Rumor: Garland will be made available if Kuzmenko signs with Van
- Thread starter UrbanImpact
- Start date
Viqsi
"that chick from Ohio"
hotcabbagesoup
"I'm going to get what I deserve" -RutgerMcgroarty
Is this guy a team cancer or what? Third team in three years Some guys throw stuff like helmets at him.
Don't think so, Canucks have said cap shedding is important to them this season.
Draft picks might get it done.
Maybe they also combine Garland with another contract like a Poolman to shed even more salary and be happy with a Kuzmenko free asset and replacement plus the cap space.
I honestly thought Garland was already available.
I mean, yes, Kuzmenko would make one of our top six wingers obsolete if all goes well, but Miller, Boeser and Garland were already being mentioned as tradable assets already.
As others have said, a similarly aged/experienced RHD in a top four role is really what we'd need. Maybe Allvin/Rutherford has picks and prospects in mind for a rebuild, but I don't see that as as big a need, if we're trying to restructure the team (assuming MIller and Boeser aren't also gone) instead of a full on rebuild (which would mean this would be a much smaller move, in contrast).
I mean, yes, Kuzmenko would make one of our top six wingers obsolete if all goes well, but Miller, Boeser and Garland were already being mentioned as tradable assets already.
As others have said, a similarly aged/experienced RHD in a top four role is really what we'd need. Maybe Allvin/Rutherford has picks and prospects in mind for a rebuild, but I don't see that as as big a need, if we're trying to restructure the team (assuming MIller and Boeser aren't also gone) instead of a full on rebuild (which would mean this would be a much smaller move, in contrast).
Nah, our idiot former GM just went out and acquired completely redundant assets (top six wingers and offensive LHDs), and now the new guy has other ideas on what we need. Garland's been great for us, and seems really well liked by his team mates.
No not at all.
Awesome guys in the locker room and community. Well liked.
He is very much a pest to play againt.
In this case with Van it was a different GM that traded for him to come to Van
The new POHO and GM like to build their teams with size and speed so Garland might not necessarily be in their plans.
Kuzmenko would be a similar but cheaper replacement.
Absolutely not. One of my favourite Canucks. Elite 5v5 production with no PP time. Drives play like crazy and agitates. Already outproducing his bargain of a contract (IMO). Issue is that we have Boeser who has a qualifying offer of $7.5m and Garland has much more value for us to trade from a position of strength to address weaknesses (RHD)
FWIW, I’d much rather trade Miller/Boeser than Garland.
DeltaSwede
Registered User
Some of the speculations coming out of Vancouver recently don't make a lot of sense. Feels like journalists throwing darts on a board. They have nothing so there are rumours on everyone based on.. I guess reputation of Jimmy Rutherford not being afraid to make bold moves.
Not the direction I would go in but something has to give. Garland is one of the last players on my list to trade for all the reasons the op stated.
Not the direction I would go in but something has to give. Garland is one of the last players on my list to trade for all the reasons the op stated.
Kings certainly have the assets and defensive prospects that could get the deal done.
Though i would not be too happy trading him in division.
Garland is an absolute pest and menace to play against.
Why not trade Boeser instead? Garland had a solid year despite a long bad stretch. Almost all his points were even strength.
Boeser will cost more and will almost certainly sign for fewer than the 4 years Garland has left on his deal.
Boeser will cost more and will almost certainly sign for fewer than the 4 years Garland has left on his deal.
Jacob
as seen on TV
- Feb 27, 2002
- 50,230
- 26,902
He didn't do this in Pittsburgh. The Penguins were and are still small and they only became a speed team at Sullivan's behest.
They may not have worked out but size wise he has definitely targeted players such as
Gudbranson, Oleksiak, Bjugstad, Kapenen, Reaves, Hainsey etc...
Boeser will probably sign for short term like 3 yrs -6.5 mil.
He is also a sniper which Garland is not. Not to mention Boeser's stock is probably lower right than what it should be as he just played a year through injury and major family situations and you never want to trade players under those circumstances. Trade high buy low.
I'm not saying I wouldnt do it but I think management isnt exactly a fan of Garland's game.
Very true. I think the previous GM was extremely obvious and telling the world every move he was about to do, and the Vancouver media got use to it. Now the new regime doesnt open their internal discussions to the outside world so the speculation is outta control
MayorofWBS
Registered User
I'll give you Guds, Olekiak and Reaves. Hainsey/Kapenen are not big. Buyer beware of JR's trades for size. Nucks are going to hate them as they rarely work out.
Bjugstad was acquired in a "we'll take your crap you don't want for our crap we don't want" trade. He wasn't a targeted trade because we needed more size.
Guds, Olekiak and Reaves were targeted size trades but were traded out as fast as JR acquired them. None of those guys lasted long.
SoundwaveIsCharisma
Moderator
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
Round of 16 (4) Ocelari Trinec vs (13) Sparta PragueWagers: 10Staked: $765.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Round of 16 (7) Eisbären Berlin vs (10) Sheffield SteelersWagers: 6Staked: $1,826.00Event closes
- Updated: