MattWN.

Teams aren't that short sighted dude. If they had ANY interest in Garland, they would have Garland on their team right now. Why would they take the risk and wait for Vancouver to figure out their cap issue? It makes 0 sense. I think people need to realize the people who run NHL teams are capable of thinking ahead.

He's getting paid 20 million to do nothing, I'm sure he's okay with it. Now he can get paid even more to play in whichever city he wants (granted they're interested). He's the only winner here.

It doesn't matter what the timing is, Garland isn't all of a sudden going to be worth the 2nd round or whatever insane value you seem to be fixated on. The amount of batshit insane takes you have regarding his value is astounding. Again, the fact we just paid OEL to sit down is all the proof you should need that Garland is worthless. Lowry for Hoglander, B prospect, and mid round picks is a hell of a lot closer than the garbage takes you seem to pull out of your ass. What wave of free agents are going to change Garlands market? Please explain which teams are going to desperate to add Garland before the season starts.

Sure, that would be great, but C position has a lot more value than W. There are a bunch of teams out there with a glutton of wingers who are short on NHL calibre centres. There is just no reason for teams to be paying for an undersized winger on a average-below average contract with term. Guys like Pageau while not worth a lot, still are substantially more valuable for Garland for all the reasons you mentioned. Even if Pageau for Garland was a wash for contract lenth and dollar, you'd still need to add for the difference in position.

Sure, we aren't as desperate, but that doesn't all of a sudden make him valuable. Teams who could have had him for free yesterday aren't all of a sudden going to pony up assets. There are way too many teams in similar spots with competent players on average-bad contracts that can be had for nothing. Garland isn't a meter pusher unfortunately. There is a reason he doesn't see the PP on this team, and hasn't really found a role. I wasn't responding at any specific post for that rant. It was just a blanket reply to the numerous posts about trading Garland for a 2nd, or for Andrew Peeke, or any other RHD, or capable C. It's just not happening.

Jesus christ. Management/Ownership wouldn't have paid OEL 20 million to f**k off if they could have just traded Garland for a 2nd, or for another cheaper asset. The fact that they backed up a brinks truck to OELs door is all the proof this forum should ever need that Garland has no trade value, he has negative value if anything. It doesn't matter if you think he's a good player, his value based on his cap dollar and term is a negative asset for a winger who was #384 in points per dollar. Nobody is calling about Garland. You aren't getting Peeke for Garland. You aren't getting a cheaper effective C for Garland. Please stop.

Keep Myers until the deadline. Our right side after Rhonek is... nothing. If you move Myers, you're going to either be giving up high value assets to replace him via trade (goodbye 11th overall pick) or you're going to overpay on dollar and term in free agency for a guy like Graves for 6-7 years. If we can use OEL's money wisely, Myers could be bumped down to the 3rd pair, which would be an amazing spot for him to play reduced role/minutes. Wait until the TDL, and retain on Myers to send him to a contending team for a return far better than this. There really are few better options than him on the market without gutting any assets we have left.

He's still got this coming year on the books, so I'd assume he'd be kicking around at least until Christmas when they see where they stand. I think both ways you look at the Wilson angle, they both kind of show the lack of need for Garland. Either they lock him up, and Ovi's wing is taken (not that I think Garland would be effective there) OR they trade Wilson and his expiring deal for a substantial haul, in this case, they are surely rebuilding or at least going younger/taking a step back. Garland doesn't fit in this situation either. If there was any winger on the Canucks that might make a tiny bit of sense, it would be Boeser. Less term, and more of a proven commodity, with some potential upside if he can get back to being a pure goal scorer. I think you'd still be paying to move him though, even with our newly added cap space. Boeser and a 3rd for Washingtons 4th would be about right IMO. He still has negative value, like Garland.

PP with Ovi? What? Lol. What the hell does Garland do that would make Washington want to saddle OV with him on the PP. He'd be replacing Tom Wilson or Nik Backstrom on the wings. Neither is happening. Garland doesn't move the needle at all for Washington. No reason for them to lock into an undersized midcard player with 4 years left on a bloated contract.

Ok.. but literally every single team just had the opportunity to pick up Garland for basically free. They wouldn't have bought out OEL if Garland was an attractive asset. You think just because we have cap space now, a team is going to move off an 8th overall pick and an expiring contract for Garland and a pick 3 spots worse? lol Garland at his contract isn't an attractive asset. He was #384 in points per dollar for forwards, that isn't good. Washington can move Mantha with retention for assets (now or at the TDL), and draft an amazing player at 8th. There is no logic here. At all.

pls no.

Just shows that there were 0 teams interested in our wingers, without paying a massive price to move them. This team is still in trouble, make no mistake. Would have liked to see if OEL had any bounce back in him this year. Oh well. Onwards to more mediocrity.

Regardless of the cap, when you have 4.7 million dollars less to spend than your opponents, you're going to suffer the effects. That 3-4 window is likely when this team should be hitting it's stride (if things go well) It's going to hurt.

It's in his contract, I don't think you can just pay it whenever.

Why would Washington do this trade? They aren't really competing this coming year, they're going to be a middling team at best. If they hold on to Mantha, they could retain salary at the deadline and pick up some assets. Garlands term makes him way less attractive than Manthas expiring contract.

year 3-4 is when you'd expect this team to be firing on all cylinders (if things go as planned) having nearly 5 million dollars less to spend than all our opponents is going to be a real uphill battle.

Why didn't they just trade Garland for a 2nd, and Boeser for a 2nd, and Beau for a 2nd. Right CDC? At least that's what everyone in the Proposal forum was rambling about. Lunatics.

Bell: "Lets talk." Nah, JK. You're fired.

They don't need wingers though, like us they have massive holes at C. Theres no circumstance where they would be okay with taking a negative asset back for one of their biggest bargaining chips in Peeke. The dollar and term on Garland doesn't fit for a team that doesn't spend to the cap and needs to spend decent cash on a 1st line C to play with Jonny and Laine.

You're right. He isn't awful, he's just been put into a position where there was no option but to fail, on a dogshit team. Which is why he's worth.. *checks note* Conner Garland?

He's 6'2, but okay? https://www.nhl.com/player/tucker-poolman-8477359 And if Poolman was 24 not 30, and didn't have his brain turned into mush, he'd also have value on the trade market. Solid take though Alf.

100%, And if we're talking about a Garland - Peeke trade, that cost goes up. Don't tell CDC though, Garland is worth a 2nd himself supposedly.

Says the guy who thinks Garland is worth Peeke. I would guess most thinks shock you.

No, but they were both rentals, and a lot older than Peeke. Peeke has potential to grow, Chariot and Schenn are both what they are. Peekes cost controlled certainty for a 6'3 RHD is a massive value. If hes truly available, a team is going to be willing to bite a bullet to take a chance on him. 21 minutes in a shutdown role on one of the worst teams in the league is reason enough to excuse some of his numbers. Size and RH shot along with his age are all the teams are going to be looking at. If he didn't fetch a late 1st - early 2nd, I'd be shocked.

You're not taking into account it will take a 2nd round pick to move off of Garlands contract in the original proposal, the remaining value of acquiring Peeke would make up the difference, with maybe a 3rd coming back, which is what my original reply stated. I never said Peeke in a vacuum is worth a 1st. Garlands cost and term is a negative asset. Regardless of Peeke being a 4-5 defenceman skill wise, he played top 3 minutes last year which is going to inflate his cost. If guys like Chariot return a 1st plus, theres no reason to expect CBJ to be taking a cap dump as a return.