Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

[Trade] Golden Knights trade Reilly Smith to Penguins for 2024 3rd-round pick


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said:

You can't really say that when he made a good trade though :lol:

It's fine in isolation until you realize that their blueline still needs to be fixed and he just spent cap that really needs to be spent on D.  It would have made more sense to wait until they had a GM with a working knowledge of the sport instead.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MattWN. said:

Yeah, I had thought he was LW/C, but when I looked closer than his faceof percentage, it was only for a handful of draws. (57% though)

He still plays a bigger role, he's a top PKer, and just as effective on the PP.

Loads of tangibles that still make him more valuable than guys like Garland who are strictly 5on5 capable.

Smith is a good PKer, so that does give him some added value over Garland there. This season Garland actually produced pretty decently on the PP considering he only got about 1:30 per game on it, nearly all of it being with the 2nd unit. I did a post not too far back where Garland was right there with Pettersson and Miller this season in points per 60 minutes while on the PP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, King Heffy said:

It's fine in isolation until you realize that their blueline still needs to be fixed and he just spent cap that really needs to be spent on D.  It would have made more sense to wait until they had a GM with a working knowledge of the sport instead.

It's as if he's only been on the job for a couple weeks, and still has work to do.

 

Wait.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, boziffous said:

Smith is a good PKer, so that does give him some added value over Garland there. This season Garland actually produced pretty decently on the PP considering he only got about 1:30 per game on it, nearly all of it being with the 2nd unit. I did a post not too far back where Garland was right there with Pettersson and Miller this season in points per 60 minutes while on the PP.

Garland lacks the vision, and the finish to be a constant productive option on the PP. We have too many players who are capable of playing above him. There is a reason he isn't staple to a PP unit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MattWN. said:

Well let's remember it cost us a 2nd round pick just to move on from Jason Dickinson and his 2.5ish contract.

I'm guess it costs at least that or more to move Garland, even with Garland being a competent player, more-so than Dickinson. 

 

Would have been my preference too to keep OEL one more year, and watch for a rebound. Burns two years off his buyout just by waiting the extra year. Realistically given our division, we're not a playoff team next year. Edmonton, Vegas, and LA are all way too far ahead of us right now.

 

I think the issue like you said is there there are way too many quality players out there for nothing. 

It doesn't burn two years off buyout of you buyout OEL next year. It only take one year off cause the other year is the year you kept him. 

 

Not sure keepingbhim 1 more year is gonna make much if a difference. He still ain't tradable unless he goes Eric Karlsson and even then it is 50% retained for like a 6th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 24K PureCool said:

It doesn't burn two years off buyout of you buyout OEL next year. It only take one year off cause the other year is the year you kept him. 

 

Not sure keepingbhim 1 more year is gonna make much if a difference. He still ain't tradable unless he goes Eric Karlsson and even then it is 50% retained for like a 6th.

Keeping him the year, is one year. The extra buyout year is the second year.

Compared to our situation now, waiting until next summer effectively reduces his buyout by two years.

 

I didn't think he'd be tradeable either, I just don't see us contending next year regardless with LA, LV, and Edmonton, and Seattle ahead of us in our division, arguably Calgary as well. I would have rather sat it out another year.

Edited by MattWN.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MattWN. said:

Garland lacks the vision, and the finish to be a constant productive option on the PP. We have too many players who are capable of playing above him. There is a reason he isn't staple to a PP unit. 

I disagree on the vision. Think it's more his lack of a hard shot. There are too many better options for Garland to be on the 1st unit PP, but he's a staple on the 2nd unit PP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MattWN. said:

Keeping him the year, is one year. The extra buyout year is the second year.

Compared to our situation now, waiting until next summer effectively reduces his buyout by two years.

Not to mention the massive raise in the cap the following off season as well. More palatable for a team to take a rebounding OEL. As you mentioned knocking off two buyout years as well. I get it that we have the 7.1 in cap space to play with which is why we made the move this season. But reasons you mentioned it would be another avenue to wait a year to see if there’s better value to unload him. 
 

But we digress

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, MattWN. said:

Keeping him the year, is one year. The extra buyout year is the second year.

Compared to our situation now, waiting until next summer effectively reduces his buyout by two years.

 

I didn't think he'd be tradeable either, I just don't see us contending next year regardless with LA, LV, and Edmonton, and Seattle ahead of us in our division, arguably Calgary as well. I would have rather sat it out another year.

When people say reducing buyout years, it only refers to the dead cap penalty post original expiration of the contract. So it is more accurate to say it saves 1 buyout year rather than 2 otherwise you are misleading some leople who don't know any better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RWJC said:

I would argue that Garland still has value to us in that he can play in whatever capacity is asked of him, up or down.

He’s potentially top 6 on a bottom feeder, but definitely a utility player. He would be a nice fit with a club like CHI.
His price point is higher than what he provides (or is given enough consistency in a regular placement to provide) but perhaps he earns that elsewhere.

 

Boeser is unfortunately one dimensional and everyone league wide understands that. It’s messed up, given his point totals, that’s he’s considered a liability but his cost for range justifies that title. 
 

We have to pay to lose these guys unless we can incorporate them into some kind of need for need trade that simply works for respective position. 

Eg. Boeser + pick for overpriced 3C or Dman + pick).

 

I think that’s still possible with what might shake out this offseason. 

I don't understand the desire to dump garland, one of the main play drivers on the team 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rabbit said:

The return of Smith is just a third round pick.  I cant believe.

Pretty much win at all cost per the owner.  More surprised teams bend over backwards to take the entire cap and not force Vegas to retain.  Some cap gymnastics is going to be required by Dubas because that forward group cap allocation is looking worse than ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, stawns said:

I don't understand the desire to dump garland, one of the main play drivers on the team 

Probably easy to move in a sense from my POV, he has value as a player.  As such, I would only move him if it's part of a bigger move to fill a hole on the roster (eg., defense and/or center).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rabbit said:

The return of Smith is just a third round pick.  I cant believe.

This is a repeat of what they did with Nate Schmidt. Dump him for a pick (also a 3rd) and use the salary space to sign an even better player.

 

Even though the pick isn’t as high as you’d expect, it’s still a huge win overall for Vegas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...