Proposal: MIN-SEA-VAN
- Thread starter Canuck Luck
- Start date
So, Vancouver takes on 2 cap dumps, gives up a solid top 6 winger and only gets a 1st?
Djp
Registered User
Seattle is not moving their 1st for that.
Sad People
Registered User
- Jun 4, 2021
- 4,316
- 2,012
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,243
- 12,389
If Vancouver was getting rid of some sort of actual salary problem they want to unload, maybe it'd make more sense. But they not only give up a Top-6 winger on a decent contract for basically cap dumps and a likely playoff/later 1st...they also give up a decent young/affordable depth defenceman too?
Garland isn't a bad contract. If he's the guy Vancouver decide to move to make some space, they'll be able to find a taker directly who will give more and/or not basically send just send dead end salary back the other way.
Seattle's RHD is more than fine.
Larsson is rock solid, Schultz has been decent and Borgen is playing great. They have Fleury in the pressbox too, and he honestly is more than capable playing in a third pairing role and should probably be playing in the league somewhere instead of sitting.
As an expansion team with close to zero farm, moving their first is also a terrible idea.
Larsson is rock solid, Schultz has been decent and Borgen is playing great. They have Fleury in the pressbox too, and he honestly is more than capable playing in a third pairing role and should probably be playing in the league somewhere instead of sitting.
As an expansion team with close to zero farm, moving their first is also a terrible idea.
Dickie Dunn
Registered User
biturbo19
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2010
- 27,243
- 12,389
Empoleon8771
Registered User
What do you think top-6 guys like Garland goes for? Just because Vancouver paid a top-10 pick for him doesn't mean another team would.
At best, Garland brings back a late 1st and mild addition
Ya, but if we take back cap he gets a bunch more depending on how much it will cost the acquiring team to dump said cap. We get less in that deal than you just mentioned AND take one 2 cap dumps.
Sure. But then what are the Canucks getting for giving up Dermott (not much) and taking on 5 million in cap dumps for this year, and 2 million for next year (should be a lot)?
We’re dumping 7.3M this year and 1.35M next year so it’s not much of an incoming cap hit. You have to take on cap for the current season to make any deal. What team has a prorated 5M in cap that would give up assets for garland?
Don't think Seattle should be dealing their first for a rental, as a new team they need to build their prospect pool.
This trade feels like a loss for at least two of the teams. And it’s not great for Minnesota if Garland doesn’t improve his play.
The rare lose lose lose 3 way proposal. Which is extra impressive because value seems somewhat fair and reasonable… yet each team is left worse off. You’ve pulled off a difficult feat.
The rare lose lose lose 3 way proposal. Which is extra impressive because value seems somewhat fair and reasonable… yet each team is left worse off. You’ve pulled off a difficult feat.
Last edited:
Garland makes a small MN team even smaller and while he is technically a Top 6 guy, he isn’t going to move the needle.
For me.
The right move for Minnesota is to retain 50% and trade Dumba for a 2023 1st from a playoff contender. The wild should hold him until that offer materializes and I strongly believe it will.
If Chiarot got a first. If Savard got a first. Dumba will certainly fetch a first.
Most Wild fans agree. Especially with Faber appearing to be NHL ready and a safe bet to step in this spring after the Gophers’ season ends
- Dec 10, 2012
- 40,563
- 18,903
Well the first draft pick of the new regime to play a game for us is Rossi and that didn't go well the first try, so we should pump the brakes slightly.
