Value of: Conor Garland

[Djp]

that’s why I mentioned a swap of him for a lesser C or D since most teams are tight against the cap for next season.

There's no way Nashville is going to be anywhere near the cap next year without making some major signings. They have 12 F 6D 2G = 20 players signed and still have 13.9M in cap space with a 83.5M cap. They have 3 RFA to sign in Carrier, Glass, and Foote. Combined, all 3 would be lucky to take up 9M in cap combined. Even if the 3 combined took 9M in cap, that leaves Nashville with 4.9M cap space.

Swapping Sissons + for Garland takes about 2M. Swapping Sissons + Glass for Garland + would equate to Nashville not losing any cap space. The reason I think Nashville could be of interest is because they have 6 NHL C (Duchene/Johansen/Novak/Parssinen/Glass/Sissons). Only Duchene/Sissons play wing. That still leaves them with 4 C all of which ideally need top 9 roles.
Glass is the worst of the bunch so it would make sense to sell him now that he has recouped some trade value. For Vancouver, Glass fits the mold of former 1st round pick in the 21-24 age range player they are looking for in trades.
Sissons would be a 4th line winger for for Nash with the acquistion of Garland so it would make sense to move him and his 2.85M in this deal too. For the Canucks, they only have Mikheyev as a defensively responsible winger, so Sissons would be perfect on the wing on the 3rd line for them where Garland slots now.

They aren’t trading Sissons for that. He has positive value. Garland is very negative.

they aren’t trading Glass.

 

[Coffees]

maybe dvorak plus something small

No deal

 

[Canuck Luck]

They aren’t trading Sissons for that. He has positive value. Garland is very negative.

they aren’t trading Glass.

Garland definitely isnt negative value let alone very negative. Neiderreiter was traded for a 2nd round pick. In the UFA market Palat got 6M x 5 or Smith 5M x 3 or Perron 4.75M x 2, Marchment got 4.5M x 4. Garland is right at market value for a 50 point winger. Now that may hold 0 trade value, but as long as similar players are getting similar or more salary, it means teams would take him for free at worst. Given theres precedent of a 45 point winger making 4M returning a 2nd, a 50 point winger making 4.95M isnt far off in salary and production. Not to mention the 50 point player is also 3 years younger.

If either one was a negative value asset it would be Sissons. Dickinson had a 2nd round pick attached to him whom is a comparable at 2.65M x 2, albeit a worse player, but not by much. In the UFA market Athanasiou got 3M x 1, Kubalik + Lindblom each got 2.5M x 2, Jarnkrok got 2.1M x 4, Sturm got 2M x 3. The market on 25-30 point defensively responsible players is 2-2.5M. That makes Sissons 2.85M slightly above market value given that a 35-40 point defensively responsible player in Athansiou was going for 3M x 1.

Its much easier to find a Sissons in the UFA market. There are usually a few guys available for league minimum to 1.5M that could replace him more than adeqautely. You'd be hard pressed to be able to replace a Garland for 4M or less unless you're risking on signing a guy coming off a down year, a 1 well above average career year, or major injuries.

 

[Horvat1C]

I think the most realistic one I've seen is Garland for Granlund as a base. PIT has the space to acquire another winger. I like it because I think solidifying 3C is critical and that Granlund can be a good player for us in that role. Plus his contract is shorter.

 

[majormajor]

wasnt looking to do all that. I was just stating those are the Canucks off-season plans. Ideally they just trade Garland for a pick but since most teams are close to being capped out, it's likely the Canucks have to take a roster player back. That roster player would ideally be a C or D at the same or lesser cap hit.

Teams I could see perhaps having interest are:
Carolina (competitive team that likes analytic players)
Columbus (have troubles signing players and lack middle 6 wingers)
Nashville (competitive team that fits Garland's playstyle)

Carolina likely would be something like Garland + pick/prospects for Kotkaniemi
Columbus would be just a cap clearing move like Garland for Bemstrom + pick/prospect
Nashville would be a semi cap clearing move like Garland + for Glass + Sissons

See I actually want Garland for the Jackets, I'm just not sure there's room. The 3rd line wing already has several candidates for it with Texier, Voronkov, and Danforth all coming, and Foudy and Chinakhov having a chance if they step up. I would prefer Garland over some of those guys but I'm iffy on the three year cap commitment. The Jackets have bigger priorities.

