- Dec 13, 2009
- 22,480
- 34,677
Doesn’t surprise me. I’d rather keep Garland for at least another year and trade Hoglander, but if someone wants to overpay I’d be all over it.Dhali saying on his show he thinks teams are calling on Garland.
Doesn’t surprise me. I’d rather keep Garland for at least another year and trade Hoglander, but if someone wants to overpay I’d be all over it.Dhali saying on his show he thinks teams are calling on Garland.
Doesn’t surprise me. I’d rather keep Garland for at least another year and trade Hoglander, but if someone wants to overpay I’d be all over it.
M2B was relitigating the fall of the soviet union again, wasn't he?Posts were trimmed due to references to political figures, which goes against our No Politics policy. It’s time and labour intensive to edit multiple posts, so a blanket deletion was done instead. Yes, there were perfectly sound hockey arguments and discussions embedded in some of them, and that can certainly occur - please just do so without comparing to, referencing or discussing political figures and/or politics.
Thank you.
Instant cup favorites.
Sharks announce Sturm to Florida with a 2027 7th for a 2026 4th - Friedman
If the team really wants quality assets back—he is the player to move.Dhali saying on his show he thinks teams are calling on Garland.
If the team really wants quality assets back—he is the player to move.
Not sure that he is re-signing here anyways.
Third line centre and a scoring first line winger? And all we had to give up was 2 underperforming UFA's? The Swedish Chef is cooking again!!!
depends on what is on the table. If Garland gets us like 1st + prospect back and we can use those asset and add more to get another guy, then sure.Just because teams want Garland doesn't mean you trade him.
Using that logic we should trade Quinn Hughes, I'm sure we would get a lot of assets back too
This is going to be we ran out of time forsure.