Bo Horvat sent to junior - Canucks roster sits at 25

Cam Charron
September 29 2013 12:27PM

The Vancouver Canucks didn't have to use the waiver-wire to send anybody down on Sunday, but they cut their roster by one by officially sending Bo Horvat down to the London Knights. Both Horvat and fellow first round pick from the Knights Max Domi last until the very end of training camp, and the Knights are again in a position to roll through the Ontario Hockey League in search of their third consecutive J. Ross Robertson Cup.

As for the Canucks, this means that they'll probably switch the newly-acquired Zac Dalpe from winger back to centre, where he'd played at Ohio State but struggled in his first couple of seasons of pro hockey. There are probably still a couple of moves the team has to make before rosters are set Monday at 2 p.m. Eastern, as the Canucks currently stand at 25 players on the roster.

Here is the updated depth chart:

Forwards:

David Booth
Alex Burrows
Zac Dalpe
Jannik Hansen
Chris Higgins
Zack Kassian * ††
Ryan Kesler
Brad Richardson
Mike Santorelli
Jordan Schroeder **
Daniel Sedin
Henrik Sedin
Tom Sestito
Hunter Shinkaruk †
Dale Weise
Jeremy Welsh †† 

Defence:

Andrew Alberts
Kevin Bieksa
Alex Edler
Jason Garrison
Dan Hamhuis
Chris Tanev
Yannick Weber 

Goalies:

Eddie Lack ††
Roberto Luongo

* - Suspended
** - Injured
† - Eligible for junior hockey
†† - Waiver-exempt (Capgeek)

The team can't start the season with players on the long-term injured reserve, so a player other than Welsh is going to have to be sent down in order to get the Canucks to 23 players. That means either a trade (call up Craig MacTavish. Maybe the Oilers want Sestito?) or that Hunter Shinkaruk is going to head down to junior like Horvat.

I also can't find a provision in the collective agreement that says Zack Kassian can't be sent down to Utica as a paper transaction to get the team below 23 players on the roster until the team can put Jordan Schroeder on the long-term injured reserve Tuesday. The American Hockey League would assuredly honour his NHL suspension, but I'd assume he'd be back up and in the press box for the season opener if the Canucks went that route.

Brad Ziemer suggests that Shinkaruk is going down too, but that Shinkaruk was, as of Sunday, still skating with the team on the last day of camp:

Still a bit mysterious and we don't want to say anything for certain until the roster is set tomorrow. I imagine Welsh starts the season in Utica, for sure, but cutting from 24 to 23 presents a bit of a challenge.

Update: Hmm...

Per the CBA illustrations in Article 50, teams must set their rosters prior to opening day (ie: Monday) but cannot place players on long-term injured reserve until opening day (ie: Tuesday). This was mentioned on Hockey Night in Canada last night, but if the Canucks can indeed put Jordan Schroeder on the injured reserve prior to the start of the season, it saves the team from having to make a move in addition to sending down Welsh to get under 23 players.

Suspension rules are also incredible hazy. Here is the full text of Article 16.4:

16.4 Active Roster Size; Playing Roster:

(a) There shall be a maximum of twenty-three (23) Players on each Club's Active Roster at any one time, provided, however, that, on the date of each season's Trade Deadline, a Club's Active Roster may be increased to any number of Players the Club, in its discretion, so determines, subject to Article 50.

(b) Clubs are not permitted to Loan Players where the result of such Loan(s) would reduce the Club's Active Roster below eighteen (18) skaters and two (2) goaltenders. However, Clubs will not be required to Recall Players to maintain the minimum eighteen (18) skaters and two (2) goaltenders on days which they do not play an NHL Game, provided that the deficiency below those thresholds is a result of an injury that has caused the removal of such disabled Player from the Active Roster.

(c) Except in case of emergency, there shall be no reduction of the required minimum Playing Rosters of the Clubs, below eighteen (18) skaters and two (2) goaltenders.

Do suspended players count against the active roster limit? They count against the salary cap. Bill Daly didn't respond to my email last week asking that question, but I guess we'll find out tomorrow.

63811cbf517d2d685ea09e103488ea3a
Cam Charron is a BC hockey fan that writes about hockey on many different websites including this one.
Avatar
#51 Goal 33
September 30 2013, 07:34AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
1
props

@argoleas

LOL. If those 4 players are the saviors for this team then the Canucks are in more trouble than I thought. No offense to those 4 players but a good as a donkey is, a donkey is still no race horse. Vanouver's team has sucked for a long long time. And what have they got to show for it.