I mean, they all play for Columbus, so they must all be total garbo who wouldn't even make any other team's rosters, amirite.

Chinakhov was left in Cleveland after his rehab stint finished to help push the Monsters to the AHL playoffs, not because he isn't goot enough to play in Columbus. Yes, Bemstrom is probably on his way out, but Columbus also has Texier possible returning from a year away, Danforth coming back from his shoulder injury next season, Voronkov coming over from Russia, plus a possible top three 2023 pick who will amost certainly start at wing in the NHL. There just is not room for Garland. They've got enough birds-in-hand who don't cost them picks or prospects to acquire. It's not like they'll be much more competitive next season than they are this year.

Garland isn't costing picks or prospects. There might actually be a chance for a nice change of scenery trade with Garland for Roslovic. I probably say no just because of the three year cap commitment.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

If Dubas is still GM following this season I'm willing to bet he's a target either via trade, or if Vancouver decides to buy him out which I believe would be a stupid thing to do.

We know Dubas tried to get him when he was available in Arizona and there were reports of him trying again this year..

Kerfoot will be gone, maybe Bunting too so there is going to be at least 1 spot, maybe 2 open at LW.

Garland would be the ideal Kerfoot replacement.

 

[Hierso]

I wouldn't mind trading for Garland, but i also wouldn't give up much to do so.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

I wouldn't mind trading for Garland, but i also wouldn't give up much to do so.

That's fair, with tight cap space, he's probably only going to get a 2nd rounder at best, but he actually has value. Gritty, hard worker, a monster 5on5.

 

[Hierso]

That's fair, with tight cap space, he's probably only going to get a 2nd rounder at best, but he actually has value. Gritty, hard worker, a monster 5on5.

That's why i would trade for him. I think he's overlooked and would probably be a great guy on most teams.

I'd do Garland + 4th for a 2nd rounder but that's just me.

 

[Bjornar Moxnes]

That's why i would trade for him. I think he's overlooked and would probably be a great guy on most teams.

I'd do Garland + 4th for a 2nd rounder but that's just me.

If the Flames didn't have cap space issues I'd legit want Garland. If the Flames trade Toffoli, maybe they can make a deal for Garland?

 

[Djp]

Garland definitely isnt negative value let alone very negative. Neiderreiter was traded for a 2nd round pick. In the UFA market Palat got 6M x 5 or Smith 5M x 3 or Perron 4.75M x 2, Marchment got 4.5M x 4. Garland is right at market value for a 50 point winger. Now that may hold 0 trade value, but as long as similar players are getting similar or more salary, it means teams would take him for free at worst. Given theres precedent of a 45 point winger making 4M returning a 2nd, a 50 point winger making 4.95M isnt far off in salary and production. Not to mention the 50 point player is also 3 years younger.

If either one was a negative value asset it would be Sissons. Dickinson had a 2nd round pick attached to him whom is a comparable at 2.65M x 2, albeit a worse player, but not by much. In the UFA market Athanasiou got 3M x 1, Kubalik + Lindblom each got 2.5M x 2, Jarnkrok got 2.1M x 4, Sturm got 2M x 3. The market on 25-30 point defensively responsible players is 2-2.5M. That makes Sissons 2.85M slightly above market value given that a 35-40 point defensively responsible player in Athansiou was going for 3M x 1.

Its much easier to find a Sissons in the UFA market. There are usually a few guys available for league minimum to 1.5M that could replace him more than adeqautely. You'd be hard pressed to be able to replace a Garland for 4M or less unless you're risking on signing a guy coming off a down year, a 1 well above average career year, or major injuries.

Palat was a bad contract.

most teams have a young forward they could play on a lower contract so the ROI Is better. Some are close to 0.5+ ppg. Perron was a shorter contract…..he has 1 yr left, not 3. With many teams they have a 3 yr plan in developing youth.

Sissons is actually very good for his role. He has a different role thats in s bottom 6.

Again who has $5M in cap space and needs a player like him? If they drafted a winger with their 1st, why not just play that player? Production will likely be similar.

look at Rangers for Goodrow. He’s a C with 4 full year at around 3.5M. Wait…they need to unload his salary to sign their kids.


other than a trade of equal cap players who are around the same Is your best bet. Unloading thr salary will cost a sweetener.

 

[rockinghockey]

People have to understand Garland was a monster 5on5 producer last season and still quite useful in that role this season as well. He still has value even if limited.

