Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Conor Garland to 5-Year Deal ($4.95M AAV)

[iceburg]

Jim has been a busy boy. Credit where credit is due. This is one of those contracts that is good now and could look extremely good 3 or 4 years from now.

 

[GetFocht]

Bunch is a much more versatile player and more valuable

In what sense?

- Garland is a year younger, RH shot, and produced at similar level. Garland actually produced at a better clip than Buchvenich at 25 years old.
- Garland had more takeways and less giveaways then Buchvenich
- He also costs 850K less

 

[F A N]

Still waiting to hear on trade protection / bonus structure.

His contract is up on CF. No signing bonus. As reported by Dhaliwal, no trade protection.

 

[BimJenning]

I'm curious to see if he keeps up the production and the fancy stats. 70% offensive zone starts this year, and hasn't played under 60% offensive zone starts in his whole career. If he's with Bo, you'd have to think he starts closer to 50%.

 

[ugghhh]

I will pretty much always be against term (4+ years) for guys who haven't played on your team before. These situations are when teams get burned the most in all sports, not just hockey. People like to focus on it being strictly an UFA thing because the players are old and age is definitely part of it.. but it's also that you are taking on extra risk when you haven't seen the guy play for you. Different situations, systems, whatever.

As far as I can tell, in the last 10 years the guys who fall into this category (acquired with 4+ years left, signed as FAs for 4+ years, or immediately signed long-time are:

-Booth
-Garrison
-Eriksson
-Sutter
-Beagle
-Roussel
-Myers
-Miller
-Schmidt

Miller's been good. Garrison was okay, but went south quickly. But the rest have gone poorly and when you give guys 4+ years you would think you are locking up safe bets. Now this off-season we have OEL & Garland added.

I don't know, maybe this isn't the thread for it as Garland is his own guy.

Most of those guys were already on a downward trend or coming off injuries when we acquired them.

Miller Schmidt and Garrison are the only 3 that weren't.. Schmidt had trouble fitting in last year, but our defence was a mess.

 

[m9]

Most of those guys were already on a downward trend or coming off injuries when we acquired them.

Miller Schmidt and Garrison are the only 3 that weren't.. Schmidt had trouble fitting in last year, but our defence was a mess.

Miller actually was at a lower point as well, so I don't think you've really figured anything out.

I guess the difference would be Miller/Garland are the only two that they gave up major assets to acquire along with the big contract. Sometimes you get what you pay for.

 

[logan5]

Yes! AND Garland.

You like to ridicule people, but you do realize that OEL has a grade A shot?. He barely moves his arms on his wrist shot and puck still goes like a rocket. And he has a great slap shot.

I see him as more useful on the right side on the 2nd unit. Just give the 2nd unit more opportunity. Or just give him Hughes’ spot on the 1st.

 

[rypper]

No trade protection and no signing bonuses make this an easy contract to move on from if he doesn't pan out. But I'm sure he will. The team is betting on Garland to blow up playing with our stars.

 

[PuckFather]

I really don't like long-term deals in general before you see the player's fit on your team. Seems like the Canucks have been burned repeatedly by this in recent years in both free agency and trade.

I thought the Canucks had an opportunity to mitigate that risk and do something a bit shorter here. That they chose not to is interesting. I wonder if it has Boeser implications sooner than later.

There's two sides to a contract negotiations. What makes you think Garland would have accepted a shorter term?

 

[Bojack Horvatman]

Solid deal. I don't know if he will produce as much here depending if he is on the Horvat or Pettersson line. Won't get as much pp time either. He will still be worth the contract if he produces in the 50p range.

 

[ugghhh]

You like to ridicule people, but you do realize that OEL has a grade A shot?. He barely moves his arms on his wrist shot and puck still goes like a rocket. And he has a great slap shot.

I see him as more useful on the right side on the 2nd unit. Just give the 2nd unit more opportunity. Or just give him Hughes’ spot on the 1st.

OEL's shot is not what it used to be. We'll see what he looks like in training camp/once the season gets going, but injuries seem to have taken their toll on him.

