalist

or Vancouver, you want to get that, I think, experience of living in a great city. So I think that's an advantage right off the bat. And when you're in that spot, you're just trying to learn English. You're trying to get accustomed to the culture, become friends with your teammates.

it's, you know, just after one year, it's a very difficult transition. I had a chance to talk to Vasili Podkoulson, who went through a very similar transition last year as a rookie. There's definitely a learning curve and becoming comfortable with your teammates, really being able to set your roots. And there are another couple of Russians on the team. Podkosan's obviously down in the A right now, but he'll be back up soon. But even with Mikhail, who is also a Dan Milstein client, I know they've built a good rapport and will relationship together. So I think there's that side of it.

And then also signing it to your bridge, he's setting himself up to where if he's able to sustain a pretty high level of production, if the cap's going up in two years, he may look at that as, okay, I'm still going to be 29. That'll be a great opportunity to get a big payday then. Yeah. Yeah.

No, it's interesting. It's, the reason I brought that up, it's rare that you see, like, it's not rare that you see a bridge off of an ELC like this, but it is rare to see a bridge for a guy who's got UFA status and is producing the way he is, especially at this point of the season, right? So I was kind of curious about that. Did Panarin have UFA status when he signed his bridge, first one, with Chicago? That's a good question. I don't have, we don't have, we don't have good Wi-Fi in the studio

right now, so I can't even fall it off. So I'm not entirely sure. But let's talk about Kuzmenko. So I mentioned fantastic player. He's on pace for 37 goals, 75 points. He's producing nearly three five-on-five points per hour of play, which is a fifth best in the league. He's been remarkably efficient and so fun to watch, right? Like on a team that has generally been such a soul-crushing

entertainment product in terms of tuning in to watch and he really feel to me. It's been a miserable experience turning on the TV or I guess I watch post these games on my laptop, but turning on sports set now and watching the Canucks play. It's like, oh my God, this is just, this is a very bleak situation to be tuning into.

He's been remarkably fun, or stylistically, right? Watching him, I love watching him operate, like, along the boards where, like, a defender feels like he's going to, like, seal him or he's in a good position from a leverage perspective. And then he's just sort of, like,

wiggles around and kind of, you know, gets them all out of sorts just, and eventually create space for himself, right? It's like he's so, he's so slippery and elusive. And we've seen him utilize that to his advantage. He's also struck up a really great chemistry

with Elias Pedersen. We can talk about more of that here in a second. where for a team that's like bottom five in every single five-on-five metric as a team overall, with the two of them out there, they're like 57% expected goal share or something, which is just remarkable, right? Like they're overcoming their environment to a really impressive degree. And so he's been fully worth bang for the buck. He's been amazing.

And I get that like attachment as well where he's, you see some of the snippets off the ice as well. Like he's so easy to to cheer for and root for and market and build around and like be excited about, right? So I totally understand all that. I wanted to get into that a little bit because I get that there's like an emotional element to a decision like this as well. Like it's easy for us to kind of be like from the outside.

All right, like from a business decision, this is a mess. Like this is not how you should be how you should be allocating your assets or your resources. But just purely from like as a hockey player, he's been so good this season. Yeah. If you're a casual Canucks fan, you're jumping for joy. Yeah. In terms of, oh, I get to watch this guy for two more years.

That's awesome. Right now. watching Pedersen and Coosmanco together is the really the only reason to watch Canucks games, to be totally honest. It's like when that lines on the ice, they're exciting. You feel like they could generate a high danger chance or something magical on any given shift. And there's such a contrast to where when they're not on the ice at five on five and the quality of play for the rest of the team. So absolutely. And it is interesting that you mentioned the edgework and the elusiveness, that's a trait that he's really worked on.

I remember when he first got into training camp, you could tell that he had the skating to execute, but he hadn't developed that puck protection ability quite yet, where he would try some of those spins, and it felt like a defender would be able to still poke at the puck, jar it free. It felt like he sort of moving low to hide, didn't have that ability to understand where to position his body,

to create those advantages, create those leverage points. And that's something that with confidence, he's really been able to add to his arsenal. And so when I watch him play, when I watch the Canucks play, he's their second most dynamic forward at even strength with what he's able to do with his hands in and around the net.

