AV.

Probably a good thing that he's gone.

In this game, I will send the mafia to the Depps of hell and ensure they will not be Heard. In.

John Herdman at Burnley would be funny.

EDM releases: L O U I E R I K S S O N Phillip Di Giuseppe Juuso Riikola Ryan Fitzgerald

Oh, ok, if you insist

"We'll never know" could be said for anything if you want to try hard enough to seek any possible explanation than the one provided. We don't need to do that here, though. Facts are, Garland was an RFA, Arizona made no efforts to communicate about a new contract, and he was dealt. Dots connect pretty easily. And, no, FranK Seravalli is connected to individuals and groups within the game of hockey. His word holds water.

If not to Vancouver, he'd be playing elsewhere. I think that much can inferred from the DailyFaceoff article. We went down this path because the user asked for a source on Arizona not wanting to bring back Garland. When provided, the user deflected it by insisting that it must have been a case similar to Toffoli (it wasn't). Fine for them to have that opinion, but not really the truth, based on reports that have come out.

"Arizona had no immediate cap problems (beyond figuring out how to reach the floor) like Tampa Bay did. Really, if Arizona had any pressure, it was figuring out how to move OEL to get rid of his long-term contract and to move on from a player that had soured on the organization. But I say they escaped pretty well to recoup a series of picks, a series of expiring contracts, and to only do all that at the cost of moving a winger they weren't too interested bringing back anyway. So, yeah, a great comparison to show, once again, Benning paying a premium to help teams fix their issues". This was the original topic of discussion. This deflect discussion about Toffoli vs Garland only stemmed from the user looking to compare the situations and imply that Arizona was in the same boat as Vancouver, but as I pointed out, Arizona was not looking to keep Garland and Vancouver *was* looking to keep Toffoli.

Yes, I acknowledged that a detail in two cases were similar, although, that "similarity" did not bear any importance to the topic of discussion, hence making the two cases "not at all similar". The "similarity" was superfluous to point out in the first place, just as it would be to point out that both teams are NHL teams, both individuals are NHL players, and both players play the same position, and using that to imply the cases are similar.

No, I really didn't lmfao. I acknowledged that similarity many times, but articulated that it wasn't relevant to the topic. Can't help if you ignore the latter.

This is CDC, not Argumentation Studies 4001. If you and some other user would like to focus on circumstantial similarities and try to make that the focal point, by all means. Hope that helps.

Because that wasn't the point of what I was originally discussing with them. The fact that poor communication may have existed in both scenarios is just a coincidental circumstance and not at all to do with the point. It was only brought up as "gotcha" (read back to when they say a comment about "your ilk") to deflect away from what we were discussing about Tampa Bay. Are we going to sit here and say that Arizona/Vancouver are both NHL teams and Garland/Toffoli are both NHL players, oh and both are RWs, and, therefore, the cases are similar because those commonalities exist? Of course not, because they aren't relevant.

Nope, you're misinterpreting. Toffoli was ghosted, but it just so happens that Benning didn't actually want Toffoli to leave, which makes ghosting that player even more bizarre. As I have already said multiple times, the key difference here is that Garland wasn't being brought back by Arizona, whereas Toffoli was being considered for extension but didn't hear anything from the team. The only similarity is "poor communication" but one instance was deliberate, and the other one was because of a failure to multitask.

Respectfully, it is not AT ALL the same. Armstrong ghosted Garland, moved him on, nothing was said about regret not signing him or bringing him back. Benning ghosted Toffoli (and Tanev, by extension) because he was chasing Barrie and OEL, came out and expressed regret at not signing either guys and admitted he ran out of time. Toffoli and Tanev themselves have alluded to this being the truth, numerous media members have also confirmed this. So, no, not hard to say or see. It's in plain sight. But, yes, "poor communication" is the theme here, except one was deliberate because there wasn't interest in bringing the player back, and the other was because of incompetence to multi-task in free-agency. If you'd like to find a proper comparison, here is Shawn Matthias talking about how the Canucks didn't have a single conversation with him about extension. You know, sometimes teams decide they want to move on from players. That obviously wasn't the case with Toffoli in VAN like it was with Garland in ARZ and Matthias in VAN.

That's not the point. This isn't about him being a good GM, or if this is a good or bad move. The user, despite being presented reputable evidence, "couldn't believe" that Arizona would walk away from Garland and tried to spin it as the same situation that happened with Toffoli in VAN, where incompetence couldn't get the signing over the line. I was trying to dumb it down (as I usually have to) that Arizona's reasons for walking away had nothing to do with poor time management and more to do with wanting to move on from the player and use cap-space differently. Nothing to do with it being a "good" move or not.

