(Speculation) Conor Garland buyout this Summer?

[aGENT]

26 minutes ago, Gurn said:

The selectivity some religious people use, when some topics come up.

 

Won't wear jersey cause -reasons of religion.

 

cool- wonder if

the dude even attends a church?

Has ever made a statement deploring violence and war in the world

Helped out at a food bank

Also won't wear mixed fabrics- on penalty of death.

on and on

and on go; the religious edicts/rules/laws yet we only hear about this guy's religious beliefs when it comes to gay folk.

 

Very very selective on Provorov's part- eh what?

 

B-but...ignorance, fear, and hatred are all part of muh relijus fFFReeeDumbz!!!

[SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME]

1 hour ago, Gurn said:

The selectivity some religious people use, when some topics come up.

 

Won't wear jersey cause -reasons of religion.

 

cool- wonder if

the dude even attends a church?

Has ever made a statement deploring violence and war in the world

Helped out at a food bank

Also won't wear mixed fabrics- on penalty of death.

on and on

and on go; the religious edicts/rules/laws yet we only hear about this guy's religious beliefs when it comes to gay folk.

 

Very very selective on Provorov's part- eh what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is the part that always gets me with religious homophobes.

 

The bible actually has very little to say about homosexuality (and most of the parts that people do point out are actually about pederasty).

 

But that book has a ton to say about keeping the sabbath, keeping kosher, getting circumcised, etc. Yet somehow these parts aren’t important?

 

Why isn’t Provorov refusing to play Sunday games? Or demanding kosher-only options? Is he even circumcised (and has he checked all his teammates’ junk in the showers)? 
 

These questions seem pretty silly, but so is any (Christian) religious stance against against wearing a Pride jersey. 

 

It’s selective exclusion. And it’s not about faith, really. It’s about homophobia.

 

Also, a critical feature of Christianity, as set out in the New Testament and formation of the early church, is the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. People could join the faith without having to keep the old Jewish laws. The acceptance of Christ was seen to “purify” them, and it was no longer a necessity to follow all the old rules (like keeping the sabbath, staying kosher, and the covenant of circumcision). 
 

So why is the gay thing still an issue?

 

I think we all know the answer.

 

(Also, it’s just a friggin black jersey with some rainbow numbers and nameplates. And it’s just for the warmup. With all his teammates participating. It’s not like the Flyers are demanding he ride alone on a parade float wearing chaps and a chest harness.)

[cripplereh]

Wow religious talk about hockey.Well to each their own and if players think a certain way hope it works out best for all.

[Westcoastcanucks777]

2 minutes ago, cripplereh said:

Wow religious talk about hockey.Well to each their own and if players think a certain way hope it works out best for all.

Are you suggesting that we trade OEL and Garland for Provorov?!

[cripplereh]

Just now, Westcoastcanucks777 said:

Are you suggesting that we trade OEL and Garland for Provorov?!

Where did you come up with that???

[VegasCanuck]

On 1/8/2023 at 2:26 PM, Makaramel MacKhiato said:

If Garland is bought out, does this go down as one of the worst trades in Canuck histroy, especially with Gunther looking like a stud and we could've cleared enough money to bring back Bo?  

So, just as a note, I got more followers on Twitter than this guy, just by creating an account and not posting anything!

 

This is NOT a valid source for even remote speculation, Garland is NOT getting bought out!

 

[canuck73_3]

6 minutes ago, VegasCanuck said:

So, just as a note, I got more followers on Twitter than this guy, just by creating an account and not posting anything!

 

This is NOT a valid source for even remote speculation, Garland is NOT getting bought out!

 

This, buying out Garland is absolutely moronic and does nothing but hinder the team for years. Stupid.

[VegasCanuck]

5 hours ago, SID.IS.SID.ME.IS.ME said:

This is the part that always gets me with religious homophobes.

 

The bible actually has very little to say about homosexuality (and most of the parts that people do point out are actually about pederasty).

 

But that book has a ton to say about keeping the sabbath, keeping kosher, getting circumcised, etc. Yet somehow these parts aren’t important?

 

Why isn’t Provorov refusing to play Sunday games? Or demanding kosher-only options? Is he even circumcised (and has he checked all his teammates’ junk in the showers)? 
 

These questions seem pretty silly, but so is any (Christian) religious stance against against wearing a Pride jersey. 