He's one of the few players also that, I know he's played a lot on the first unit power play in the net front position, and he's been great there. But he's also the sort of player where we saw him at moments on the second unit on the flank. he has a skill level to play on the flank. And there aren't many,

and there aren't to be the sort of player that can have success there and have the offensive creativity to be a flank player in that set sequence when a defense is already set. And that requires a special set of skills. And it's just another example of where Kuzmanko's really shining. And to his credit also, yeah, he's not great defensively, but it hasn't been as big of an issue as I thought it might be, where his learning curve hasn't been,

nearly as bad as I thought it might be. I remember first training camp, it was like, Pedersen and McCabe were going in on Laforecheck. Normally, you'd have the third guy, F3 sort of hang back a little, try and stay above the opposition center, make sure that he's in the right position,

especially for a defenseman's pinching. D pinched, and it's like he didn't know, he had no idea that when there was a chip and chase that he was supposed to chase the buck down, and it was a goal against, right? Yeah. And I thought, okay, there might be a bit of a learning curve there. But to his credit, obviously there's been the occasional moment,

but he hasn't had these huge consistent puck management mistakes despite how much he's tried to make happen in the offensive zone. He hasn't had terrible backchacks. Hasn't been much of a liability along the wall. So he hasn't erased that offensive value either. Yeah. To put a bow on, that's a really great point, but just put a bow on what we were previously talking about.

I was looking at this up while you were speaking. So Panarin played the two years. and then he was an RFA and he got two more years and then he became the UFA. And then in the meantime he had been traded to Columbus and then he went on his big UFA ticket. So yeah, this is a very unique situation in terms of stepping in, playing this amount of games,

being this productive and immediately having all the leverage that he did have, right? No, that's a really good point. And you made there and I think listeners are hearing us talk about this, right? And they're like, all right, so you're saying this guy is really fun. Like he's like a ball of energy and joy that makes you happy every time he steps on the ice. he's 26 turning 27 in a week you have him on a deal that's a bargain both in terms of actual dollars and not committing term just in case there is some risk with his sample size what's the problem well two things can be true at the same time as we said does this move

make our team better today yes having and and jacquesmeco on their team is smart does it make sense for this team based on where we're currently at no it does not and the numbers here are Starlings. In the past seven months, right, this management group has committed $25 million to the following players. Andreikuzmanco now, J.T. Miller, Brock Besser, Ilya, Micahoev. Those are all, and those are cap dollars for both next season and the year after for a number of those guys. You can bump it up to 30 if you want to include Connor Garland in there as well, right, although they inherited him from the previous regime. But that's, that's stunning to me because it runs completely counter to all of the marketplace dynamics we're

currently seeing in today's game, right? Like we're seeing, first it started with goaltenders where teams realize the volatility and variance in their performance. And so they're like, okay, we probably shouldn't commit big money and big term to them. Now with the flatter cap and with it slowly rising in a painstaking manner over many years, one of the casualties of that has been teams have realized like other than true star needle moving wingers that are foundational to our success everyone else in that position is kind of disposable like there's varying degrees of course but we don't really need to be paying a premium and investing

real dollars into this position when if we have star centers or people who can make anyone around the better we may as well just kind of fill that fill those margins on the cheap right and instead the way this Canucks team has chosen to construct their roster so far has been investing significant dollars into that exact position, which is just mind-blowing when you consider what everyone else around the league is basically doing. And considering their other needs. Now you're looking at a scenario where going into the summer, they have around $9 million in cap space projected right now. With that $9 million, you've got a, according to this idea of a retool,

where they want to supposedly turn things around, sooner rather than later, they'll need to find a top six center to replace Bo Horvat, which good luck. That's like finding top pair defensemen, unless you're drafting and developing them yourselves, you're going to have to overpay drastically,

either on the free agent market or via trade. Then you've also got to totally rebuild a defense, which has zero top 4D outside of Quinn Hughes. Yeah. That's not going to be enough. Even after you count for, could we trade a couple guys, And even then, how much confidence can you have that management can create that flexibility when they had that exact same objective last summer?

And all they could do was free up Dickinson's contract by paying a second round pick for it and still taking on a $1.3 million ticket in Riley Stillman. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's the thing, right? So in theory, it sounds good to be like, all right, well, we can buy out Oliverickman-Larsen, for example, right? that creates like $8 million in additional cap space flexibility for I believe next season and the year after and then you tack on future dollars, right? You could also buy O'Connor Garland conceivably and save yourself like $4 million in cap savings next year. But the question for that is like to what end in the sense that yeah, you're creating this like immediate present day space, which is valuable.