 

[F A N]

There's two sides to a contract negotiations. What makes you think Garland would have accepted a shorter term?

A shorter term would likely have given Garland the opportunity to make more money. Clearly both sides wanted to get a longer term deal done and that's not unusual for a player who has had to earn and prove himself every step of the way.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Happy he's signed and the contract is fine. I'm starting to wonder why EP and Hughes are still on the back burner though? Seems kinda weird to me unless deals are already done and they are waiting for something before announcing??

 

[MarkMM]

As long as he doesn't degrade (and no reason to think he should over these next few years) then this is a fair deal that should bring stability and mitigate some of the loss of forward prospects/picks. Decently happy with this.

 

[kcunac]

I believe so.

Not really a huge fan of these long term deals to guys who haven't played a single game here, as this has basically not worked out well a single time for us, and I am extremely wary of reading too much into last season's data, but this seems reasonable for 3 UFA years and the player is only 25. Still waiting to hear on trade protection / bonus structure.

This is a good point. I am also weary because of the change in situation. Garland was playing top line, top PP, mostly offensive starts but he probably won't have the same if he's on Bo's line. Not to mention he's only had two seasons in the NHL. It could look like a steal as early as next but it's not without considerable risk.

 

[m9]

There's two sides to a contract negotiations. What makes you think Garland would have accepted a shorter term?

Most guys don't mind getting to UFA quicker, so I'm sure a 3 or 4 year deal would have been fine.

It was a tough spot the Canucks created with this trade because Garland was two years away from UFA and an arbitration ruling could walk him right there. They either had to sign him for 1 year quickly or otherwise 3+. Definitely a tough spot to navigate, but that doesn't change the risk.

 

[Nazzlind]

never knew Garland and MacEwen were teammates in the qmjhl lol

 

[logan5]

Garland gets his points, but he’s the type of player that gets the whole team going with his scrappyness

 

[F A N]

It was a tough spot the Canucks created with this trade because Garland was two years away from UFA and an arbitration ruling could walk him right there. They either had to sign him for 1 year quickly or otherwise 3+. Definitely a tough spot to navigate, but that doesn't change the risk.

Not really. If Garland elects arbitration the Canucks can select a 1 year term.

 

[m9]

Not really. If Garland elects arbitration the Canucks can select a 1 year term.

Would he have not gotten the option as well?

If the Canucks could guarantee arbitration was 1 year then they should have just done that.

 

[AwesomeInTheory]

Happy he's signed and the contract is fine. I'm starting to wonder why EP and Hughes are still on the back burner though? Seems kinda weird to me unless deals are already done and they are waiting for something before announcing??

On the one hand, you'd think that obvious key parts of your roster would be priority number one and that you'd want to be valuing them and trying to get a deal done.

On the other hand, these are big fish and ironing out the details where everyone is happy is going to take time, particularly when you have to figure out exactly how much you can allocate to those players.

I'm slightly concerned, but not really, if that makes sense.

 

[F A N]

Would he have not gotten the option as well?

If the Canucks could guarantee arbitration was 1 year then they should have just done that.

The side that doesn't elect arbitration gets to choose. There's no reason for the team to elect arbitration. That's usually last ditch effort to get a player signed.

 

[m9]

The side that doesn't elect arbitration gets to choose. There's no reason for the team to elect arbitration. That's usually last ditch effort to get a player signed.

Good to know, thanks.

 

[alternate]

Think it's fair to say this is the best top 9 winger depth we've had in franchise history: JT, Boeser, Garland, Hoglander, Pod, Pearson.

As someone that believes in building from the blueline up, and center out, I give this accomplishment two golf claps.

 

[ChilliBilly]

Well I guess we'll see. History has not been kind to JB signings or trades. everybody raved about getting Schmidt for a 3rd, and we have him on the trade block. Myers is mediocre at best at the contract he has. No idea whether OEL is worth the money, but history is not on our side.

I just hope like hell this one one works out, and in 2 or 3 years we claim we got the better end of this deal. We'll see.