Value of: Conor Garland to the Leafs

[Bizzare]

They don't have the cap space FOR HIM...
You're one of those nit-picking, make things literal to prove your own point kind'a guy aren't you... yes the Leafs have cap space but have raises to pay and a roster to fill... and that's objectively correct...

Murray dump for Garland might make sense but the whole point in dumping Murray is to free up cap space... not to reallocate it to a player like Garland...

Plus, Leafs already have a Garland prototype on their team, his name is Nick Robertson... for less than 1/4 the price...
No need, no trade

0.01 percent chance Leafs trade for Garland

Since you wanted to bet, you offering 10,000:1?

Can cut you a break and make it 5,000:1 if you want.

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I'm gonna need some clarification here....

Garland was offered up to the league for free with no takers.

Vancouver buys out OEL creating themselves some cap space.

Somehow these two seemingly unrelated events made Garland's value to other teams around the league suddenly worth more?

How does that work exactly?

Teams knew they had Vancouver over a barrel and purposely offered essentially nothing in a sort "we know you're desperate."

That isn't to say Garland suddenly has a lot of value. It just isn't something silly like the Canucks eating Murray's contract and nothing else.

 

[jackjohnson]

Is Garland not a free asset at this point?

No he is not, Vancouver is not desperate to trade him

Not sure where the sense is in paying a 3rd line winger over 5 million a season for the next 3 seasons. Far better places to spend money.

3rd line winger? The dude has 60 points without any PP time. Might as well call him a 4th liner or 13th forward and Pettersson is 2nd line center lol

 

[jackjohnson]

I'm gonna need some clarification here....

Garland was offered up to the league for free with no takers.

Vancouver buys out OEL creating themselves some cap space.

Somehow these two seemingly unrelated events made Garland's value to other teams around the league suddenly worth more?

How does that work exactly?

It works because there is this thing called leverage. When Vancouver was over the cap and needed to trade someone, the leverage is in the hands of teams trading for him. I guess you never have done negotiations in your life if that concept isn't clear to you

 

[Irie]

He was but Vancouver after buying out OEL aren't over the barrel like they were before. They still need to trade a winger if not two but aren't desperate. Saying that were not expecting much of a return at this stage either.

Cap compliance is your answer we were literally over the cap and needed to dump salary.

It is totally fair to say that the Canucks no longer are looking to move Garland, but if Seravalli's sources were accurate, and he was offered up for free and there were no takers, then the Canucks finding capspace does nothing to change the market for Garland. Offering him up for free again, he would still have no takers, let alone suddenly return assets.

The environment since the buyout totally changes the Canucks perspective, but it does nothing to change other teams' perspectives.

Posters are always going to argue that the cap situation influenced his value, but realistically, it influences the value the Canucks are willing to take to move him substantially more than it influences other GMs to take on the contract if they feel the player will help them. When the asking price drops to zero, the effect the "Canucks cap squeeze" influences value also effectively hits zero.

There are 31 other GMs. If someone wanted him for free, he would have moved. (assuming Seravalli was correct, of course)

 

[turkulad]

It works because there is this thing called leverage. When Vancouver was over the cap and needed to trade someone, the leverage is in the hands of teams trading for him. I guess you never have done negotiations in your life if that concept isn't clear to you

This.

As of now, we don't need to trade Garland. We might do it if the right fit emerges, but we also have the cap space to take back cap dumps ourselves. We could also trade Boeser or Myers or Beau or Pod or whoever we feel like trading. We can also act when UFA season starts.

So if you want Garland, make a decent offer.

 

[Coffee]

Yeah, Garland is an animal on the outside. Don't let his size fool you, the guy is a grinder through and through. He's got some skill to back it up too.

Just gotta put it all together.

Exactly the type of player Canucks need to keep. He will be playing on the top line next year.

 

[Irie]

It works because there is this thing called leverage. When Vancouver was over the cap and needed to trade someone, the leverage is in the hands of teams trading for him. I guess you never have done negotiations in your life if that concept isn't clear to you

Leverage in this situation only really works when the parties involved are limited in numbers and when you are actually asking for something in return.