But for a team that we think has so much work to do to even become competitive in the slightest, you're taking on so much risk by then tacking on future. commitments with these buyouts. Yeah. 2031 for OEL if you buy them out. In years where if everything goes well over the next handful of years, those are going to be the meaningful years where you're like every dollar is going to matter, right? And so it's like you're just pushing the tab back and you're like,

you're just taking on like additional mortgages to. And I just don't understand what the purpose of that is because one thing we've seen with Jim Rutherford over the years, particularly during his time. And in Pittsburgh, it's like, cap space like burns a hole in his pocket. Right? Like he's like, he's like, all right, some money opened up, we made a, we made a move to clear up some space. Let's immediately spend that today no matter what on like something we don't necessarily need. And so I just, you can talk yourself into there's ways we can create cap space and the Canucks can get back into the market and be flexible to improve their team this summer.

I just don't understand how seeing what's gone on, seeing the track record, how you could have any confidence to believe that like that money is going to be put to good use by this organization. For sure, also, when we discuss the idea of the opportunity cost and you could have traded Kuzmenko, a lot of people will say, great, if you could have gotten a late first or a second in another piece, that, okay, that's a decent return, but that's all it is, right? But again, it's also the cap flexibility side where not only is there the possibility of, okay, you've got major needs at center in RD, which are a lot more difficult to fill, especially because, Because also from a prospect perspective, wing is also the Canucks the strongest position when you consider Hoaglander and Pod Colson coming up. Le Caramacki, their only blue chip prospect is also a winger. The other side of it too is how you can monetize a cap space even from a futures perspective. And the Canadians sort of provided a template for that last year when they traded to Foley to the

flames, got a first round pick for them. and then use the cap space that that trade freed up to then in the summer get another first round pick from Calgary for taking on Sean Monaghan's contract, which had one year at $6 million. Yeah. Now, because Monaghan's played well, they'll probably be able to sell him

for another asset or two at the deadline. Yeah. So you're looking at two first round picks and whatever Monaghan gets you at the deadline just from that one move of trading to Foley, right? So it's not just what you immediately get into trade. it's you're however you then want to allocate those cap dollars to build your future asset base or even even if you're in this retool mode the team needs that money to rebuild the back end right that's that's where you look at an opportunity like john merino becomes available right shot deep

young cost controllable the connects didn't have the cap space to bid realistically in a player like that those are the opportunities where if you're so insistent on we've got to contend now you have to be able to jump all over them. Yeah. Well, so what are, okay, so what are the, let's go through and try to debunk all the common pushbacks that I, that I'm sure you've gotten already from the market in terms of why this was actually the right move for the Canucks. So one of them, I presume, was what you just mentioned where, well, maybe the Canucks

just couldn't have gotten as much as you think they could have gotten for Guzmanco, which I think is patently false because I don't think they ever truly entertained the idea. No, they didn't. They did not explore it, right? Like, I think they had blinders on in terms of like they were like, we worked really hard to recruit this guy and to bring him to Vancouver. We like what we have in him. Let's keep him.

I think the calculus was that. I don't think the flow chart extended beyond that. I don't think other opportunities were explored. I don't know. I might be wrong. Well, even when he was initially signed, it was under the premise of exploring it as a long-term fit. So this was never did they ever really seriously consider moving on from him. Well, true, but I think they also thought that they were going to be better than they were heading.

I mean, they should have explored it. But the point is, yeah, they didn't really test marks. Okay, so that's one of them. And I just, if they had tested it, I think they would have found that they could have gotten quite a bit because the past trade headlines, if you look at a lot of the moves that happened, any forward that could have been gotten for a below market price in terms of cap dollars. Yeah. went for significantly higher acquisition cost than their actual performance. Yeah. Would have led you to believe they'd get, right?

Like, you can go two years ago what the Leafs paid to get Nick Felino. Now, a move like that involved getting like a third party to facilitate cap retention. Yeah. Which is a consideration that does, like all of that, all of that capital could have just gone to the Canucks because they don't need a third party to facilitate another 50% retention, right? Ricard Raquel last year got like a good goalie prospect Zach Asson Reese which whatever they wound up letting him go and a second round pick I believe

for Ricard Raquel right at 35% retained Obviously Brandon Hagel is a bit different because he had two more cheap years on his contract and that's why the Lightning paid a premium But they gave up two first round picks for it Right like and inferior player to what Andrea Cozmeco has shown at the NHL level So I just reject the notion that

the best they could have gotten was like a second And a B level prospect or even like just one late first. Like, I think they could have gotten multiple assets because for less than a $1 million cap hit for a player that's been as productive as he is, I think the lineup would have been around the corner for him. Like, I think, like, you could have, a smart organization could have legitimately, like, started a bidding war and then just gotten teams to keep up in their offers, starting it now and waiting until the trade that'd line to do so. Like, imagine how big the acquisition cost could have gotten in these, whatever, six weeks to come. Definitely. The

