[Proposal] Garland, Jurmo + 5th 2024 for Chytil, Lundkvist, Kravtsov + 3rd 2023

[Ilya Mikheyev]

To NYR: Conor Garland, Joni Jurmo, 5th round pick 2024

 

To Vancouver: Filip Chytil, Nils Lundkvist, Vitali Kravtsov, Colorado 3rd round pick 2023, 7th round pick 2023

 

Why

 

- NYR is without a top line RWer. After Laf was tried at RW last off-season and did not look like a top-6 player, Drury traded for Andrew Copp and Frankie Vatrano to fill the gap. NYR ended up going on a long playoff run - but both RWs left the team as FAs. Vinny Trochek is expected to fill the 2C hole not the first line RW

 

- Conor Garland is definitely a top-6 winger, and signed at a decent contract going forward. His 49 EV points last year in 77 games is impressive, and we all saw his fiestiness. With some reasonable PP time his point total would only increase.

 

- While losing Garland would be a huge hit for the Canucks, the Canucks' area of strength right now is the wing, and IMO they have to somehow shift that over abundance into places they still have gaps to fill

 

- This move would also give the Canucks more cap flexibility, something PA has been harping on since taking over

 

- Chytil can immediately step into a 3C position, allowed for Boudreau to load up the top-6 with Miller, Petey and Horvat in it. Chytil still hasn't hit his offensive potential but all his other #s are pretty strong

 

- Lundkvist and Kravtsov are both players who have requested trades if possible because NYR is so deep and opportunity is limited. They're both waiver exempt next year and would give the Canucks' strong depth to figure out the perfect team formation. Kravvy can also play C, a position where the Canucks in Abbotsford and Vancouver could use a little top-9 depth in case of injury, esp. if Boudreau wants to keep the 3 best players in the top-6. Lundkvist has big upside, is a RHD, won the Salming award in his last year in Sweden. He's good positionally and has a high-end offensive potential - a poor man's Sergei Gonchar at this point, but he's played on a team that has been extensively scouted by Patrik Allvin in Sweden and would come to Vancouver where there's a long history of Swedish mentorship still involved in the org (Gradin, Sedin x 2, Allvin, Petey, OEL, etc etc). Allvin and JR have also developed a trusting relationship with Dan Milstein this off-season, so this may be an environment Kravvy would be excited to be joining with Kuzie and Mikhe and Klimo having the same representation and language. 

 

- A minor addition to the trade is that Allvin gets a better, sooner draft pick as the Canucks try to quickly add to a barren prospect pipeline.

 

- Having Hoggie, Garlie, Kuzie, and Petey in the potential top-6 or top-9 do give the Canucks a pretty diminutive top-9, whereas Chytil adds a bigger frame to make up for the imbalance.

 

- Chytil was rumoured to be mentioned in the Miller-to-NYR deal, meaning there's some openness from both teams that he could be swapped.

 

- Overall the Canucks get younger, get two Cs and a RHD, and some cap flexibility. The Rangers get a definite top-6 winger while accommodating trade requests for another playoff run.

 

 

 

[JM_]

I could see us getting Lundkvist and Kravtsov for Garland, but I think they want/need to keep Chytil. 

 

Just can't see how the cap can work, unless they take Ferland from us. 

[Provost]

It would likely take more than that... but naturally I would do it, even without Chytil in the trade.

[BureBurrito]

Win for the Canucks but NYR does not do this trade

[BCNate]

I'd just leave it as:

 

Garland

for

Lundkvist

Kravstov

 

NYR would likely have to send some salary back.

[kloubek]

I can see where you're going here, but I think it's overpayment by the Rangers. While Garland would be a great acquisition (and more established) for the Rangers, Jurmo is a complete wildcard at the NHL level. Yet, all 3 Rangers you selected are (at least marginally) NHL-capable players with unknown ceilings. At minimum, I think we'd need to drop or possibly even flip around the 3rd and 5th to benefit the Rangers.

 

Additionally, while I like the fact we restock our cupboards a little here, we aren't necessarily getting what we require. We take on two forwards - one of which (Chytil) would obviously be put in the lineup, which is effectively going to STILL force someone who is capable out of the lineup. Kratsov may or may not play in the bigs this season would be a great addition to our depth and future so I like that addition. As for Lundkvist, I don't believe he's what we need. He's offensive-minded, but we already have Hughes, OEL, and Rathbone (who management looks to wish to use as a permanent 3LD if possible). I'm all for bringing in a young defenseman who can grow with us, but feel we are better off with a RD that is defensively inclined more than offensively inclined.