With 31 other GMs bidding up prices on desirable assets, anyone offered for free will be dealt if a single team wants to take on that player and their contract.

When the asking price is zero, and no one bites, regardless of what the sellers cap situation is, the interest is flat out just not there.

Perspective for those bringing up Bjorkstrand. Bjorkstrand was coming off 28 goals and 57 points. , Garland is coming off 17 goals and 46 points in a year when scoring is way up. Not great for a 5M dollar smaller winger.

I personally like Garland's skillset and think he is a fine player, but the reality is that at his full cap hit and being owed 17M, there are no takers for him without retention or Vancouver taking money back.

Canucks should just keep him. Vancouver doesn't worry as much about actual salary as much as most of the teams in the league, and he's a solid player and he brings a motor that makes him useful to them.

 

[jackjohnson]

Leverage in this situation only really works when the parties involved are limited in numbers and when you are actually asking for something in return.

With 31 other GMs bidding up prices on desirable assets, anyone offered for free will be dealt if a single team wants to take on that player and their contract.

When the asking price is zero, and no one bites, regardless of what the sellers cap situation is, the interest is flat out just not there.

Perspective for those bringing up Bjorkstrand. Bjorkstrand was coming off 28 goals and 57 points. , Garland is coming off 17 goals and 46 points in a year when scoring is way up. Not great for a 5M dollar smaller winger.

I personally like Garland's skillset and think he is a fine player, but the reality is that at his full cap hit and being owed 17M, there are no takers for him without retention or Vancouver taking money back.

Canucks should just keep him. Vancouver doesn't worry as much about actual salary as much as most of the teams in the league, and he's a solid player and he brings a motor that makes him useful to them.

I still don't think you get it, but it's ok. There were deals many times before from teams that were over cap and desperate. One example was how Vancouver got Ehrhoff for very cheap, 2nd round pick where everyone called it a steal yet it was from a SJ team with cap issues. When you have cap issues, team will take advantage and want to get the player for a steal and will wait til price drops. In this case Vancouver didn't fall for it and instead bought out OEL. Garland will now fetch a 2nd or a 3rd at a minimum in return but people that think we need to add a sweetner to Garland who makes only 4.95 mil are delusional

 

[Irie]

I still don't think you get it, but it's ok. There were deals many times before from teams that were over cap and desperate. One example was how Vancouver got Ehrhoff for very cheap, 2nd round pick where everyone called it a steal yet it was from a SJ team with cap issues. When you have cap issues, team will take advantage and want to get the player for a steal and will wait til price drops. In this case Vancouver didn't fall for it and instead bought out OEL. Garland will now fetch a 2nd or a 3rd at a minimum in return but people that think we need to add a sweetner to Garland who makes only 4.95 mil are delusional

I get exactly what you are saying, I just do not agree with your theory that a player that was offered for free and no team was interested in will all of a sudden garner interest because the team selling him suddenly has some cap space.

What you fail to understand is that Garland is owed 17M in actual dollars. Vancouver fans don't realize that most teams in the states and the smaller market Canadian teams work on budgets and not just the salary cap. That contract is awful in the eyes of most of the teams that have cap space. Chicago being the exception, but if they didn't want him when he was free, there is no chance they are giving up a 2nd or 3rd now for him just because the Canucks bought out OEL.

Your examples are of teams selling players for lower costs due to cap constraints, and that does happen, but we are not talking about the motivation of the selling team, we are talking about no team being interested in the player when the asking price was zero.(if seravalli was correct).

That is a huge difference that you seem to be equating as the same situation.

 

[Budz]

Clearly you have never seen him play

Responses like this are exactly what’s wrong with this place.

Instead of asking my why, or to justify my point further. You make a false assumption and add zero to a thread you created -ironically enough.

Perhaps next time title it - “Garland slurpfest- only people who believe that are welcome”. Just a thought???