other side of it too is I've been hearing a lot of this theory that okay if this doesn't work out if the conucks aren't able to turn the ship around that between now and the expiry of his contract at any point you could then monetize him for the same value which you can't right because now you're looking at a scenario where all of a sudden he's five times more expensive more than that even he you've automatically shrunk your trade market by almost 40% because of the 12th team no trade list and the multiple years of term left, right? The couple examples that came to mind for me were you look at teams like New York, the Rangers,

and the Wild. Those are teams, for example, that need, could use another scoring boost, right? Wild because they haven't been able to really replace Kevin Fiala, Rangers because I've seen Jimmy Visi on the top line on the right wing. Those are examples of teams that could really use a scoring boost as rental, but none of them have the flexibility to add salary beyond the season. So, like, that's just an example of how teams are viewing the idea that, okay,

just because Kuzmenko was on a reasonable contract, doesn't mean that his value is the same because teams like the flexibility of not having to commit the term. Yeah. So that's, I think, really important to mention. Yeah, I mean, he truly was like a unicorn entering this. trade deadline. I think there was a case to be made. Like everyone, it's a superior player clearly in Timelmeyer. Everyone is like salivating over him and talking about like which, which of the contenders

are going to pay the premium to get him and everything, right? And I get that. He's going to be worth it. But Kuzmenko at this price tag, like to me was the most interesting potential available player at this deadline because any team could add him and he would instantly mesh with every team, right? Like every team can use an Andreuizmenko and every team can fit him into their roster. So the price just would have been through the roof. And so you're right.

Within the next two years, you probably can move him. It's not going to be nearly for what it would have been now because much of the appeal was that sub one million dollar cap it. So I think that's a good point. The other theory I want to debunk. Okay. Is I've seen a lot of this idea that Kuzmanko's extension now appeases Pedersen. and helps convince him resigning. Yeah.

I like, the easiest way to sort of debunk that is simply by framing it as Pedersen's next contract, if he decides to resigning Vancouver, presumably to maximize his value, maximize his earnings, is going to be for eight years. Yeah. Nearly a decade. There's only one year of overlap between Kuzmanko. extension and Pedersen's next contract. So you're telling me,

Elias Pedersen is going to be sitting there and making his decision in the offseason about whether he wants to extend in Vancouver or not. And he's going, man, I've got this eight-year commitment, but year one, I get to play with Andre Kuzmanko, a guy I've known, who I met four months ago. That's the decisive factor. Yes, I'm staying forever in Vancouver.

I'm spending my entire prime. I know. That's not going to be. the deciding factor. And that's not to say that Pedersen's going to want to leave necessarily because I know he really likes it in Vancouver. I'm not trying to say yes or no.

I'm just saying the idea that a player who's only guaranteed to be here for two more years, that's not going to sway a star player's opinion on whether to commit his entire prime to Vancouver as a franchise or not. Yeah. Okay, I've got a lot of follow-up thoughts on this.

Let's quickly take our break here and then when we come back, we'll keep chatting about Kuzmanko and the Canucks and Pedersen and all that good stuff. You're listening to the HockeyPedio cast streaming on the SportsNet Radio Network. We're back here with Harmon Dial on the Hockeyedio cast. Yeah, we did this to keep Pedersen idea is silly to me because, you know what I think would convince Elias Pedersen to commit the rest of his best NHL seasons to this organization, showing that you're able to have a long-term plan in place that is going to allow him to compete

and play meaningful games, right? Like, I think it's just so wild to me to be like, all right, well, he's had success with this winger that he's played with. So we're going to keep him, and that's going to turn his decision into a no-brainer for him. Like, it's, I really don't think that moves the needle at all. Like, I'm sure he's enjoyed playing with him and all that, but it's silly to me. And, you know, like, let's go through the stats of them together. So they've played 415 5-1-5 minutes together, right? I mentioned they had like a 57% expected goal share, 59 actual goal share.

They scored 34 goals in that time at 5-15, right? Kuzmanko's played 175 minutes without Elias Pedersen. He scored, and the Canucks has scored six goals in those minutes. So I, I, I, when, another thing that I want to debunk here was he's shooting 25, because McI was shooting 25%, right? And I've seen people say, well, Well, that's not that much of an aberration because he's a skilled player. And also, if you look at a lot of the goals he scored,

it's like tap-ins around the net where it's a pretty high percentage shot, right? Very true. If that's the case, though, why are you paying for that, right? Like, I think we all agree that the needle mover, the creator here, is Elias Pedersen in this equation, right? So the whole point of having Elias Pedersen on your team is he's going to create those opportunities for anyone around. him. So it's, I just don't understand the logic of paying Elias Pedersen's winger to keep

Elias Pedersen happy when he's doing his thing. He's great. He would be an MVP candidate of this team was better. It doesn't, that's not the way to run your business. You know what I mean? Like, you should be using that money elsewhere so that you can make Elias Pedersen's life easier when he's not on the ice. Yeah, very fair. I would say that this season has been tough, even last year, for Pedersen to really find a winger that he's, had that same level of chemistry with just because we've seen best or take a step back. I don't think that him and Garland have particularly been a great fit when they played together last season.