It's ok to suck if sometimes you win the cup. The Canuck's have still to win one, and it's almost half a century coming up. Does that ever resonate with their fans? Half a century, the average man lives about 70 something years here, give or take a few. The fact that this team has had over four decades of futility speaks volumes to the systematic problem that affects this club. The Canucks do everything bad, or never good enough.Say what you want about Chicago but they've now won 2 cups in this decade. Where are the Canucks? Oh don't worry, give them 20 more years. More time, more time. Don't worry, take your time, people live forever.LOL

Avatar
#52 JDM
September 30 2013, 08:09AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

The "I'd trade the Canucks roster for the Oilers roster" should essentially result in you instantly being able to never post another comment on here. The Oilers have been the worst team in the league for four consecutive years. In two of which, the Canucks won the president's trophy. If you'd trade the latter for the former you're just a total moron, there's no way around that.

It's already been pretty well established that NMOO is only here to bitch. Earlier I set out the options with respect to what to do with the youth, asked him to pick one, and he wasn't able to. He just complains, he doesn't actually have any ideas or constructive thoughts.

Avatar
#53 argoleas
September 30 2013, 08:49AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
Goal 33 wrote:

LOL. If those 4 players are the saviors for this team then the Canucks are in more trouble than I thought. No offense to those 4 players but a good as a donkey is, a donkey is still no race horse. Vanouver's team has sucked for a long long time. And what have they got to show for it.

It's ok to suck if sometimes you win the cup. The Canuck's have still to win one, and it's almost half a century coming up. Does that ever resonate with their fans? Half a century, the average man lives about 70 something years here, give or take a few. The fact that this team has had over four decades of futility speaks volumes to the systematic problem that affects this club. The Canucks do everything bad, or never good enough.Say what you want about Chicago but they've now won 2 cups in this decade. Where are the Canucks? Oh don't worry, give them 20 more years. More time, more time. Don't worry, take your time, people live forever.LOL

I do seem to recall something about these 4 players being at the core of a recent team that was 1 game away from winning the cup, which would have put them on par with the Pittsburgh team that you so rave about, and LA as well, in terms of recent wins. You are cherry picking Chicago as a team that has done very well, but what about all those many other teams that also have nothing to show for all their efforts, and have accomplished much less than Vancouver over the last 10 years. Do they all suck as well? But game-won wise, Vancouver has been one of the most successful teams in the last 10 years, which impacts draft position. Again, much can be said about the draft and trade history and strategy of the last few GMs, and there is a strong argument to be made that the window is either closing or closed. But doing everything bad? Whatever.

Avatar
#54 PB
September 30 2013, 09:04AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props

@Goal 33

Yes, you are right, the Canucks never drafted Linden, Bure, Sedins, Kesler, Edler, no one at all. They've certainly made some bad picks (who hasn't) and they certainly have traded away some good players that they drafted (Vaive, Neely, etc). But again, who hasn't?

Pittsburgh "made plans" to draft Malkin and Crosby? When? When they were also "planning" to possibly fold their franchise and luckily were able to suck bad enough (and get bailed out by Mario) enough to land Fleury, Crosby and Malkin? That's some awesome "planning". The same kind of "planning" that led to us having a draft lottery in the NHL, so like PIttsburgh back in the 80s couldn't trade their best players to end up last in the league to pick Lemieux?

The Canucks do nothing in their lean years? I thought at the end of their lean 90s they picked the Sedins? How exactly, with consistent finishes in the top of their division (and league) were they supposed to be "planning" for success?

It's nice to see that you pay such close attention to hockey.

Avatar
#55 NM00
September 30 2013, 10:48AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
4
props
Big Cap wrote:

Let's Review:

1. Luongo and his unstable mental toughness and commitment to playing in Vancouver

2. A backup goalie with zero NHL regular season experience

3. Kesler, consistently fighting injuries and always on the mend

4. A head coach who's a complete unpredictable wild card.

5. Sedin(s), Bieksa, Burrows, Hamhuis, all on the wrong side of 30.

6. Kassian and his unwillingness to mature and play a positive role or consistently demonstrate skill to play in the top 6

7. Questionable depth and talent on the bottom 6 forwards.

8. David Booth and his injury(s)

9. Now playing in a much tougher division and will no longer beat up and pad their stats against a terrible NW division.

10. A new coaching system that players are still learning.

11. Sedin(s) are now Forced to kill penalties and have to block shots.

12. A GM who is to timid to pull off any major moves in a proper time frame.

13. One Playoff win in two seasons.

****Did I miss anything??

There are ALOT of "questions", "ifs" and "buts"

The Window Has Officially Closed On The Vancouver Canucks.

I laughed because it's true.

At a later date, I will also cry because it's true...

Avatar
#56 NM00
September 30 2013, 10:51AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
JDM wrote:

The "I'd trade the Canucks roster for the Oilers roster" should essentially result in you instantly being able to never post another comment on here. The Oilers have been the worst team in the league for four consecutive years. In two of which, the Canucks won the president's trophy. If you'd trade the latter for the former you're just a total moron, there's no way around that.