[Dixon Ward]

Kravtsov is a big no for me.  He has not come anywhere near a point per game in the KHL and he is 22.  A league where Brendan Leipsic, Curtis Valk, Nicklas Jensen, Markus Granlund all got close to a point per game.  If he was lighting it up over there, maybe. He also seems to have a bit of an attitude.

[Bobby James]

Maybe Garland for Chytil, Lundkvist and a 2nd or something like that. 
 

They get the best player by far. We get a youngish Dman with upside (but not really the type we need) and a guy who can hopefully play 3C and improve, along with a decent pick). 

 

I don't see much value to Kravtsov. If they wanna move him maybe we send them DiPietro and like a 4th. I don't think Kravtsov has shown he is a legit NHL player yet (maybe a depth guy). 

[Elias Pettersson]

Not really interested in any of those players.  I'd rather go after Braden Schneider if we are dealing with the Rangers to fill a position of need.  Not sure why the Rangers seem to be so intent on keeping him when he is going to be on the 3rd pairing for at least the next 4 years or so.  They need upgrades at forward so they should use Schneider to get those upgrades.  We have players they need up front.  Garland is one player, Boeser would be another.  Horvat is another.  

[Hairy Kneel]

Jurmo has an upside that we desperately need. I'd keep him. Him and Myrenburg might be important prospects in the near future. 

[Ilya Mikheyev]

19 hours ago, kloubek said:

I can see where you're going here, but I think it's overpayment by the Rangers. While Garland would be a great acquisition (and more established) for the Rangers, Jurmo is a complete wildcard at the NHL level. Yet, all 3 Rangers you selected are (at least marginally) NHL-capable players with unknown ceilings. At minimum, I think we'd need to drop or possibly even flip around the 3rd and 5th to benefit the Rangers.

 

Additionally, while I like the fact we restock our cupboards a little here, we aren't necessarily getting what we require. We take on two forwards - one of which (Chytil) would obviously be put in the lineup, which is effectively going to STILL force someone who is capable out of the lineup. Kratsov may or may not play in the bigs this season would be a great addition to our depth and future so I like that addition. As for Lundkvist, I don't believe he's what we need. He's offensive-minded, but we already have Hughes, OEL, and Rathbone (who management looks to wish to use as a permanent 3LD if possible). I'm all for bringing in a young defenseman who can grow with us, but feel we are better off with a RD that is defensively inclined more than offensively inclined.

I don't think you're necessarily wrong about overpayment - but I do think it's worth considering that Krav and Lund are both players that have requested trades at some point, one of which has held out to play in the KHL and one who is threatening to do the same with the SHL this year. I think this lowers their value significantly although as my posts suggests, there's not a whole lot of comparable trades, so it is hard to gauge. Drury is in a bind because they're both likely gonna be waiver eligible after this year, so this provides an opportunity to get a high end winger for them, rather than potentially lose them for nothing or for at their lowest value, like Benning with Juolevi. But I could be wrong on the exact value for sure.

 

I think Lundkvist & OEL could form a really good 2-way pairing if best came to best. He does have offensive skills, but he's more generally just a good defenseman who is sound positionally and good in transition. If his offensive game can hit his ceiling at the NHL level then we're looking at a very solid top-4 guy. It is of course a risk on a player who hasn't gotten significant NHL time. For this year, he'd be competing for TOI and both he and Rathbone would be waiver exempt. Thinking competition might not be a bad thing this year where Allvin struggled to directly fill the top-4 gap, which is fair considering what has been available. A top-8 of

 

Hughes - (UFA (Severson?),trade, etc.)

OEL - Lundkvist

Rathbone - Myers

Schenn, Burroughs

 

to start the season after next could be quite good if Rathbone and Lundkvist could come into their own.

[Ilya Mikheyev]

5 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

Not really interested in any of those players.  I'd rather go after Braden Schneider if we are dealing with the Rangers to fill a position of need.  Not sure why the Rangers seem to be so intent on keeping him when he is going to be on the 3rd pairing for at least the next 4 years or so.  They need upgrades at forward so they should use Schneider to get those upgrades.  We have players they need up front.  Garland is one player, Boeser would be another.  Horvat is another.  

I agree on your second point - I'd absolutely prefer Schneider. It doesn't seem like he's available, but if there's a straight Garland for Schneider trade on the table, sign me up. Perfect partner for Quinn.

[spook007]

13 hours ago, Hairy Kneel said:

Jurmo has an upside that we desperately need. I'd keep him. Him and Myrenburg might be important prospects in the near future. 

Yep potential at least and size.... 

Its not as if we are floating around with talented prospects on D.