So from that perspective, you know, I do think there's something different there that Kuzbenko adds in the sense that I haven't seen other wingers on this roster be able to find the open ice around the blue paint. Well, he's got a level of creativity to his game. He can think the game along with Patterson, which I think is a distinction from some other player you mentioned who have their own skills, but just don't possess that next level way of seeing the ice. Yeah.

But I agree overall that him extending, extending Petterson's winger isn't going to all of a sudden, a winger again that he's spent half the season with isn't going to make him all of a sudden. No, but just from like a team-building perspective, like the Canucks, when Alas Pedersen is on the Nice, regardless of who's out there with him. And I acknowledge what you're saying in terms of like the chemistry between them has been mutually beneficial to a degree. I think Pedersen's reached that level where you could put me, you, producer, Dom, and someone else from the 650 studio here, out there with him. And I think we'll come out as a net positive. Like, he's been so good.

Yeah. And so I just, I think the smart play would be to give guys like Garland and Besser a longer. run away with Pedersen the rest of the season because your your goal should be to rebuild the value of those guys so that you can potentially move them this summer because I think there's also this idea of like well you can just trade those players and you can but to facilitate a trade like that even this offseason you're either going to have to include capital to get someone to take their contracts or take bad money on elsewhere to facilitate it and I don't think this organization is in a position to do either of those things so

Like I was asking Thomas Drances yesterday when I went on his show, Canucks talk. If the Canucks put either Garland or Besser on waivers today, do you think they'd be claimed by anyone? I don't think they'd be claimed. No, they would not. I would be stunned. Like, it's just too much, too much money, too much term for both, right?

If they were, I'll say this, again, and this is where the distinction is about the term, if a player like Besser was expiring at the end of the season, there would be a lot of teams interested. Of course. Same thing with Garland. Yeah. But it's the term.

That's the sticking point more so than the cap it. It is. Although the capet is still an obstacle. The cap hit for Bessor is an obstacle because it's like, what is it? 6.6.6.6. Exactly. And with Garland, it's a bit less. It's under five, but he's got that extra year, I believe, right?

Like, so it's really tough to talk yourself if you're a contender and to either of those as like taking those on. You just can't fit it. And so it doesn't make sense to do it. So that's why I, like the goal. should really be to bump up the value for those guys as much as you can so you could conceivably not hurt yourself elsewhere by clearing up that money because the plan I think is to try to get those cap hits off the roster somehow yeah but it just makes no sense to be giving away drafts to like what they did with the jason digots in contract to facilitate that like they're

not a position to do that they can't do that anymore they can't so i don't i don't understand like what the plan is like part of the calculus has been like all right well if we get rid of connor garland's 4.95 here, it's like, okay, well, how are you doing that? They also tried really hard in the off season. Yeah, no one's taking them. Like, no one's taking, no one, no one is taking winger dollars, right? Like, it's, as soon as you get over like two million dollars with any years of term on it, that player is passing through waivers.

Like, it's, it's sad that the, the, the, the, the, the wingers are being treated that way, but it's the unfortunate reality of the way the NHL is operating right now. As the cap goes up in four or five years, it might change, but probably won't. I think everyone is realizing. that we should just spend all of our money on centers and the fencedmen and then figure everything else out after. So, yeah. And the Canucks are spending all their money on wingers.

Which one of the other interesting things is going to be the impetus to move those contracts out is going to be even higher if Miller doesn't stick at center under Tocket, which... Well, he's not a center. He's not. I agree with you. But they're going to try and make it work, especially if they trade Beau. It's just...

the difficulty of being able to replace a guy like Horvatt is so high that they almost have no choice but to try it see if it works under talk at a new system a new environment a new personality a new level of accountability see if you can even get to the point where he was last season not in the sense of like 99 points but just in the sense of competency at center not killing you as a top six center I think they're going to have to give that a shot which which if that bet doesn't work, and he is truly a winger,

that's how you're going to have to plan for him for next year's roster, or he's going to be as poor Ed Center moving forward as he has been this season, then you're really hooped if you're the Canucks. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, is there anything else on Kuzmankor? Do you want to pivot to Horvatt a little? We can pivot to Horvatt.

