Value of: Conor Garland in 2024

[mathonwy]

Last years Value of Conor Garland thread1 and thread2 were overall bearish with non-Canucks fans.

Fast forward to today where he's only improved his point totals from 46 to 47 but has firmly established himself in the majority of Canucks nation as one of the key heart and soul players

• who makes everyone he plays with better (fought with Joshua and Hronek)
• is durable af especially as the smallest guy on the ice (82+13 games)
• plays playoff hockey every game and has enough gas to force a turnover and score a goal in r2 g7

Has his value increased or decreased?

Click to read more...

 

[TGWL]

I am not going to read those threads but he's only got 2 years left on the contract. We saw the cap increase. The expectation for 40-50 point players is going to be in that price range, so I'm going to assume the value has increased for teams that can afford it.

 

[Rabid Ranger]

This is a guy that the Canucks have to keep. He's a hear and soul guy who chips in a decent amount of points and is well-liked by his teammates.

 

[EK392000]

I’ve always been a fan. Teams refused to take him on without a sweetener when the Canucks were in cap trouble because they were greedy. They could’ve gotten a player capable of driving a third line or being a complementary top 6 winger for free.

His greatest value would be to a cap strapped team. If there’s retention involved, I could definitely see a first being dealt for him. Maybe even without retention.

 

[Nikolajs Sillers]

Deserved an A on his chest. He's not ghost that's for sure.

 

[BKarchitect]

Value to team and in a vacuum has increased. Knocking a year off the contract makes him more valuable.

 

[Pure West]

I am not going to read those threads but he's only got 2 years left on the contract. We saw the cap increase. The expectation for 40-50 point players is going to be in that price range, so I'm going to assume the value has increased for teams that can afford it.

The term is not the bug, its the feature. This is the kind of player that you aren't bringing in to be part of your core, but a complementary piece on a winning team. Him being on a reasonable ticket that ends when he's 29 is good. Finding a player like that in free agency would likely require a lot of term at that same money that would age poorly and

That being said, its not going to be a ton of trade value. All the more reason a team like the Canucks should look for other complementary top 6 wingers on reasonable contracts on the trade market.

 

[StickShift]

IMO—the only way he gets traded now is if management/coaching thinks that despite his tenacity that he was too small for the playoffs.

He did score and setup some important goals for the Canucks in the playoffs—but there were also stretches of play where him and his line were not nearly as noticeable in the playoffs as they were in the regular season.

Vancouver generally had difficulty against Nashville and Edmonton getting plays inside the slot (either through passing or finesse) and there is part of me that wonders whether management might just bang the "we need to get bigger" gong for each and every diminutive player not named Quinn Hughes—Garland, Hoglander, Hronek.

 

[Empoleon8771]

I think there is a huge range of values that guys like Garland can find themselves in, just depending on how any one GM feels about them. These expensive middle-6 guys are good ways to show that "market value" isn't a real thing in the NHL, it just takes one GM to pay a price for a player.

People here argue Reilly Smith has no value, arguably even negative value, when he has 1 year left at $5 million and finished with 40 points in 76 games last year. On the other side, Ron Hextall once traded a 2nd rounder for Mikael Granlund while he had 2.5 years left at $5 million.