Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
I'd still rather have Schmidt than Hamonic and the poolman (similar cap hit) and I'm a fan of Hamonic.
Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Conor Garland to 5-Year Deal ($4.95M AAV)
- Thread starter Baby Pettersson
- Start date
And you have the usuals who will hate a move no matter if it’s good or not due to their hate, but for some reason you didn’t mention them?
270 posts, they all read the same. Never about hockey. Always about posters. Some life.
EpochLink
Canucks and Jets fan
Coleman cashed in after 2 cups, that’s his retirement fund.
Blue and Green
Out to lunch
- Dec 17, 2017
- 3,437
- 3,415
Not so obvious when factoring the considerable asset cost beyond cash and cap hit for the Canucks to obtain Garland whereas Coleman cost the Flames nothing else.
The Flames are essentially paying Coleman for his 30-35 years. The Canucks are paying Garland for his 25-29 years. Coleman has been a very good player but he could be just a 4th line player in his last 2-3 years. What is the asset cost to get rid of him then?
The odds are that the Canucks are paying Garland for the rest of his prime years. The Flames are paying for Coleman's declining years. The other thing is that Coleman is an elite 3rd line player. Garland is either an elite 2nd line player or solid 1st line player.
Blue and Green
Out to lunch
- Dec 17, 2017
- 3,437
- 3,415
Again: Garland and his new contract required a significant outlay of draft capital to obtain; there was no cost to the Flames for acquiring Coleman except for the terms of the contract itself. So for somebody just to say that they'd take Garland at his age and with his contract terms over Coleman at his age with his contract terms, leaving the other pertinent factors unconsidered... well, that's not how it worked in the real world.
Coleman is a quality player and I'd encourage anyone who thinks he's short on offensive skill to compare his goals and points per game rates at even strength over the past three seasons to the rest of the league's forwards. He is a late-blooming, very versatile player with competencies in several areas and he skates well, plus he has only missed about 10 games in his career to this point. I think his level of play will probably age quite gracefully.
Andy Dufresne
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 2,632
- 715
Nice interview- except the Bruins part
Conor Garland on his extension with the Canucks and being traded to the Canucks - YouTube
5'8"- 177 according to Garland (if it matters to anybody)
Conor Garland on his extension with the Canucks and being traded to the Canucks - YouTube
5'8"- 177 according to Garland (if it matters to anybody)
GetFocht
Indestructible
- Jun 11, 2013
- 9,077
- 4,373
canuckking1
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2015
- 12,730
- 13,694
Lol, you're literally disputing something that came right from the player's mouth.
Last edited:
AwesomeInTheory
A Christmas miracle
- Aug 21, 2015
- 4,240
- 4,442
Conor Garland is just one of those no life losers making up nonsense to trash Jim Benning and the Canucks.
Its not your fault
Registered User
- Nov 24, 2016
- 1,740
- 474
Pip
Registered User
Mofletz
Registered User
- Aug 28, 2006
- 4,267
- 64
That doesnt matter anymore to "PRO scouts" like it used to. He has a motor, thats all that matters.
Andy Dufresne
Registered User
- Jun 17, 2009
- 2,632
- 715
It did matter to pro scouts. He just proved them wrong. I only posted that because it's maybe the first time i've heard an nhl player correct an interviewer on their height and weight. Certainly the first time i've heard an nhl player correct their listed height down from 5'10" to 5'8". Made me like him more and i was already a fan.
I'm 5'7 at best, and 5'8 is the fibbed number I use.
He's not 5'10, and he's probably not 5'8 either.
He's just preparing us for the reality that he is a very small player.
Obviously an offensively gifted little wolverine, but he's even smaller than Quinn Hughes (in height and weight).
It's literally my only worry with this player. Otherwise, I think he's going to match his career high in points by mid-season.
Peen
Rejoicing in a Benning-free world
- Oct 6, 2013
- 30,035
- 25,446
FAN is actually 100% on the mark with that comment. A free agent isn’t without opportunity cost.
I used to hate seeing similar arguments about our past free agent blunders that were like “well he was free, had to pay a premium to get him in $ but we don’t lose any assets”
like those mistakes have immense cost in your cap structure and your overall opportunity cost - short and long term.
I used to hate seeing similar arguments about our past free agent blunders that were like “well he was free, had to pay a premium to get him in $ but we don’t lose any assets”
like those mistakes have immense cost in your cap structure and your overall opportunity cost - short and long term.
logan5
Registered User
He said in his interview he is 5’8” and 178, which is fairly sticky for his height. He looks strong on his feet.
- Mar 16, 2011
- 2,512
- 2,753
I hate Benning but I don’t hate Garland. You know people like me hate Benning because 99% of his moves suck. The odd time it doesn’t, we are fine with it.