Okay. Yeah, I think we did our due diligence there on Kuzmico. Okay. Horvat. So I know you actually recently wrote about, kind of like the most interesting landing spots for him or teams that would make sense in acquiring him and then would the Canucks could get back and return for him. I think like it's it's it's pretty clear this is this was the final nail in the coffin. Yeah. Right.

It's been a series of events that have led to this point, but it's like now it's it truly they've backed themselves into like bull horvatt is going to be traded. And ironically enough like that's probably going to be one of the first good long term decisions they've actually. actually made for all the wrong reasons, of course. Yeah. But whatever, you know, the results count. So let's get into it. What? Give me some interesting locations in terms of destinations for him and what we're

looking at in return because during Jim Rutherford's presser, I guess like last week at this point, um, there was this conversation of like what they'd be looking to get back in return and this idea that they'd be prioritizing young roster players over pure futures. So I'm kind of curious for your perspective on this. Yeah, it's been really interesting because I've also tried to weigh, and in trying to be objective, think from the other teams' perspective, what's realistic, what's not. The ideal situation would obviously be one where you can move Horvath to a destination where he'd probably want to resign that he needs center help long term. And in that case, it would benefit the Canucks because if a team feels confident that they can bring Horvat in, then he's not just a rental.

So he's a long-term sort of solution, kind of like what Boston did with Hampas Lindholm type thing, right? Finding those fits hasn't been, it's been more challenging than a thought, right? Because right off the bat, I was thinking Boston, perfect, right? They need, it would give them a huge boost this season. And then on top of that, it's your succession plan for when Bergeron and Creach you can't play any longer. And then I'm looking at their cap situation, obviously still having to pay Posternock. And I'm like, I don't know how to make this fit in terms of actually extending Horvats. And if he's a peer rental, then obviously you're going to give up a lot less.

Yeah. Which in Boston's case, then you look at, okay, how would you formulate a package? They have a weak prospect pipeline. And their best prospect is Fabian Lysol, who's a winger. Yeah. And I'm like, wow, okay, that's a lot more, a lot more difficult logistically than you might think on the surface. And it was like that for quite a few sort of teams that I tried to, that I tried to go through. even a team like Colorado, which everyone for so long had suspected Horettiav's perfect successor for cadre, but it's the same sort of thing where it's like

they can't afford to keep him long term realistically. So from the Connexas perspective, if you're dealing with Colorado, you're going, I need new hook in a package, right? Young Center who checks that box, he can help us. Long-term upside, maybe you can become a second-line center long-term.

But if I'm Colorado and I'm thinking from that perspective, I'm going, I'd much rather pay a cheaper price for Monahan than give up New Hook, who's cost controllable, who's cheap. And so now it's like, I wonder about Detroit. I don't think they should do it. Yeah. But they seem to consistently be sort of coming up in these discussions. And I just did a piece today with Max Baltman with the athletic.

and I do I do wonder if they look at Horvatt, especially the sort of player who can form a one-two punch with Larkin if you're able to extend them obviously. And whether that's a team that makes sense. And I wouldn't do it if I was in Detroit's shoes because I just don't think they're at the point in their contention cycle where they should pay the assets and the extension necessary for Horvatt whose value is at an all-time high.

Yeah. But that seems to be a team that a lot of insiders continually seem to sort of bring up. And they have a deep prospect pipeline. I know if the Canucks are having those conversations, they're going to be asking for Marco Casper. But again, I mean, I wouldn't do that if I was Detroit. The Detroit one makes no sense to me. Like I understand from the perspective of Horat's a good player and like everyone. Like that's going to be the recurring thing where like every one of these teams, it's like, yeah,

bull horat's going to make them better. For Detroit, though, because clearly if they're making that deal, it's coming with a long term extension, right? Like, it's not, it would not be a rental. They have Andrew Kopp at 5.65 for many years down the road. He is turning 29. Dylan Larkin, regardless of what the current chatter is about what's going on with his extension, like, I think they're going to keep Dylan Larkin.

He's going to be 27, and he'll come in at, what, between 8 to 9 million, most realistically, which is what Horabat probably comes in? Like, what are we thinking for a Hortbat extension here, right? Like, it's considering the production starts at eight. I think it's got to be in the eights, right? Yeah, it's probably in the eights. Okay, so you're paying like 25 to 27 million for three centers who are in their late 20s for a team that is not going to make the playoffs this season. I just find that incredibly strange.

