Management Threads | Structure. Standards. Habits.
- Thread starter Mr. Canucklehead
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
- Status
This question has nothing to do with this thread. Also, wait until the main part of the off-season is complete.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
All we need to is get into the playoff as anything could happen! Look at Vegas!
Reverend Mayhem
Tell me all your thoughts on God
It probably is Garland which I think would be incredibly stupid.
It does suck , but LTIR doesn’t even kick in until we are cap compliant so someone has gotta go .
I’m ok with trading Garland only because Hoglander should return to his rookie form and can replace that production
I’m not reading a pick tho to remove Garland tho no way am I attaching a 3rd or 4th we should be able to acquire a 2nd round pick for Garland
mriswith
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2011
- 4,745
- 8,795
I don't see a reason to pay to move Garland when the rumour last season was that Boeser could be traded with a small amount of retention. Even if you had to retain 1.65 on Boeser, I take Garland 10 times out of 10 over Boeser at the same cap hit
Bleach Clean
Registered User
- Aug 9, 2006
- 27,957
- 7,873
I’m not so sure teams see it the same way. Special teams utility is the issue. Garland isn’t likely to unseat a Boeser level talent on the PP. Nor is he a PKer. And the tweeners could be had for smaller AAVs etc… So it wouldn’t surprise me Garland wasn’t as favourable an asset compared to Boeser, each at $5m a piece. It’s his role in the top6 that is in question.
Last edited:
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
I wouldn't place much validity in that rumor. After all, why would anybody want a one dimensional player that isn't even THAT good at the one solid NHL skill he does have? (eg., never healthy enough to score 30 or more goals in a season yet). Sure at a cheap price but small amount of retention means he's still way overpayed for what he gives you (and has term on his contract).
Reverend Mayhem
Tell me all your thoughts on God
The way I see it is the classic one player has a much higher upside, one has a better floor. GMs love the upside potential and I don't blame them.
Cancuks
Former Exalted Ruler
Pass - doesn't really do anything or move the needle
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 22,463
- 19,019
That’s horrible for Vancouver , why would we save ourselves only 200 thousand dollars when we need to clear lots of money of the books to get cap space and move back in the draft aswell ?
Allvin laughs and walks away , and I think Kevyn Adam’s has better options and I think Buffalo trades that pick in a blockbuster for either a #1 goalie or a top 4 defenseman
Garland is a better player than Olofsson at 5v5. Olofsson’s only utility is on the PP and, while he’d be an upgrade on the second unit, it’s a net loss for the Canucks. The cap savings are minimal this season so you’re moving down two spots to save future cap space.
It’s a hard no for me.
brock hughes007
Registered User
There's a difference in what Vegas put on the ice,compared to what we have.
Vegas is a machine. We are are a flat tire.
Oh come on, what id flat tires do to you to deserve such grave, unprovoked insult.
But nope, you can't criticize anything this management or this team does, else you're just a negative Nancy who's ruining everything.
I can't under stand how anyone could say that shit with a straight face.
#789yearrebuild #anythingcanhappen #lividness
I would be willing to bet, Boeser has more value than Garland if both were on the same contract.
- Oct 9, 2012
- 34,339
- 33,548
What on earth? We drop in the draft to acquire a worse player and don't even save any cap space?
m9
m9
- Jan 23, 2010
- 25,107
- 15,230
I am going to be fascinated on what the return for Garland ends up being. Selfishly hoping it's a straight-forward deal so we can see exactly what he's worth. At this point I truly have no idea.
I would only really be interested if the Canucks had three guys in a flat tier and didn't care at all about that drop. Even still, would much prefer Boeser instead of Garland in that deal.
I would only really be interested if the Canucks had three guys in a flat tier and didn't care at all about that drop. Even still, would much prefer Boeser instead of Garland in that deal.
VanillaCoke
Registered User
- Oct 30, 2013
- 27,181
- 14,140
DS7
Registered User
credulous
Registered User
- Nov 18, 2021
- 4,335
- 5,851
- Status