 

[Maukkis]

Two things come to mind here:

1) the appetite for long-term cap commitment around the league is as low as it gets. Even if you have a good player on a non-trivial contract, trading them is extremely difficult, and it has been for a while. Best to assume that Garland has next to no trade value for now.
2) Vancouver should stop flip-flopping between contending and tanking every six months. Garland is far too good to be given away for free.

 

[ToDavid]

On the same contract, definitely. If Bunting got a couple more years of term in FA, I'd take Garland with an asset over him.

1 or 2 more years yes, but he’s likely coming in well under Garland’s $5m. I don’t really see him at much more than $4m.

 

[Izzy Goodenough]

The obvious solution is a team trades for Garland because it is a position of need and Canucks pick up a player, with a similar salary, from that team because they have an excess and the player fits a position of need for the Canucks.

Neither player would be traded as a salary dump on their own, therefore neither player has any value by themselves; they are "Free" to any team, but no team will touch either's contract without sending out a reciprocal one.

For example, Barclay Goodrow 3C (4x3.64M) for Garland 2RW/LW (3x4.95M) or something along those lines.


You know an old school hockey trade.

 

[justashadowof]

Yeah, Garland is an animal on the outside. Don't let his size fool you, the guy is a grinder through and through. He's got some skill to back it up too.

Just gotta put it all together.

Then why don't you keep him?

 

[Junohockeyfan]

Why are Nucks fans so desperate to trade Garland? No other team wants him unless they can dump similar salary in return for an upgrade.

Every Nuck trade in this forum has Garland in it. That's very apparent!

Leafs would be stupid to trade for him. He's what they don't need.

 

[Americanadian]

He was but Vancouver after buying out OEL aren't over the barrel like they were before. They still need to trade a winger if not two but aren't desperate. Saying that were not expecting much of a return at this stage either.

No he is not, Vancouver is not desperate to trade him

Timmins for Garland?

 

[Diamonddog01]

It is totally fair to say that the Canucks no longer are looking to move Garland, but if Seravalli's sources were accurate, and he was offered up for free and there were no takers, then the Canucks finding capspace does nothing to change the market for Garland. Offering him up for free again, he would still have no takers, let alone suddenly return assets.

You keep repeating this, it isn't exactly what he said. Here's the tweet in question:

Scoop: The Canucks are in salary cap jail and they know it. The rest of their summer plans cannot be enacted until they free up salary cap space, and they’ve been actively checking prices on Garland as their preference to move to alleviate their cap concerns. Garland, who played for Rick Tocchet in Arizona, is a scrappy but undersized winger who has struggled to find a comfortable fit in the Lower Mainland. With three years left at nearly $5 million, will a team take a flier? He’s essentially a free asset, as the Canucks have found teams that are asking for assets in return to take him off their hands.

The tweet indicates that the they Canucks were checking prices on him and the Canucks have found teams that are asking for assets in return. It doesn't say he was offered up for free - I suspect that the Canucks are asking for too much for him (ie a 2nd round pick or whatever) but teams were very aware of the Canucks cap crunch and using that as leverage. In any case we'll see how it plays out.

 

[EK392000]

I get exactly what you are saying, I just do not agree with your theory that a player that was offered for free and no team was interested in will all of a sudden garner interest because the team selling him suddenly has some cap space.

What you fail to understand is that Garland is owed 17M in actual dollars. Vancouver fans don't realize that most teams in the states and the smaller market Canadian teams work on budgets and not just the salary cap. That contract is awful in the eyes of most of the teams that have cap space. Chicago being the exception, but if they didn't want him when he was free, there is no chance they are giving up a 2nd or 3rd now for him just because the Canucks bought out OEL.

Your examples are of teams selling players for lower costs due to cap constraints, and that does happen, but we are not talking about the motivation of the selling team, we are talking about no team being interested in the player when the asking price was zero.(if seravalli was correct).

That is a huge difference that you seem to be equating as the same situation.