I think much more realistically, Steve Eiserman is trying to put pressure on. Dylan Arkin to sign his extension and being like, oh, look, we could go and get more of that and then use that money and oh, and then all of a sudden if, you know, he eats too much of the pie, there's none left for you. Sorry, Dylan. Like, you better get this while you can. Yeah. And like, I think that that's sort of like, that chess that he's trying to play is much more likely than a realistic plan here. Now, I think a lot of organizations are looking at what's happening with the Kodak's right now and sort of being like, can we take it? advantage of them.

Yeah. And so a lot of smart GMs will probably be checking in with the Canucks over Boer Horvatt, and so that might get leaked because everything involved in the Canucks get leaked these days. I could see that kind of trickling out in a lot of teams all of a sudden being linked to Borer Horvat. I'm just skeptical that it's a really kind of like actual thing that's happening. Yeah. I would say I agree.

I tend to agree. I mean, logically they shouldn't. Yeah. Unless they can get him for like a bargain, which I guess we might. we might be overselling what teams, what the Canucks will get for them, but I doubt it. Like I think they have quite a bit of leverage here in terms of a good player

and not making much in terms of capital this year. But it's also just like the contract. Even if you get him, like what's, even if you get him for cheap, you're not making the playoffs this year. So it's no point as rental. And the contract, you know, regardless of whether the acquisition cost is cheap or not, you're going to be backing up the Brinks truck.

The Boston trade that you mentioned would, has high potential for, being incredibly unfortunate and for the Canucks. Oh, yeah. Because I think a trade like that

might involve like a Brennan Carlo or a Trent Frederick as like a centerpiece. Yeah. And so, and that gets to get into the conversation of what you're prioritizing, right? I've seen like our pal-drans

has been saying recently that there's pressure to this market desperately needs a W, right? So the fans are just itching for something to hold on to for hope. So you need to nail this trade and you need to provide them with something to get excited about, right? And I just completely disagree that that is a factor at all because I think you could divide any fan, but particularly this one in Vancouver, into two camps, right? There's fans who are really fed up and want meaningful change within the organization in terms of the way they operate and to take a bigger picture of you and finally do.

things the correct way from a business perspective. And then you have fans who are diehards of the team who will support them no matter what. You don't, making a trade like this, I just don't think you need to cater to the latter because they're going to support the team no matter what. But also that segment, the latter one, who will support the team no matter what, who isn't, who aren't right now actively pushing for the organization to take a long-term view, that's like 5 to 10% of the fan base right now. I've never seen it this extreme in Vancouver where

such a high percentage of the fan base is begging for long-term direction. I've never seen it that unified. Yeah. So absolutely, I mean, I really hope from Kinexon's perspective that they don't get out, go out and prioritize a trade where a player like Frederick or Carlo

is a sort of centerpiece. In terms of another couple of teams I wanted to throw out you. Carolina, of course. but although I suspect that would be more as just a pure rental they have Scott Morrow as an interesting RD prospect

probably second pair upside there so that from the Canucks's perspective could be an intriguing piece as a sort of like hey this guy could be an interesting one in the package I don't know again the Canucks probably asked for Natchez or drivers they're not getting that no but the hurricanes

are drafted so well that like with guys even like a jury or like they have like there's so many prospects that would like instantly become like the third best prospect in the Connock's pipeline. So yeah one team that hasn't been really come up that often, which I'm curious to get your take on is Winnipeg. Mm.

Because. I've thought about them at all. Number one, the West is so wide open this year. Right. Where Colorado, because of injuries, but also all these uncertainty around even the health around Landis Cog,

they don't look the same. Calgary hasn't been the contender we thought. Edmonton hasn't been the contender we thought. Vegas started really hot, but they've cooled off and we'll have to see what happens with Mark Stone. And even when he does get back, he's still going to be able to play at that elite level again. So I'm looking at the West right now.

It's wide open for the taking. You look at a team like Winnipeg. They're second on the West right now. I don't think anybody looks at them as a top cup contender right now. But adding a piece like Horvatt right now would immediately, and I know their bigger need is on the back end. So you'd probably think about, all right, maybe you make, like, their higher party may be for a piece like a chikrin.

But another option is someone like Horvatt who would give you a significant boost their short term, but also it gives you more importantly, I think, more intriguingly, a long-term succession plan for Pierre-Luc Dubois. Yep. Who's obviously said that he wants to test for agency in 2024. Right. This summer, you're facing a situation as a Winnipeg Jets where he can take you either to arbitration or just take his one-year qualifying offer

and set that path in motion to become a free agent and leave. So if you, as the jets are confident, that you can acquire Horvatt and extend him, then all of a sudden you can, in the off-season, if Dubois is still insistent that I'm not going to resign here, you can then deal him for a haul and continue contending knowing that you have Shifling Horvatt down the middle. Yeah.