 

It’s selective exclusion. And it’s not about faith, really. It’s about homophobia.

 

Also, a critical feature of Christianity, as set out in the New Testament and formation of the early church, is the inclusion of Gentiles in the church. People could join the faith without having to keep the old Jewish laws. The acceptance of Christ was seen to “purify” them, and it was no longer a necessity to follow all the old rules (like keeping the sabbath, staying kosher, and the covenant of circumcision). 
 

So why is the gay thing still an issue?

 

I think we all know the answer.

 

(Also, it’s just a friggin black jersey with some rainbow numbers and nameplates. And it’s just for the warmup. With all his teammates participating. It’s not like the Flyers are demanding he ride alone on a parade float wearing chaps and a chest harness.)

So, everyone is welcome to believe what they want to believe. Personally, I have zero time for (and little patience for) religion. Have seen it do a MASSIVE amount of damage in the world through forced conversion.

 

I am REALLY looking forward to Mel Brooks upcoming, History of the World, Part 2. One of the few movies that is actually willing to portray Jesus as he would have actually been. BLACK! I love Mel Brooks, there is absolutely NO ONE that he won't happily offend.

 

[VegasCanuck]

5 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

This, buying out Garland is absolutely moronic and does nothing but hinder the team for years. Stupid.

IF we needed to, we would gain almost as much sending him to Abbotsford, but that's not necessary. He's had a bit of an off season, who knows if there's something going on, nagging injury or something, but he's actually been one of our better players the last couple of weeks. He's been a PITA to the other teams, getting under their skin.

 

Someone has an off couple of months and fans jump on the "Hey, let's buy this guy out..." bandwagon and start quoting sources that are not even remotely credible. Some guy who's got the work Canuck in his twitter handle and we're taking that as a valid source? PLEASE.....

[canuck73_3]

1 minute ago, VegasCanuck said:

IF we needed to, we would gain almost as much sending him to Abbotsford, but that's not necessary. He's had a bit of an off season, who knows if there's something going on, nagging injury or something, but he's actually been one of our better players the last couple of weeks. He's been a PITA to the other teams, getting under their skin.

 

Someone has an off couple of months and fans jump on the "Hey, let's buy this guy out..." bandwagon and start quoting sources that are not even remotely credible. Some guy who's got the work Canuck in his twitter handle and we're taking that as a valid source? PLEASE.....

Trading him with 500k-1mill retention depending on the return and want to move him, but buy out makes less than zero sense.

[VegasCanuck]

7 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

Trading him with 500k-1mill retention depending on the return and want to move him, but buy out makes less than zero sense.

I believe that he's one of the guys that we need to move, not because he isn't a good player, but as Hoglander improves and learns to play a better defensive game, they are basically the same player, but Hoglander for the next few seasons (I really believe that he will be back on the team next year, maybe sooner) is much cheaper. Hoglander is an RFA this summer, I would expect him to sign a bridge deal, something one way for around 850k, a 1 year, show me, contract. That's a lot better then 4.95 million in the current cap situation.

 

We only need one Angr.......sorry, politically correct saying is, "Player who wouldn't look out of place in a production of Wizard of Oz"

 

[Warhippy]

Garland is signed through 25/26.  If we buy him out we take a $1.88 million cap hit through 2029.

 

Why the hell would we not just retain $1.88 million and trade him for a monster return instead and only eat that hit for 3 years vs eating it for 6

 

Buyout friendly people are not thinking friendly people 

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Garland is signed through 25/26.  If we buy him out we take a $1.88 million cap hit through 2029.

 

Why the hell would we not just retain $1.88 million and trade him for a monster return instead and only eat that hit for 3 years vs eating it for 6

 

Buyout friendly people are not thinking friendly people 

Yup, pointed this out on page 1. That or that we could just "Bjorkstrand" him for a couple mid picks.

 

Both of which are clearly preferable, and far more likely than a buyout.

[Outsiders]

Can't believe Garland is viewed as a bad contract

[Provost]

It seems really unlikely that Garland is reduced to a negative value contract…. But some good players have been waived or traded for peanuts in the past year so who knows.

 

They had better not buy him out unless they at least try waiving him before the deadline.   Some playoff team might decide the added depth for a run is worth having to figure out the cap implications next season.

 

[EdgarM]

I have not done any trade proposals but this one came to mind for some reason.

