Devils can only sign Horvat for 7 years, And you're at least $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 per short on what he'll get on the open market.

Henrique is a perfectly good 3C. Go for Meier over Horvat.

Thanks, updated the term. Added another 500k though wouldn't go further than that, and I'm not sure it's a given that he will be commanding the AAV you are stating. As great a season as he is having, Horvat isn't seen as quite a #1 center, and you're saying he is going to get 8.5 to 9 million? Even accounting for inflation and FA status, that's in Hughes/Point/Zibanejad territory, and more than a younger Timo Meier. I think he's firmly in Luke Schenn territory by the numbers. And it's up to him where he wants to go, but they Devils may well seem like a legit contender, and there may not be many other contending teams able to fit him in.

You could be right of course, in which case, too rich for my blood and I'm out. We'll see I guess!

Yea, valid point. Though Henrique is more of a temporary thing. I guess my original thinking was that Horvat could potentially be had for less - in terms of both getting him in FA and not giving up assets like Hotlz, and in terms of expected cap hit. If anything it was just a curiosity, going in a different direction, somewhat counter-intuitive but compelling in a way - instead of going for the start winger, go even harder on depth down the center, run three lines, etc etc....

Not close on Graves, who'll be offered at least $5 million, or Horvat, and buying only one year of free agency for Sharangovich and McLeod doesn't seem like wise asset management.

OK, upped Gravy to 5. It's more about the term, anything more than 3 years doesn't work long term, but can happily go there in the immediate future (and again there will be a prime window here so it isn't that crazy for him to stay where his family is to be on a contender). Sharangovich and Mcleod I was just throwing out numbers, you could get more specific. Though Mcleod is a dime a dozen, really, not something that they need to be overly concerned with. Sharangovich I am still willing to bank on but he has regressed this season and so it's not obvious how much is worth committing to with him.

I still think people are over-estimating Horvat's next contract. But, again, I could be wrong! Thanks for the feedback.

$7.5m is a lot for a 3C.

No love for Nate Bastian?

My comment about Sharangovich and McLeod was directed to term, not amount; they become free agents the moment any contract expires after the 2024-2025. So your three-year contract makes them unrestricted free agents when those deals expire. It would be better to give them longer term if you like them, but I gather that you're not that high on McLeod.

That's fair. For the sake of argument, I'd consider extending both to 5 years. But only as long as there are no NTC/NMC restrictions. It isn't that I am not high on Mcleod, it's just that he isn't really a difference maker either way. Sharangovich is obviously more important though, so yes I would probably go longer and bank on the player, but again, as long as it doesn't turn into a contract that we can't extricate ourselves from. He could go either way.

Give Sharangovich 1-year (2-years would walk him directly to UFA) or 4/5 years.

In term of Bastian, I actually do like him, so if you prefer, keep him, that's fine. I wasn't trying to narrow down on every single detail, really. But we have a decent amount of depth options as RW, and I'd rather go with Zetterlund from what I've seen, and maybe rotate in ELC's when it comes down to it.

In terms of Horvat, yes, of course, it's way more than anyone would traditionally give a 3C. But that was my point here, to try to experiment and think outside the box a bit. I probably should have explained this more from the outset. A lot of thinking has understandably been focused on Timo Meier, and that makes sense. But that also takes the team in a more top heavy direction where depth becomes a question. So I was curious about other possible approaches. In this case, it's more like having two second lines than a proper second / third division. You are almost doubling down on depth, and come playoffs that may prove crucial.

In addition, the handling of Holtz has been an issue, IMO. I understand Ruff wanting to go with what works, but he hasn't been given the minutes and linemates to allow him to flourish. Now, if he's going out the door as part of a Meier trade, then that's that. But if not, I think this offers an interesting possibility. Because here, he isn't really being "wasted in the bottom six" where he doesn't belong, but in fact would be part of a de facto second line type setup. And so perhaps there he would be allowed to grow into the top six player we are all banking on. From there you have Bratt/Mercer/Holtz to be configured as needed with Hughes/Hischier/Horvat, while the left side complements these pairings as it goes.

At its best, it could coincide with that window, right around the final ELC years of Luke Hughes and Nemec, where a similar thing is happening. They should have grown into the game and at least be first pairing players, while at the same time, Hamilton should not have regressed too much. So you could have a situation where even your third pairing is pretty dangerous. The overall effect is to create a truly "relentless" team that - while not lacking in star power by any means - really wears teams down by their high end depth.

Again, experimental.

OK, updated him to 5 years. It's a risk I think is wise to take as I believe he is better than the player he currently is, and so would be a safe bet.

I am sure they would find the minutes for Horvat at that number. Plays both PP and PK. But I would stick him on Jack’s wing in the Haula hybrid C/W role.

If it were up to me, I would use him more often as defensive 3C. His long reach and quick stick are effective.

A future Gritsyuk - Sharangovich - Zetterlund line maybe. Could be deadly on counter attack.

Sure! Lots of possibilities, really. And this is a setup that doesn't fall apart the second there is an injury. Also, I think 7.5 is .5 too much with Horvat, so I wouldn't blame someone for bailing. Articles like

https://www.area51sportsnet.com/2022/10/04/canucks-captain-bo-horvat-next-contract-look-like/

https://canucksarmy.com/news/bo-horvats-next-contract-conundrum-canucks

https://thehockeywriters.com/predicting-canucks-bo-horvat-next-contract/

suggest everything from 6.5 - 7.8 or so. It's not that I don't think Horvat would be in high demand, it's just that I don't think he commands #1 Center, and so after that it's a question of which teams can fit him in, and in what capacity. He'll also be 28 after the trade, and we're talking 7 years of term. Finally, I think it's fair to look at the Devils as a contending team, where his presence could be the difference that takes them to that next level. Sometimes that's how it is, you take slightly less to be on a contender, and in this case it could be a perennial contender situation.

I mean, who knows! it's all just speculation. But I don't think it's that far out in left field either.

Yea, I rate you there for sure. Gritsyuk is another interest part of the puzzle as he looks to be having a resurgence, and he's playing in the KHL so not some minor league. In the above, I kind of imagine him picking up where Henrique leaves off, if that makes sense.

Again, I'm less focused on specifics with the configuration I posted, because to me it allows all sorts of flexibility. I mean, let's see who has chemistry, etc. It's not intuitive to me, as the Devils seem to already be strong at center (and Mercer was originally a center), but the more I thought about it, the more it seemed to have a certain appeal. Especially if Horvat could be had for 7, in which case he could be the scoring winger/gritty forward/center depth all in one.