monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"
Conor Garland trade? | Page 2 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
  • Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Conor Garland trade?

ColdToiletSeats said:
once we sign Kane we're not gonna have enough space
Click to expand...
curious how the kane saga is going to go. If he cares about the american born points leader leaderboard like most have suggested, it would make sense to go to buffalo or here (specifically because of dbc chemistry). If he wants to win again, not sure if he would bite that bullet and sign here on a one year deal.
 
norrisnick said:
Garland is a cap dump. Barring a cap dump of our own or getting assets in addition it makes zero sense to trade for him.

If we want Garland on this roster, just call up Berggren instead.
Click to expand...
If Berggren played with Garland's jam he would already be on the team.

I think the only way this makes sense is if Chiarot is in the deal. Vancouver doesn't have a lot of prospects that intrigue me, so I want them taking one of our bad contracts back in terms of D-man.
 
I would take Garland without retention just as a thank you for gifting us ASP (and Nilsson) in exchange for the privilege of not overpaying Hronek.

What a colossally bone-headed move by Allvin. Imagine that blueline with Hughes and ASP in a couple years
 
The Zetterberg Era said:
If Berggren played with Garland's jam he would already be on the team.

I think the only way this makes sense is if Chiarot is in the deal. Vancouver doesn't have a lot of prospects that intrigue me, so I want them taking one of our bad contracts back in terms of D-man.
Click to expand...
If Garland played with the apparent jam he'd be staying in Vancouver.
 
Are people confident that Berggren is better than Garland? An I know he's 5 million and it's a cap dump. I was thinking a move to alleviate the log-jam for Edvinsson.

Too often these conversations get derailed by one posters obsession with money and not wanting to ever pay players. Red Wings have something like a smudge over 4 million, and a trade involving Maatta only adds something like 1.9 million.

Red Wings have something like 29 million in cap space next year, they have more than enough to pick up the extra money Garland would cost for the rest of this year and the 2 years after.

Sprong/Perron aren't signed after next year. After Debrincat, Raymond, Fabbri there isn't a ton of really good scoring players signed beyond next season.

A move like this improves scoring depth and allows your good rookie defensemen a pathway to the NHL(without injuries).

Now it's early, and if anyone thinks Wings got a shot at Kane for free(cap money), I understand why then you'd be hesitant to make any moves till he decides what to do.

I do agree with people thinking Vancouver could possibly have to throw something our way (low pick/prospect) because Wings are doing them the favor, not the other way around.

LHD Ollie Maatta X F Conor Garland, Vancouvers 5th round pick.
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty much sure Garland is not the type of players SY would go for.

Also don't trade Olli and play him. He is our best defensive D just after Seider. I barely notice him making a mistake.
 
Snuggs said:
Are people confident that Berggren is better than Garland? An I know he's 5 million and it's a cap dump. I was thinking a move to alleviate the log-jam for Edvinsson.

Too often these conversations get derailed by one posters obsession with money and not wanting to ever pay players. Red Wings have something like a smudge over 4 million, and a trade involving Maatta only adds something like 1.9 million.

Red Wings have something like 29 million in cap space next year, they have more than enough to pick up the extra money Garland would cost for the rest of this year and the 2 years after.

Sprong/Perron aren't signed after next year. After Debrincat, Raymond, Fabbri there isn't a ton of really good scoring players signed beyond next season.

A move like this improves scoring depth and allows your good rookie defensemen a pathway to the NHL(without injuries).

Now it's early, and if anyone thinks Wings got a shot at Kane for free(cap money), I understand why then you'd be hesitant to make any moves till he decides what to do.

I do agree with people thinking Vancouver could possibly have to throw something our way (low pick/prospect) because Wings are doing them the favor, not the other way around.
Click to expand...
Better? He had a better 22yo season than Garland did. It's more a matter of their relative impacts are close enough that it doesn't make any sense to take on $5M in salary unless Vancouver makes it more than worth our while. Like taking on Chiarot plus giving us something else on top of it. They need a defenseman and they need to free up salary to do it. The Wings do not need Connor Garland.

If we want to add a small middle 6 winger to the lineup, we've got those in spades. Don't need to take on anyone elses. Again, unless they make it worth our while.

Maatta for Garland and a 5th is just doing Vancouver a needless favor.
 
Snuggs said:
Sprong/Perron aren't signed after next year. After Debrincat, Raymond, Fabbri there isn't a ton of really good scoring players signed beyond next season.
Click to expand...
Burger, Kasper, Elmer, Danielson, Mazur, Lombardi, and Doucet. At least one of them will be ready, and I'll bet Perron re-signs for a reasonable deal.

As for making space for Ed, Ghost is on a 1 year contract and Petry is already in the press box.

I'd do it for Chiarot though, I have this ugly feeling he'll start sucking again after a few games.
 
