I would take that and run. I don't think the Canucks will get anything close to that.
Value of: Connor Garland to Anaheim
- Thread starter sasha barkov
- Start date
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,548
- 39,388
Ducks have to add a pretty significant piece to that
comtois + 1st prob a better starting point and add something from ther(depending on protection on 1st, or where the 1st is on draft day) even then idk that I’d want it
Ducks need to figure out the Lindholm/Rakell/Manson situations first... especially Lindholm. If the Ducks lose him, it basically sets the team back a few years (at least), making it less likely to make a trade for established players now. If Lindholm is re-signed, there is a better chance the Ducks can make playoffs next year or the year after, especially adding a guy like Garland into this lineup.
DavidBL
Registered User
Agreed, but if they lose Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell... might as well see where the young guys are at next season. If there's a sophomore slump, let them ride it out and get a better pick (and hopefully some good lottery luck for once). If they improve on this year, then add someone. It'll also depend on the price, if they can get a young forward for a reasonable price, then go for it... but sounds like the price for Garland would be high.
DavidBL
Registered User
I think you have to be more aggressive, you can't sit and wait for the young guys every year. Doing that puts you in a loop of selling off players as the others are finally getting ready. I expect Verbeek to be more proactive.
That's why I was curious of the OP, or anyone else, had a way to make everyone happy. If not, no hard feelings against Ducks fans....until someone starts forcing a bad return anyway.
We could help with centers if we start selling off though. I feel if it's more then one guy being moved, it's everyone. Miller, Pettersson, even Horvat could all be moved then.
Yeah, but if they lose Lindholm I'd hope he goes for Chychrun to fill the void. Also, summer could be a better time to make a deal, especially if they are going to trade Comtois. His value has to be low right now, hopefully he's picking it up and make the deal in the off season if that's the player they want to trade. Garland might also cost more because he'd be an in division trade and fits Vancouver's age group too.
I think Nux should keep Garland. Kid has serious jam. Give him some time, and I think we’ll see him become more consistent.
DavidBL
Registered User
Good news is if we do lose any of those players we'll have more assets to try and replace them so we don't backside in our progress. I'm cool with either Garland or Boeser. I think we really need another top 6 RW and to move on from Raks. I wanted Garland last summer but I wouldn't give up a top 10 pick for him if I was in charge.
Yeah, if we deal Lindholm, Manson, and Rakell, we should get a pretty decent haul of picks/prospects and be able to deal for a forward and a D and not gut the system. We'd need someone to help shelter Drysdale too if Manson is dealt.
Canucks LB
My Favourite, Gone too soon, RIP Luc, We miss you
- Oct 12, 2008
- 78,716
- 33,564
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,548
- 39,388
Miller pettersson or horvat all make sense for us.... but well have to wait and see what Verbeek thinks.
Boondock
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2009
- 5,783
- 2,391
I understand asking for the moon for players, but this is getting silly. McTavish?? really?? he was just the #3 player drafted this past draft. Lysell and a 1st would be a steal - even the suggestion of Comtois and a 1st seems like it would be at the high end of any deal.
Seems like people are frustrated by the Miller retained + a 2nd for Chytil or the Garland + for J. Boqvist and Kuokkanen offers so now the only acceptable trade for any player is a 1st and the teams best player under 23.
I like Garland, but he isn't getting elite players in return. At best you get a 1st and a prospect that might project to be a Garland in the future.
Seems like people are frustrated by the Miller retained + a 2nd for Chytil or the Garland + for J. Boqvist and Kuokkanen offers so now the only acceptable trade for any player is a 1st and the teams best player under 23.
I like Garland, but he isn't getting elite players in return. At best you get a 1st and a prospect that might project to be a Garland in the future.
Well it's all hypothetical anyway. I mean Zegras and McTavish would be too much to hope for, I'd imagine, but the Ducks have some good pieces out side of them.
For every action, there is an opposite but equal reaction...
I'm with you, Garland is a great piece, I'd be hard pressed to move him barring a fire sale situation, but he's not returning a top prospect and top pick.
But Garland in junior is better then any player in the NHL presently. Around 2 ppg while playing like a cannonball. We just have to convert that production over on the statsheets before trading him.
- Jul 25, 2012
- 42,548
- 39,388
New boss has used "retool" a few times, frankly I could go either way, so long as we pick a path and stick to it. The team has shown they can go out an make a statement against almost any opponent, but there are a lot of remaining bad habits from the old team too. Moving one or two key pieces for a good return, futures based or otherwise, might be for the best, but we have a number of secondary pieces that we should be looking to move first, either way. Personally, I'm not opposed to moving anyone except Hughes and Demko, for the right return, what ever that might look like.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 16,779
- 16,094
A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, As you said Garlands junior scoring was much better than Lysell but we'll see how it translates. Just not high on Lysell i have Giants tickets. Usually highly drafted players dominate
He's got lots of speed his skating won't be an issue but he's gonna have to learn to play in traffic and win 1 v1 battles. He's not good in junior at it against kids. I mean give it some time he did came over from Europe big ice but he's dropped for me from where i rated him at the draft. Don't dislike him as a prospect but i would avoid players who struggle early on as they don't usually end up as the one's who work out
Last edited:
Oh I was just being ****ty and invalidating any seriousness that was built up.
