Nucker42
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2011
- 2,569
- 1,849
The state Benning left the Canucks in doesn’t exactly allow for an easy re tool… Long bloated contracts, several ntc…. No picks…. You almost have to strip it down
Friedman: Conor Garland available?
- Thread starter MMC
- Start date
That's too good for the Canucks IMO but I would pull the trigger on that.
bigbabybuda
Registered User
If this is true Id target him above any player being shopped right now. That includes Chychrun or Miller. HDMH and Garland has another level in him. Get a less than wealthy mans ( didnt wanna call him poor) feel of Fleury everytime I see him play. Think he will be one of those guys pushing a team to the cup one day. Maybe winning a Smyth as a not favorite.
Imma think about a package.
Imma think about a package.
Raistlin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2006
- 4,944
- 3,868
any trade for Garland should start with a top 15 pick. He was essentially traded for Guenther #9 pick. I cannot understand why hes even on the market, his strengths and age all fit the current group. only reason I can see him being shopped is if he is added to do a giant blockbuster with Rangers to go with Miller.
Bettman Returnz
Why so serious?
Only reason I see garland getting traded is for a massive overpayment or piece that no one knew was even an option. Otherwise, what’s the point? Fits the age of our core and has a decent contract with term.
Captain Mountain
Formerly Captain Wolverine
- Jun 6, 2010
- 21,049
- 15,168
I don't get it, Garland is really good, affordable and fits their timeline. Unless the return addresses a more immediate need, why move him?
They have picks this season. Although if you are going to wait 3 to 4 years for picks that you use this year on the draft, it will not lineup with the age of young core players like Petterson, Boeser, Hughes, Horvat etc. JR wants young players that are NHL ready now, so they can develop with this core. So if a Garland is traded, we need a similar age player with term back like a Carlo or some other young RHD that is comparable. Getting picks back now and waiting 3 to 4 years for them to develop waste the prime years of Horvat, Boeser, Miller, Hughes, Demko and Pettersson. It really needs to line up with the core age group.
I have a hard time thinking he would be available. I know the team had a horrible start but they have improved a lot, he is not that old and on a good contract. I really can't see why the Canucks would want to trade him. With a few good moves they could be much improved next season. Unless they want to see if they can get a really good asset for him.
Seems strange to take on OEL to help get Garland then turn around and trade Garland.
I know it was done under old management but it still seems strange. Guy is all motor
I know it was done under old management but it still seems strange. Guy is all motor
Nucker42
Registered User
- Nov 27, 2011
- 2,569
- 1,849
Well yes you have picks but your missing your 2nd and downgraded your 3rd. Not ideal for a bottom 10 team…. Of course you don’t want to waste the prime of the core players careers but at the same time it needs to be sustainable for a long time… the mistake that was made during Bennings 8 years was the illusion that scraping into the playoffs or just missing was valuable in some way… which led to several bad trades and signings…. Need layers of picks and prospects year and year…. Can’t be about have a good year or two…. Would love to strip it down… keep EP Hughes and EP and everyone else is good to go.
AdvancedPressure
Registered User
- Jan 19, 2021
- 529
- 854
It would piss me off if Garland was traded. The guy is 25 years old locked up w/ term on a very reasonable contract. If he was 28 or 29 maybe I would understand, but at his age IMO he's someone who should be kept as a part of the core. Now, if they're getting absolutely ridiculous offers for him I guess you obviously have to consider it, but to me it's not worth it to dump the guy just to free up some salary.
Raistlin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2006
- 4,944
- 3,868
If Canucks are keeping Horvat, I don't think age is the reason they are trading Garland. It's probably them trying increase the size of the lineup (not that likely), or that the other team is willing to overpay either in assets or position need (top 3D). Their top pick is getting more and more valuable as long as their goaltending remain this subpar.
Bettman Returnz
Why so serious?
Is there actually any legit rumours saying we are him out there shopping him? Or is it possible he’s just the player other teams are inquiring about (due to all the reasons everyone is listing… young, reasonable contract/term, top 6 skill, tenacity, etc)?
The problem is what makes you think EP will re-sign after his third year is up? You strip everything down means a rebuild and I doubt he will sign with Canucka for a rebuild. We need to get NHL ready prospects back and picks but just getting picks or a bunch of magic beans doesnt mean we pick good players for every pick. Also Benning is not here and he was pretty good in drafting. Now we have an unknown drafting, so what makes you think he will be great at drafting? I have to see how Allvin drafts before shipping all our best players for picks.
Honestly I think its more a case of JR listening to offers rather than him calling other teams about Miller or Garland.
I think a deal around Lysell +for Garland could work, Lysell +Carlo + for Miller + Schenn or Poolman could work.
ThreeOfAPerfectPair
Registered User
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,813
- 17,794
VancouverJagger
Not trying to fit in
The reason? He's one of the easier options for our team to shed some cap while getting a good young player back.......Our previous GM wasn't winning any awards when it comes to cap or contract management that's for sure and left us having to make shitty decisions like this.
I was originally opposed to this but if we can get a blue chip prospect who will play in the next 2 years I'm good with it.
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,813
- 17,794
He’s one of the very few long term contract players on the roster providing good value relative to cap hit and I’d say his age fits in perfectly for a re-tool. Unless there’s an opportunity to trade for a similar age or younger RHD or C with realistic m top 4/top 6 upside I’d hang onto him.
Miller, Myers, Boeser, sure. Shop them around.
VancouverJagger
Not trying to fit in
Hey i can't argue with that. I would personally be moving Boeser and Miller before him (Not Myers. There is zero point to trading him - like how on earth are we gonna replace those minutes?) however I can see why he may be gone. He's an easy assett to move and get younger and cheaper with. You can't really do that for Boeser or Myers for sure.
