Proposal: Adam Larsson?
- Thread starter NYVanfan
- Start date
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,000
- 3,718
Unfortunately, the market for Garland for the foreseeable future is weak. As in, no cap coming back we might (might) get a 2nd.
No chance that Garland lands us a top 4 rh dman who isn't underperforming.
A more plausible (but probably overly optimistic) scenario might be something like an offseason trade of Garland for a late first/early 2nd at the draft. Then we use his cap space along with a Dickinson buyout to free up space for Horvat's UFA contract (6.75M-7.1M) and take a run at a UFA (Severson? Zub?).
But really, we are more likely to get lucky on a college free agent dman or taking a flyer on a guy who was underutilized and has more to show.
No chance that Garland lands us a top 4 rh dman who isn't underperforming.
A more plausible (but probably overly optimistic) scenario might be something like an offseason trade of Garland for a late first/early 2nd at the draft. Then we use his cap space along with a Dickinson buyout to free up space for Horvat's UFA contract (6.75M-7.1M) and take a run at a UFA (Severson? Zub?).
But really, we are more likely to get lucky on a college free agent dman or taking a flyer on a guy who was underutilized and has more to show.
NYVanfan
Registered User
Im curious why — isnt Garlands contract generally seen as good value? Cost-controlled and whatnot
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,000
- 3,718
Garland plays a non-premium position and does not PK. That's 2 strikes against him. Add to that, he's yet to eclipse 60 pts and he's undersized. This is all in the backdrop of the league-wide market for wingers just cratering.
In a way, he's in a very similar situation as Miller but in miniature (no pun intended). We can see the value he brings and he should return more in a trade, but the market disagrees.
Contrast that with RHD, which is a premium position due to scarcity and it becomes clear why Garland will not land us much in the way of help on our right side.
Edit: I would add that the market is probably so bad that the cap space we can garner along with futures (picks and prospects) is more valuable to us going forwards as a team. Hence, I think it's likely that either he or BB is dealt next offseason.
mriswith
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2011
- 4,192
- 7,399
This board really underrates Garland.
The market for wingers is poor right now but I'd rather have let Boeser walk than trade Garland for most of the proposals I see.
The market for wingers is poor right now but I'd rather have let Boeser walk than trade Garland for most of the proposals I see.
rypper
21-12-05 it's finally over.
- Dec 22, 2006
- 16,338
- 20,194
I don't really see Seattle's motivation to move him.
This is the thing for me. Unless there’s been some sort of falling out, I don’t see any reason for the Kraken to move him out. The wings aren’t an area of need for the Kraken. Larsson has a full NTC see as well. It becomes a 10 team list next season, though.
Just A Bit Outside
Playoffs??!
- Mar 6, 2010
- 16,515
- 15,405
This team is not going to be able to acquire a RHD unless they give up something of value (Horvat, 1st, etc).
Wingers currently have little value. Especially when teams know the cap situation and desperate need to make a deal.
At this point, play OEL on the right with Myers and Schenn.
Just suck it up for now because they have purely focused on solidifying the forwards in the hope they can help the d enough to compensate.
Wingers currently have little value. Especially when teams know the cap situation and desperate need to make a deal.
At this point, play OEL on the right with Myers and Schenn.
Just suck it up for now because they have purely focused on solidifying the forwards in the hope they can help the d enough to compensate.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
The Canucks might be able to trade Garland for someone like Severson, but then you have to deal with Severson's upcoming contract and raise.
Diversification
Registered User
- Jun 21, 2019
- 3,000
- 3,718
Exactly. Then you might as well try and sign Severson in the offseason. There's enough of local ties that we have a bit of an inside track.
Maybe there's a scenario where Ottawa is interested at the draft?
Ott 2023 2nd, rights to Zub
for
Garland
Pastor Of Muppetz
Registered User
- Oct 1, 2017
- 26,160
- 16,017
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 28,794
- 16,257
garland, while a good player, is completely redundant on this roster. if you can trade him for a shot at retaining severson at sensible dollars you do it
even if you can’t, you just opened up a buttload of cap space you’re going to need next summer and you plug RD temporarily
that said, hard to see why nj would want garland
Larsson has an NTC and I highly doubt that Seattle would trade him to a divisional rival (although inter-divisional trades do happen on occasion). Seattle also looks like they'll be trending upwards here in a little bit and so I can't see them moving an RHD.