It's already been pretty well established that NMOO is only here to bitch. Earlier I set out the options with respect to what to do with the youth, asked him to pick one, and he wasn't able to. He just complains, he doesn't actually have any ideas or constructive thoughts.

The Oilers and Islanders (largely through tanking) have higher upside rosters than the Canucks.

Not sure why this is difficult to grasp...

"It's already been pretty well established that NMOO is only here to bitch. Earlier I set out the options with respect to what to do with the youth, asked him to pick one, and he wasn't able to."

The world does not centre around you champ.

I don't respond to every delusional Canuck fan with which I disagree...

Avatar
#57 NM00
September 30 2013, 10:53AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
JCDavies wrote:

"The fact that the organization needs to be reset - whatever that means - is proof that management has been ill-prepared for the phasing out of the Burke/Nonis core."

Or this could just be the natural process all teams go through as their core players get older.

Or the current management team could try and find new core players like the previous two GMs did...

Avatar
#58 NM00
September 30 2013, 10:59AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@PB

"Your point about the newer prospects being more attractive because, well, they're newer is just stupid. That's like saying Nathan Smith or RJ Umberger looked more attractive than the Sedins because they were drafted a year or two later. Horvat and Shinkaruk are qualitatively better than most that you listed (not Hodgson perhaps) with good reason -- much more highly ranked and in Shinkaruk's case I think perhaps mistakenly undervalued by other teams."

The Canucks diluted their NHL team to acquire the pick to select Horvat.

He better be good or it will be another in a long line of poor trades from this GM.

What makes Horvat & Shinkaruk so much better than Hodgson and Schroeder?

"I know you are dead set on your sky-is-falling-many-first-round-losses-and-playoff-misses-to-come schtick, but it's premature, it's at this point unfounded, and it's more than a little pretentious."

Remember this comment at the end of the year...

"Deliver your chicken little prattle after this team is actually the bottom feeder you so delight in describing."

I'm not sure this team is going to be a bottom feeder in the next 2-3 years. Not if the Sedins are retained at least.

It will probably be more like the slow and steady decline of the Calgary Flames or Philadelphia Phillies...

Avatar
#59 NM00
September 30 2013, 11:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
macker wrote:

@NM00

Not going to chip in about the youth movement or anything else at hand here, but just wanted to say that no matter what Torts does here it won't be his last coaching job. Look how long Iron Mike kept getting hired for- he's won a cup and his style of coaching/personality will always appeal to somme. So Torts isn't going to burn the barn down in interest of self-preservation

I suspect the league is starting to trend away from giving recycled coaches an infinite number of chances.

I guess we'll see how things work out in Vancouver.

But if Torts is fired after 2 or 3 years with a barrage of media blowups, I'm not sure another team will want to deal with him...

Avatar
#60 PB
September 30 2013, 11:40AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@NM00

What you are continuing to insist on is that the Canucks are doomed to early round knockouts and playoff misses. That sounds like a bottom feeder to me, at least from the relatively lofty position that the Canucks have occupied in recent years. I would agree with the assessment that this is a long slow slide into irrelevancy if there wasn't a tangible sense that the cupboard is at least starting to get restocked. I'd compare it with the late 90s when the "reset" was all about blowing up the team and starting it again. Thanks to the genius of Keenan and some pretty piss-poor drafting (Holden, Ference, Allen, the string not broken until we got the Sedins) that really was a precipitous fall. You're talking about the core as if they're on the wrong side of 35, not 30. Yes, the Sedins, Kesler, Luongo, etc are aging -- but if they really can start to prime some of their prospects -- and by prime I mean get them real playing time and experience, including WJC for the likes of Horvat and Shinkaruk and Corrado -- then all the better. Throwing young players to the wolves just so you can say that you're having a youth movement is foolish.

I didn't say Horvat or Shinkaruk are better than Hodgson who is clearly better than any of the other prospects the Canucks have produced in recent memory -- though questions linger here and in Buffalo about what he really is.

So given all your predictions, tell me, will you be happily surprised if the Canucks manage to be a successful team? Will you cheer for them this season? Or will you look for all of your dreams to come true?

Avatar
#61 NM00
September 30 2013, 12:15PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@PB

"What you are continuing to insist on is that the Canucks are doomed to early round knockouts and playoff misses. That sounds like a bottom feeder to me, at least from the relatively lofty position that the Canucks have occupied in recent years."

A bottom feeder (to me) would be what the Flames finally did this past season.

The previous seasons of 1st round exits and battling for the playoffs was not really bottom feeding.

Those were misguided attempts at holding on too long and trying to recapture the fleeting glory of their SCF run.

Which is exactly the path the Canucks appear to be on by resigning as many players as they can and trying again with an aging core.