Another bad contract from GMs. A lot of those in the NHL

 

[Canuck Luck]

Palat was a bad contract.

most teams have a young forward they could play on a lower contract so the ROI Is better. Some are close to 0.5+ ppg. Perron was a shorter contract…..he has 1 yr left, not 3. With many teams they have a 3 yr plan in developing youth. Also expecting a 18 year old you just drafted to come in and put up 40+ points is a rec

Sissons is actually very good for his role. He has a different role thats in s bottom 6.

Again who has $5M in cap space and needs a player like him? If they drafted a winger with their 1st, why not just play that player? Production will likely be similar.

look at Rangers for Goodrow. He’s a C with 4 full year at around 3.5M. Wait…they need to unload his salary to sign their kids.


other than a trade of equal cap players who are around the same Is your best bet. Unloading thr salary will cost a sweetener.

I agree palat was a bad contract to give out but it still shows teams are willing to pay 4.5-6M for a garland level player if they are getting the player for free.

Also a lot of teams have 5M in cap space that they could use for Garland. Now most of those teams are tanking teams so they likely wouldn’t pay much for garland given they aren’t competing and have some young players that they are trying to develop. That doesn’t include their recent 1st round selection for the draft. Expecting an 18 yr old to produce at a 40+ point pace immediately is a recipe for failure. Look at all the top prospects the last few years. Which ones in their first year made the nhl? Which ones in their first nhl season were 40+ point players that didn’t need a lot of sheltering?for as many that can in their 1st season, there’s just as many that don’t. Also it’s rare that these guys even make the nhl at 18. Look at this past draft. Only 1 1st round pick plays in the nhl from the last draft. Slafkovsky is doing horribly and doesn’t belong in the nhl. Playing in the nhl is ruining his development. There’s only 2 guys that likely make the nhl from this upcoming draft next season. Both are centers in bedard and fantilli.

Idk what goodrow has to do with anything. Obviously a cup contender can’t afford to have a 4C making 3.5M. That was a luxury that teams generally can only afford when they either have a steal of a contract like mackinnon or a bunch of young players on elc or 2nd contracts break out. It’s not like they have someone better. Now that’s it’s come time to pay up, 3.5M for a 4C is the 1st thing you look to move.
A 5M 50 point 2nd/3rd line winger is moved when there’s a cap crunch and the team has a young player that’s a 35+ point winger already to take his spot. If he’s playing on your 2nd line and you’re in a cap crunch, it means the team has other more inefficient contracts that probably can’t be moved without a huge premium attached.

In an ideal world the Canucks keep garland. They don’t have a better winger nor do they have a winger that they hope could be as good in the next 1-2 years. They do have some wingers that they could try and hope are semi adequate though. The issue is they have 2 3rd pairing dmen making a combined 13.2M causing a cap crunch. Those inefficiencies along with the fact the Canucks are overloaded with wingers means garland is a candidate to be moved.

 

[blankall]

If the Flames didn't have cap space issues I'd legit want Garland. If the Flames trade Toffoli, maybe they can make a deal for Garland?

He's not what the Flames need right now. The Flames have a bunch of middle six forwards that have some jam and can put up 40-50 points.

 

[toddkaz]

Olofsson for Garland

 

[DingDongCharlie]

I agree palat was a bad contract to give out but it still shows teams are willing to pay 4.5-6M for a garland level player if they are getting the player for free.

Also a lot of teams have 5M in cap space that they could use for Garland. Now most of those teams are tanking teams so they likely wouldn’t pay much for garland given they aren’t competing and have some young players that they are trying to develop. That doesn’t include their recent 1st round selection for the draft. Expecting an 18 yr old to produce at a 40+ point pace immediately is a recipe for failure. Look at all the top prospects the last few years. Which ones in their first year made the nhl? Which ones in their first nhl season were 40+ point players that didn’t need a lot of sheltering?for as many that can in their 1st season, there’s just as many that don’t. Also it’s rare that these guys even make the nhl at 18. Look at this past draft. Only 1 1st round pick plays in the nhl from the last draft. Slafkovsky is doing horribly and doesn’t belong in the nhl. Playing in the nhl is ruining his development. There’s only 2 guys that likely make the nhl from this upcoming draft next season. Both are centers in bedard and fantilli.