One guy that comes to my mind is Chicago's Connor Murphy. I know the idea of moving yet another draft pick is ridiculous but lets face it.......with the Miller signing, the Canucks are in win-now mode for the next 4.5 years. This is our management's attempt at recreating this era's version of October 2008 - April 2012.
So - my answer to your question would be as follows: Tucker Poolman + ??? for Connor Murphy. Maybe, Poolman + Dickinson + 2nd + Klimovich for Murphy (I have no idea if that's an over/underpayment)
Podkolzin-Miller-Boeser
Kuzemko-Pettersson-Mikheyev
Pearson-Horvat-Garland
Hoglander-Lazar-Jackson
Lockwood
Hughes-Murphy
OEL-Myers
Rathbone-Dermott
Schenn
Demko
Martin
The above line up should get you into the 1st round with 1st round upset potential.
I don't like the idea of moving Garland for Severson. I agree with @VanillaCoke that Severson is overrated and is prone to making some horrific errors. Garland is such a good player at such a good cap hit, we need to be careful if we intend to unload him. Garland stays in my book.
Personally speaking, I'd be interested in seeing what a guy like Connor Murphy could do playing alongside Hughes. Murphy isn't a superstar but perhaps he could be that stabilizing presence for Hughes. Murphy is the guy Chicago uses to take on tough match ups over there. Unlike many other RD's, I don't think it would take a whole lot to acquire Murphy. I mean we're not talking Noah Dobson here eh? Chicago is heading towards a rebuild and so they'd likely be more interested in a pick and/or prospect.
The time to aquire was the expansion, would have been game for giving Edmonton something and leaving Myers exposed.
I think Larsson would be a great fit here!!!!
And he has been traded for a winger in the past....
Can't imagine he is someone they feel a need to move, but he would be a great addition. We would then need some subtractions though... and this seems like a never ending challenge that can't be won for the next two years, at least
And he has been traded for a winger in the past....
Can't imagine he is someone they feel a need to move, but he would be a great addition. We would then need some subtractions though... and this seems like a never ending challenge that can't be won for the next two years, at least
Peter Griffin
Registered User
Murphy is an interesting option and given Chicago’s rebuild would probably be open to moving him. He carries a $4.5M caphit but if they could unload either Poolman or Dickinson in the deal I’d be interested.
From a cap perspective, I think Poolman and Dickinson would definitely have to be going the other way if they had intentions of acquiring Murphy. Obviously, Chicago would want some kind of other compensation in the form of picks and/or prospects if they were going to take on Poolman and Dickinson (probably a 1st, or something like Rathbone).
Peter Griffin
Registered User
I think you’re probably looking at least a 1st to dump Poolman and Dickinson alone, plus whatever the cost is to acquire Murphy. It cost the Rangers potentially two 2nds to dump 2 years of Patrik Nemeth @ $2.5M. It’ll cost more than that to dump Poolman’s 3 years, unless he’s a definite LTIR candidate going forward.
Maybe 1st + Poolman + Dickinson + Rathbone then? That would be a pretty big package but I'm also wondering where our team would be in the standings with that new line-up?
Podkolzin-Miller-Boeser
Kuzemko-Pettersson-Mikheyev
Pearson-Horvat-Garland
Hoglander-Lazar-Jackson
Lockwood
Hughes-Murphy
OEL-Myers
Dermott-Schenn
Juulsen
Demko
Martin
I could definitely see the above team causing a 1st round upset and making it to the 2nd round......and then possibly taking the next level once the Canucks replace Myers and Pearson with better value.
giving up a first, dickinson, pearson and rathbone for conor murphy is lunacy. dickinson and pearson are negative assets but you're then looking at will lockwood and sheldon dries as everyday players and curtis lazar in your top 9
conor murphy isn't even good. he's the textbook definition of replacement player. with his contract you should be getting a first round pick to take him on
@Peter Griffin Are you aware of Murphy’s concussion issues? He finished last season on the IR because of it.
Peter Griffin
Registered User
No, never looked that far into it. If he does have concussion concerns then best to avoid him.
Had two concussions last season and ended the season on the IR because of them. I said in an earlier post that he's like acquiring Ferland.