There still isn't any evidence that anything is different in terms of integrating youth into the lineup.

And there certainly isn't any evidence that the Canucks have the right young players, either.

"So given all your predictions, tell me, will you be happily surprised if the Canucks manage to be a successful team? Will you cheer for them this season? Or will you look for all of your dreams to come true?"

It depends.

I don't want this franchise hanging around the middle like Calgary did for far too long.

If that's the case, I'd rather they miss the playoffs altogether than squeak in and lose early.

And, as I've previously said, let the Sedins walk, buyout/trade Luongo and, most importantly, fire management.

However, if the team is a legit contender, I'll happily go to a number of conference final and final games like I did in 2011.

But it's not going to happen...

The window has closed.

Avatar
#62 GeezMoney
September 30 2013, 01:48PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@PB

Losing 8 out 9 playoff games is not lofty. The SCF was three seasons ago. Time to let that go or else end up an like an Oilers fan stuck in yesteryear.

Avatar
#63 JDM
September 30 2013, 01:51PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
1
props

@NM00

You did respond to me. And your response was to dodge the question and say absolutely nothing of value. You instead said "all I want is a clear direction from the management" or something equally vague and meaningless, and went back to bitching about Gillis.

There were three alternatives as to what to do with Corrado and Horvat. You weren't able to actually select and defend an alternative. You provide no actual insight. All you do is whine.

Avatar
#64 NM00
September 30 2013, 02:12PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

@JDM

Perhaps there is more to the world than the 3 alternatives you provide...

And I'm not sure why you limit your alternative list to a couple of young players.

The original criticsm was that it was merely lip service that young players were, finally, going to be integrated into the lineup.

Picking two players and creating a false dilemma is adorable, though...

Avatar
#65 Goal 33
September 30 2013, 06:39PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@argoleas

If the players you have have shown they don't have what it takes to win the prize, why stick with them? Second, there aren't many teams left who have never wona cup, the Canucks are one of them. Don't compare yourself with mediocrity and think because this team is slightly better than Buffalo that makes their futility ok. It's the Stanley Cup or the trash bin.

Nothing to show for theie efforts? Even Carolina and Tampa have a cup, and they grow sugar cane down there. They could care less about hockey, yet they're still able to win a cup. Have the Canucks won one yet? Wouldn't it be embarrassing if you came from a "hockey Town" yet a town who could care less about hockey wins the prize first? You would think alarm bells would be sounding, right? Oh, nooo, not here. There's no rush, let's just compare ourselves to the worst teams in the league and stand proud. Proud of what?

Am I "cherry picking" now that I mentioned Tampa and Carolina? Hmm, teams who's never won the cup, Jets, Buffalo, St. Louis, Canucks,...are there anymore? You see where I'm going with this. The Canucks have absolutely NO sense of urgency and it shows. Pretty soon every team would have won one cup except the Canucks. Most teams have won one except the Canucks. Are you going to compare this team with winners or losers? The choice is yours. Just because you don't like standards doesn't mean I or other people should dislike it either. Think about that tonight. Colina and Tampa, they grow palm trees and sugarcane down there...and they have a cup. The Canucks have nothing but false dreams. Maybe I'm cherry picking, Maybe I should compare how good this team is against even more loser teams like the Jets and Sabers. Why is it that so many of the Canucks fans have no standards? Wy don't the Canucks just come clean and make their motto " The Canucks, we're pretty good compared to the worst teams, come watch us play." Why go through all that BULLSHAT, year after year?

Avatar
#66 Goal 33
September 30 2013, 06:50PM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@PB

And here come the excuses. It's too hard to draft well, it's too hard to get a real good GM, it's too hard to get a center, a goalie, a Captian who can stand up for himself...it's too hard.

The Sedins? top of the division? This is a weak division the Canucks are in, The Sedins..oh yeah, how many cups have they won? If you call that success, than you don't have any real standards. Or have you forgotten all those play off chokes? Oh wait, all team choke in the okay offs. Can you also enlighten me as to what the Canucks have done that's so richly deserving of your praise since their inception, over 44 years ago? I see nothing but a sea of mediocrity. If mediocrty is your idea of success, than i want no part of it. Oh, do you want to compare how good the Canucks are to the Jets as well? Greztky, Lemiux, Crosby, Roy etc etc, none of them have ever been with the Canucks.Oh wait, you have Linden and Lumme and the Sedins. LOL. What a wonderful thing to be proud of. Are you happy with the Presidents Trohpies as well? Or regular season success? It's called "standards" man, standards.If I wanted to hear how the Canucks are successful and can do no wrong, I could just listen to Don "shill" Taylor. Go and ask Don, where is the cup? and he'll tell you the same excuses you just wrote to me.

Comments are closed for this article.