Idk what goodrow has to do with anything. Obviously a cup contender can’t afford to have a 4C making 3.5M. That was a luxury that teams generally can only afford when they either have a steal of a contract like mackinnon or a bunch of young players on elc or 2nd contracts break out. It’s not like they have someone better. Now that’s it’s come time to pay up, 3.5M for a 4C is the 1st thing you look to move.
A 5M 50 point 2nd/3rd line winger is moved when there’s a cap crunch and the team has a young player that’s a 35+ point winger already to take his spot. If he’s playing on your 2nd line and you’re in a cap crunch, it means the team has other more inefficient contracts that probably can’t be moved without a huge premium attached.

In an ideal world the Canucks keep garland. They don’t have a better winger nor do they have a winger that they hope could be as good in the next 1-2 years. They do have some wingers that they could try and hope are semi adequate though. The issue is they have 2 3rd pairing dmen making a combined 13.2M causing a cap crunch. Those inefficiencies along with the fact the Canucks are overloaded with wingers means garland is a candidate to be moved.

Palat got that deal not for his regular season production but for his playoff resume. Palat has 43 playoff goals, 10 of them being game winning goals. He’s proven clutch and for a young team like Jersey with ample cap space for now it made sense to bring in a proven winner for the experience factor and mentorship for the young guys. There’s no market value comparison here to be made between Garland and his contract and why NJ felt overpaying to get Palat out of TB or another rival who’d be interested in the reasons I’ve already stated.

Jersey didn’t go here’s the opportunity to overpay in free agency for a guy putting up in the 40-50 point range in season.

There will be a market for a player who produces at 5v5. I wouldn’t expect much return as too many teams are in a cap crunch so Vancouver likely would have to take cap back in a trade also. If looking to take no cap back the market for him would dwindle.

 

[Porter Stoutheart]

that’s why I mentioned a swap of him for a lesser C or D since most teams are tight against the cap for next season.

There's no way Nashville is going to be anywhere near the cap next year without making some major signings. They have 12 F 6D 2G = 20 players signed and still have 13.9M in cap space with a 83.5M cap. They have 3 RFA to sign in Carrier, Glass, and Foote. Combined, all 3 would be lucky to take up 9M in cap combined. Even if the 3 combined took 9M in cap, that leaves Nashville with 4.9M cap space.

Swapping Sissons + for Garland takes about 2M. Swapping Sissons + Glass for Garland + would equate to Nashville not losing any cap space. The reason I think Nashville could be of interest is because they have 6 NHL C (Duchene/Johansen/Novak/Parssinen/Glass/Sissons). Only Duchene/Sissons play wing. That still leaves them with 4 C all of which ideally need top 9 roles.
Glass is the worst of the bunch so it would make sense to sell him now that he has recouped some trade value. For Vancouver, Glass fits the mold of former 1st round pick in the 21-24 age range player they are looking for in trades.
Sissons would be a 4th line winger for for Nash with the acquistion of Garland so it would make sense to move him and his 2.85M in this deal too. For the Canucks, they only have Mikheyev as a defensively responsible winger, so Sissons would be perfect on the wing on the 3rd line for them where Garland slots now.

If Garland was a UFA, I could see signing him for something like 1- or 2-years at $4Mish. Just because in Nashville we do have some Cap space, and after all the deadline trades it's possible we will have 1 opening for a top-9 winger. For now, we pencil in Kiefer Sherwood as that player, but he's a UFA and while he has some of the tenacity that Garland does, it's not at all certain he can truly stick.

But I wouldn't trade anything from the current Nashville lineup to secure Garland on his current contract as "the solution" to that very mild need. Not Glass alone, not Sissons alone, certainly not both of them together. Glass has played well and we look to him to be a top line C for us next season. Sissons is a reliable anchor C for our checking line and an important leader on the team. We need both of those components when constructing our team for next season more than we need to target Garland specifically as the answer to our mild need for a winger.

If we can't re-sign Sherwood or have somebody step up from within, we'll just sign some filler body on the UFA market, not trade assets for Garland. There are going to be a lot of adequate UFAs available, and not a lot of money around the league to sign them, so I think we can do just fine picking up a short-term fill-in on a very reasonable contract. We're not looking for any premium longer term solution here, just a short-term band-aid. Sherwood would be just fine if it came to that.

It's nothing against Garland, it's just we're not that desperate for a winger in what is likely to be a relatively supersaturated UFA market.