There were no takers because other GMs wanted more than just a free player. They wanted additional compensation for helping out VAN’s cap situation, which VAN refused to do.

Now that their cap situation is better, those GMs no longer have their leverage and Garland is no longer a cap casualty.

It wasn’t for a lack of value, it was just GMs trying to squeeze as much out of VAN as possible.

The time to pull the trigger on the trade would’ve been when they offered him for free.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Timmins for Garland?

Could be something here he's shown some promise over the years for sure. His development has suffered from a serious knee and head injury where he missed almost 2 years I believe. Timmons if fully healthy would definitely interest me but honestly he's someone Leaf's should hold on to for same reasons.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

Then why don't you keep him?

Because that's what Vancouver should do so they won't

 

[Cogburn]

Why are Nucks fans so desperate to trade Garland? No other team wants him unless they can dump similar salary in return for an upgrade.

Every Nuck trade in this forum has Garland in it. That's very apparent!

We were looking to move him to clear cap space, back when our management said they weren't looking to buy anyone out. But then Allvin bought out OEL, and we don't need cap space like we did, with 9+ million in space when Poolman is on the LTIR. We are not looking to dump him or anyone else, and especially not for a similar contract.

Every Nuck trade has Garland in it because every other teams fans are now conditioned to think Garland is someone we're paying to move, which we weren't inclined to do, and even less so now. If this logic carried through, every Leaf player that has been on the block in fans minds are worth less then nothing, since they appear in every Leafs affiliated trade including Holl, Kerfoot, Brodie, Muzzin, Robertson, Nylander or Rielly.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

We were looking to move him to clear cap space, back when our management said they weren't looking to buy anyone out. But then Allvin bought out OEL, and we don't need cap space like we did, with 9+ million in space when Poolman is on the LTIR. We are not looking to dump him or anyone else, and especially not for a similar contract.

Every Nuck trade has Garland in it because every other teams fans are now conditioned to think Garland is someone we're paying to move, which we weren't inclined to do, and even less so now. If this logic carried through, every Leaf player that has been on the block in fans minds are worth less then nothing, since they appear in every Leafs affiliated trade including Holl, Kerfoot, Brodie, Muzzin, Robertson, Nylander or Rielly.

But all the Garland trades are initiated by Nucks fans. Garland has zero value and possibly negative value this year. Next year may be a different story with the cap going up and 1 less year to his contract.

 

[Cogburn]

But all the Garland trades are initiated by Nucks fans. Garland has zero value and possibly negative value this year. Next year may be a different story with the cap going up and 1 less year to his contract.

I mean, right off that bat that first statement is wrong. Leafanforlife23 is definitely not a Canuck fan, and even assuming you meant most, I've seen about half of the Garland threads started by Canucks fans in the last 10+ pages of threads.

Even if that logic was true, Leafs fans being behind a high number of threads (which is what I assume you meant by "all") for your guys doesn't really dispute my point that half of the Leafs roster has been given the same treatment over the last year.

A physical, 50 point winger with sandpaper to his game won't be worthless, let alone negative value, at his cap hit or contract. Teams might not need another middle six winger, but that doesn't mean we're going to pay to remove him from our roster.

 

[Junohockeyfan]

I mean, right off that bat that first statement is wrong. Leafanforlife23 is definitely not a Canuck fan, and even assuming you meant most, I've seen about half of the Garland threads started by Canucks fans in the last 10+ pages of threads.

Even if that logic was true, Leafs fans being behind a high number of threads (which is what I assume you meant by "all") for your guys doesn't really dispute my point that half of the Leafs roster has been given the same treatment over the last year.

A physical, 50 point winger with sandpaper to his game won't be worthless, let alone negative value, at his cap hit or contract. Teams might not need another middle six winger, but that doesn't mean we're going to pay to remove him from our roster.

Calling him physical is stretching it. When you are barely 5'10, you are not intimidating anyone with your physicality. With the cap where it is, there is no way you are dumping Garland without salary coming back.