Yeah, I know, I like that. That one makes a lot of sense. I really hadn't considered them. I think they need to get faster. I watched them play the Sabres yesterday, and yeah, they looked a bit slow to me. But they've had a really good year, and they have a lot of good players,

and it makes sense for them to... It's not even really pushing all their chips in for the season, because, as you said, like, it provides you with, like, an insurance moving forward as well at a premium position. So I don't mind that one at all. Like, that's really interesting. That's much more interesting than, like, Detroit for me, for sure.

Um, do you mention Minnesota, right? I, I, I mentioned Minnesota. That would be a rental though, right? Like they have, I was looking at it after the Boldie extension, they have about 56, oh, they can't afford them long term. They have 56 million for next year in Caprizov, Zuccarello, Boldie, Erickson, X, Bergen, and Brodine. Yeah.

That leaves them like 26 million to fill out literally the rest of their team. And, and also not like, that would mean like trading Folino and Greenway, which I don't think they'll do. Greenway, they could probably. They could, but like, there's like that, that's, that's literally six players that I mentioned, right? Like, I just, I don't, but it's such a shame because obviously they have the assets in terms of very intriguing prospects to make that trade happen. And the need is so desperate because not only they need scoring, they need help down the middle, and he would look perfect for them. And so that's a shame that they just like, they can't.

They're parental mode if they're acquiring anybody. The devils have gotten a lot of steam. recently and I'm curious about that. I think with them and the Leafs, like I think whoever misses out on Tim O'Meyer might pivot because you might legitimately be like the second best player available from that group. But that one's strange to me as well as a long-term fit

because they have Hughes and his year. So like... Yeah. Even Mercer can play in the middle if you need them to. Yeah, just like from an asset allocation perspective, it doesn't make sense to be paying a premium long-term for Horvatt. Yeah. If I were them, unless they were going to be.

going to bump him. Like, I like Henrique for them because he's cheaper and less of a commitment and like obviously a lesser player, but high-end finisher who can play on Hughes's wing and is really good at face offs, right? And so he helps cover for him and insulate him in things he's bad at without a premium. Horvath's like a souped up version of that at this point. Yeah. But if you're trading for Horvatt, if you're the devils, you're probably not viewing him

as Hughes's winger. right? Yeah. Which is, like, the Leafs are an interesting fit for me because they could bump John Tavares to Horvats wing, for example, and then kind of do two birds with one stone there,

but I don't think they'd acquire Horvind and be like, all right, he's going to be our second line winger. So I don't know. There's, it's, it's, it's unfortunate because there's a lot of teams interested, but they're not the ones that either have the assets for him. And then the teams that do have the assets can't really justify trading them because he doesn't help them that much. It's been interesting to hear a lot of teams, and this is where Horvats' intangibles, the idea of him as a captain, he's revered around the league.

Yeah. So I think that's why you're seeing a lot of scenarios where you have teams that look set down the middle that logically shouldn't be paying a premium for him or considering it that are still kind of kicking the tires. Like even Edmonton's been thrown around and I talked to my colleague, Daniel Lundon, Benjamin where it's like the oil is god damn it go and get

Jacob chickered yeah like don't like don't get another forward but I was talking to Daniel and he's like

they may look at if they feel decently confident that Broberg or Dejarnay can hold their own on the back end

that they might use their that they might look at a more cost effective upgrade on the blue line and then prioritize adding a big ticket forward who would allow them

to solidify either the second or third line so that McDavid and Drysettle can play together all the time. Which again, I'm like, I would not do that if I was in Edmonton shoes, but you're seeing a team like that come up. You're seeing Seattle is so odd for me.

Right. Because I'm like, they're theoretically so deep down the middle, not only right now, but with Shane Wright eventually coming. Yeah, but I think for them just adding a good player might make sense. Like if you're Seattle. It's not necessarily they can need,

but like, yeah, let's just add a good player, let's build off what we're doing right now. But again, same thing. Like, wouldn't you want another stud defenseman? Yeah. If you're going to pay the premium? Of course. I just think it would be a fun story from a geographical perspective as well.

Oh, it would be fun. I'd be curious about it. Well, that's the other side. It's like, I've wondered also when Seattle's come up, would Francesco Aquilini, would ownership even be okay with the idea that their face of the franchise captain playing in Seattle? Oh, so good. All right, Harmon, this is a blast. Thank you for coming on the show.

People should go check out your work. We're certainly going to have you back on here in a couple weeks. Thank you for listening to the HockeyPedocast. We'll be back on Monday with more. here on