Gniwder said:
Burger, Kasper, Elmer, Danielson, Mazur, Lombardi, and Doucet. At least one of them will be ready, and I'll bet Perron re-signs for a reasonable deal.

As for making space for Ed, Ghost is on a 1 year contract and Petry is already in the press box.

I'd do it for Chiarot though, I have this ugly feeling he'll start sucking again after a few games.
Click to expand...

Chiarot sucks now. Skate it to center, dump it in to nobody and start skating back into our end, and then rinse and repeat. Pass the puck to literally anyone else out there and let them do "offence"!
 
Garland and 1st for Maatta?

I really like Maatta but switch in Edvinsson. Trade Perron at deadline.

Maatta -> Edvinsson
Perron -> Garland
Plus a good 1st

Edit. Oops wrote it wrong. I meant the 1st comes our way.
 
Last edited:
norrisnick said:
Better? He had a better 22yo season than Garland did. It's more a matter of their relative impacts are close enough that it doesn't make any sense to take on $5M in salary unless Vancouver makes it more than worth our while. Like taking on Chiarot plus giving us something else on top of it. They need a defenseman and they need to free up salary to do it. The Wings do not need Connor Garland.

If we want to add a small middle 6 winger to the lineup, we've got those in spades. Don't need to take on anyone elses. Again, unless they make it worth our while.

Maatta for Garland and a 5th is just doing Vancouver a needless favor.
Click to expand...
I didn't suggest he had a better season than Berggren at 22, Idk why that's relevant right now. It's just, right now one player is better than the other without much question.

Idk, when someone suggest Vancouver should take Chiarot plus give Wings something, then yeah, you're just not in the right headspace. Garlands an actual useful/good player. Vancouver can(and will) trade him to another team for an actual useful player too vs anything like that suggestion.

I'll hit a nerve since I know some of your posting history...

Garland for Berggren straight up!

Leadzedder said:
Garland for Maatta and 1st?
Click to expand...
No way man, what the heck, if anything Vancouver would be giving a lower pick/prospect back to the Wings.

I'm not going go hyperbolic like Norris an suggest trading Chiarot plus receiving picks. Garlands an actual useful player. They'll be better players available later, so, not upset if no one wants him just pushing some convo early. He's one of the first names to pop up this year.

Quite frankly the best spot for Garland/trade partner is the Blue Jackets who have a surplus of defense and need scoring.
 
Last edited:
Snuggs said:
Idk, when someone suggest Vancouver should take Chiarot plus give Wings something, then yeah, you're just not in the right headspace. Garlands an actual useful/good player.

Pretty sure you're the same dude that wanted to give up seashells for Debrincat too till the actual trade went down. Hounding the thread making fun of everyone's ideas.

I'll hit a nerve since I know some of your posting history...

Garland for Berggren straight up!


No way man, what the heck, if anything Vancouver would be giving a lower pick/prospect back to the Wings.

I'm not going go hyperbolic like Norris but suggest trading Chiarot plus receiving picks. Garlands an actual useful player.

Quite frankly the best spot for Garland/trade partner is the Blue Jackets who have a surplus of defense and need scoring.
Click to expand...
My bad. I meant we get Garland and 1st.
 
Leadzedder said:
My bad. I meant we get Garland and 1st.
Click to expand...
Oh that's a slam dunk, easy yes then. Think anyone here would trade Maatta straight up for the 1st rdp, from any team.

Garland last two season he's produced around a Lucas Raymond level. Teams will actually want him without Vancouver giving up any picks. This isn't a traditional cap dump, where the guy being "dumped" essentially has no value or is old.
 
Last edited:
Snuggs said:
Oh that's a slam dunk, easy yes then. Think anyone here would trade Maatta straight up for the 1st rdp, from any team.

Garland last two season he's produced around a Lucas Raymond level. Teams will actually want him without Vancouver giving up any picks. This isn't a traditional cap dump, where the guy being "dumped" essentially has no value or is old.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Gotcha. Personally I wouldn’t want to give assets up for him (at least not much)

In a dump situation that paid us sure. But I’d much rather have Maatta.
 
Snuggs said:
I didn't suggest he had a better season than Berggren at 22, Idk why that's relevant right now. It's just, right now one player is better than the other without much question.

Idk, when someone suggest Vancouver should take Chiarot plus give Wings something, then yeah, you're just not in the right headspace. Garlands an actual useful/good player. Vancouver can(and will) trade him to another team for an actual useful player too vs anything like that suggestion.

I'll hit a nerve since I know some of your posting history...

Garland for Berggren straight up!
Click to expand...
There is plenty of question. Vancouver has given Garland's representation permission to try and find a trade. That's not the kind of player with positive trade value.

Garland for Berggren is throwing cap space away without getting anything meaningful for it.
 
Latest rumour is that Canucks are ready to eat 30% of Garland caphit.

That makes to --> 3.4M.

That's a damn good contract.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top
-->->