Proposal: Leafs - Canucks and More
- Thread starter LucicAndChong
- Start date
Not enough for Garland. Signed long term, very cap friendly, and is an excellent player. Also we just got him and he is exactly what we need on this team.
IF we traded him, Liljegren + 1st would be a starting point for Van or not interested.
IF we traded him, Liljegren + 1st would be a starting point for Van or not interested.
Canadian Canuck
Hughes4Calder
Leaf Fans
Registered User
- Sep 29, 2017
- 20,979
- 9,101
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,866
- 11,974
LucicAndChong
formerly known as Big Sugar
as a player no, but if it’s taking his entire 2 mil with nothing in return he might be
LucicAndChong
formerly known as Big Sugar
why not?
tough, willing to play nasty, 25 years old, 0.75ppg average, sub $5 million for 5 years.
that’s perfect for this group going forward.
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,866
- 11,974
A 1st round pick and a prospect recently drafted 15th overall is not what I would value Garland at, plain and simple.
Maybe one of those assets and lesser addition on top but the Leafs are mostly fine at wing anyway.
If another team wanted to outbid me in that exact scenario, I would let them have at it.
hamzarocks
Registered User
Kerfoot will bring a 2nd or a 2 3rds at the draft.
He's having a strong year offensively. We most likely have to move him + 1 of Ritchie/Holl to fit in Campbell's upcoming raise (3.5-4.5M increase I'm expecting).
Holl straight up for a 3rd and a 4th. Helps the Leafs recoup some picks in this year's draft.
Engvall if we deal Holl, I wouldn't trade. Keep him as depth and let him and Ritchie rotate spots on the 4th line
He's having a strong year offensively. We most likely have to move him + 1 of Ritchie/Holl to fit in Campbell's upcoming raise (3.5-4.5M increase I'm expecting).
Holl straight up for a 3rd and a 4th. Helps the Leafs recoup some picks in this year's draft.
Engvall if we deal Holl, I wouldn't trade. Keep him as depth and let him and Ritchie rotate spots on the 4th line
Rather keep Garland. Even if the Canucks are rebuilding. Just brings that element that every team wants.
Not untouchable, but you'd have to overpay significantly.
Not untouchable, but you'd have to overpay significantly.
Boondock
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2009
- 5,780
- 2,390
Garland was just traded for the 9th overall (basically - I understand there was more to that trade) not speaking to his perceived value, but the Canucks would be pretty stupid to trade a 9th for Garland and then trade him away for a much lower 1st round pick 4 months later. I can understand the hesitance to trade a 1st and a recent 1st round prospect for Garland - but just one of those assets coming back in a Garland deal would be brutal asset management by Vancouver (so its a possibility).
WTFMAN99
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 33,866
- 11,974
Quite a few cap dumps went the other way which kind of necessitated an attractive pick attached to it.
I think the Canucks should keep him, seems like the least of their problems.
Boondock
Registered User
- Feb 6, 2009
- 5,780
- 2,390
Agreed about the cap dumps, but we took on OEL as well so its sort of cap dumps for oel, 9th for garland - but that is definitely over simplified. I also don't think the Canucks should be moving Garland.