The Oilers have the same problem but with a different type of player. They have big bodies who lack scoring punch after Draisaitl and McDavid. We have smaller scoring wingers like Garland, Hogs and Kuz who lack those good defensive skills.

They have a player they cannot move in Puljujarvi. Young and big and is defensively responsible. Lacking offense but has produced before. His Contract runs out after this year so he can moved if need be.

Is there a way that things can be shuffled for something like this to work? 

Obviously its not s a straight one for one but I think its possible to work something out so that both sides get what they need. Thoughts?

[R3aL]

I think the only buy out I can get behind is OEL if absolutely necessary and if this season is only the start of his decline.

 

And Stillman because its nothing.

 

Garland I cannot accept there's no way to move him but if they do it Ill understand I haven't dug into the numbers like they have and just trust them/.

40 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I have not done any trade proposals but this one came to mind for some reason.

The Oilers have the same problem but with a different type of player. They have big bodies who lack scoring punch after Draisaitl and McDavid. We have smaller scoring wingers like Garland, Hogs and Kuz who lack those good defensive skills.

They have a player they cannot move in Puljujarvi. Young and big and is defensively responsible. Lacking offense but has produced before. His Contract runs out after this year so he can moved if need be.

Is there a way that things can be shuffled for something like this to work? 

Obviously its not s a straight one for one but I think its possible to work something out so that both sides get what they need. Thoughts?

I think its an interesting idea but hard to see it happening. I dont remember the last time we did a trade with Edmonton? I cannot recall any off the top of my head.

 

[EdgarM]

4 minutes ago, R3aL said:

I think the only buy out I can get behind is OEL if absolutely necessary and if this season is only the start of his decline.

 

And Stillman because its nothing.

 

Garland I cannot accept there's no way to move him but if they do it Ill understand I haven't dug into the numbers like they have and just trust them/.

I think its an interesting idea but hard to see it happening. I dont remember the last time we did a trade with Edmonton? I cannot recall any off the top of my head.

 

I actually think OEL's problem is adapting to playing behind Hughes. He has always been the go to guy. I see he is being deployed a little different with Tocchet and ice time is a little more divided evenly. I am interested to see if his play improves under Tocchet.

Yeah I would not typically suggest doing anything with Edmonton but I really think this would be a good improvement and benefit for us. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone, so to speak.

[R3aL]

Just now, EdgarM said:

I actually think OEL's problem is adapting to playing behind Hughes. He has always been the go to guy. I see he is being deployed a little different with Tocchet and ice time is a little more divided evenly. I am interested to see if his play improves under Tocchet.

Yeah I would not typically suggest doing anything with Edmonton but I really think this would be a good improvement and benefit for us. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone, so to speak.

I would agree he looked his best last season when Hughes was out.

 

But, hes fundamentally just been awful this year. In his decision making, his mobility, his puck retrieval, his play on 2 on 1s, his puck protection.

 

Hes been really hard to watch for me.

 

I could see that working was a swap with Edmonton potentially on paper. But I just cant seat actually happening you know

[Provost]

On 1/18/2023 at 9:43 AM, Gurn said:

The selectivity some religious people use, when some topics come up.

 

Won't wear jersey cause -reasons of religion.

 

cool- wonder if

the dude even attends a church?

Has ever made a statement deploring violence and war in the world

Helped out at a food bank

Also won't wear mixed fabrics- on penalty of death.

on and on

and on go; the religious edicts/rules/laws yet we only hear about this guy's religious beliefs when it comes to gay folk.

 

Very very selective on Provorov's part- eh what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He also didn’t stand up for his morality in a way that would cost him anything.  He didn’t skip the game, he didn’t resign from the league that supports these causes.

 

I was actually kind of sickened watching some of the commentary even calling him brave for standing up for what he believes in.

 

We don’t have to respect people’s opinion when they are garbage.  This is a good way to examine our own biases.

 

Imagine if it was Willie O’Ree night and all the players were asked to wear replicas of his jersey and Provorov declined because he didn’t agree with supporting black athletes integrated into the league.

 

Who is calling him courageous for that?  He would have been suspended and removed from the league
 

If you reaction is “well that is different”… it literally isn’t, it is just you have different biases.  It is just more accepted to be anti-gay than it is to be racist.

 

Race and sexual orientation are both protected the same way by law against discrimination.  Morally there isn’t a difference as they are both attributes someone is born with and suffer discrimination because of.