Sigh. Has Bill Armstrong has been running the team for the last 25 years? C'mon now...

Ok, well, thanks for sharing your opinions on what's good and isn't good in general management and front office operations. If you believe (1) Garland is better for the Arizona Coyotes in 2022 than multiple picks and prospects to be gained from using cap-space to take on bad deals so that one those picks and prospect may help to be part of a contender in the future, by all means.

Well, if you are choosing not acknowledge what the article is telling you, that's just willful ignorance on your part lol. I think Arizona realized the price to keep Garland may have been better spent on differently, perhaps, weaponizing cap-space to gain picks/prospects, and that's why they decided to move on from him.

Well, first off, thanks for linking the article. That said, Miller was clearly the #1 question mark ahead of the others, and the speculation was clear enough a few years ago that it would be Miller to go. Miller's reputation as a team player in NYR + his deployment in Tampa Bay made him a top choice to be moved. And again, not having certain movement protections was the key in making a deal happen. The "premium" was not holding Tampa Bay to the sword where we could and should have. History knows teams have put us to the sword many times, history shows other teams holding each other to the sword (Colorado getting Devon Toews is a great example). But, in this case, you believe that other teams were offering similar deals to Vancouver and that Tampa Bay had contingency plans. I don't believe that was the case, so better to agree to disagree at this time.

It's not comparable at all, beyond the fact that the communication in both scenarios was non-existent. The key difference here is that Arizona didn't care to bring back the player and were set on moving him, whereas the Canucks *did* want to bring Toffoli back. How is that hard to understand? Better yet, why do you even think this scenario is comparable?

Don't recall Bill Armstrong coming out to the media and crying that he ran out of time to sign Garland.

https://nhltradetalk.com/zero-communication-between-coyotes-conor-garland/ According to DailyFaceOff.com’s Frank Seravalli, there have been no developments between the Arizona Coyotes and restricted free agent forward Conor Garland on a new contract. The only problem is, the Coyotes aren’t bothering to get back to Garland’s agent after the player’s side submitted two contract proposals, as per the request of Coyotes’ GM Bill Armstrong.

1. Palat and Killorn have never been a serious options. It was Miller or Johnson. And as we've seen in history, Miller and Johnson both moved out, Killorn and Palat still thriving and still playing important roles. This idea and this "speculation" is completely made up by some of Benning's goblin cronies on this forum because they can't fathom thinking of a reality where their favourite GM jumped the gun and paid a premium on a guy that needed to go. No matter how much evidence is out there of him making trades in this vein where he overpays and doesn't do his due diligence, they refuse to believe that Miller was not one of those. In their heads, they honestly believe he did a great job to pay full market value to a team that had virtually no leverage. Well and truly some of the most foolish fans in sports history. And make no mistake, Miller has been a stellar addition, but it doesn't change the fact that the price paid was massive. We could wake up tomorrow, move ten 1sts for Cale Makar, and he could become a perennial Norris winner, but I'm sure even you would agree that paying that sort of price isn't worth whatever happens on the ice, winning a cup aside. 2. I don't doubt Tampa Bay had options, but none were as great as Vancouver's offer, and probably by a landslide. A pair of 2nds from a contending team? A pick and prospect? Cheaper alternative? Sure, they were probably offered that or had discussions on that. A 1st and 3rd from a team that missed the playoffs the previous four seasons? Hell no, not a chance a team that was in a similar position to Vancouver was offering that. BriseBois probably couldn't believe his ears when that offer came in. 3. Arizona had no immediate cap problems (beyond figuring out how to reach the floor) like Tampa Bay did. Really, if Arizona had any pressure, it was figuring out how to move OEL to get rid of his long-term contract and to move on from a player that had soured on the organization. But I say they escaped pretty well to recoup a series of picks, a series of expiring contracts, and to only do all that at the cost of moving a winger they weren't too interested bringing back anyway. So, yeah, a great comparison to show, once again, Benning paying a premium to help teams fix their issues.

Good for Nashville. Killorn is still in Tampa Bay, and since the Miller trade, Tampa Bay has moved numerous contracts (with and without trade/movement protection) Doesn't sound like a player that was seriously looked at for being moved. Hope that helps.