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

[Hit the post]

No one has an issue with Garland, it's that he was chained to an absolute boat anchor of a contract in OEL and we gave up a 9th overall (back to back years no 1st) + 2nd to acquire said boat anchor.

All the positive value added in Garland was immediately taken away with the negative value of OEL, and we paid a massive premium.

Only issue I had with the JT Miller trade involving that 1st round pick was that it wasn't lottery protected. Lucky for DimJim, it didn't come back to bite us in the ass.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

No one has an issue with Garland, it's that he was chained to an absolute boat anchor of a contract in OEL and we gave up a 9th overall (back to back years no 1st) + 2nd to acquire said boat anchor.

All the positive value added in Garland was immediately taken away with the negative value of OEL, and we paid a massive premium.

It seems as though OEL's contract isnt as bulletproof as Erikssons...there is an 'out'..

"This could easily go sideways, too. As mentioned, Ekman-Larsson is 30-years-old now, and even with salary retention that’s a LOT of cap hit for a LONG time. But there’s an out there, too. He’s owed a big signing bonus in 2022-23, but after that, it’s straight cash. If the team decides he is more expensive than he’s worth, they won’t have the Eriksson stumbling block.
No more signing bonuses means a simpler – and more cost-effective – buyout. If after two seasons a buyout makes sense they can do it while cutting the cap hit dramatically. That diminished hit would last until 2030-31, so ideally they’ll avoid it completely. Even the worst scenario is better than the financial corner they painted themselves into five years ago."

Analyzing the Oliver Ekman-Larsson Trade For the Vancouver Canucks

As to trading the 9th..at a certain point in the teams cycle you have to do 'win now' moves..JT Miller and Bo Horvat aren't getting any younger.

 

[VanJack]

It seems as though OEL's contract isnt as bulletproof as Erikssons...there is an 'out'..

"This could easily go sideways, too. As mentioned, Ekman-Larsson is 30-years-old now, and even with salary retention that’s a LOT of cap hit for a LONG time. But there’s an out there, too. He’s owed a big signing bonus in 2022-23, but after that, it’s straight cash. If the team decides he is more expensive than he’s worth, they won’t have the Eriksson stumbling block.
No more signing bonuses means a simpler – and more cost-effective – buyout. If after two seasons a buyout makes sense they can do it while cutting the cap hit dramatically. That diminished hit would last until 2030-31, so ideally they’ll avoid it completely. Even the worst scenario is better than the financial corner they painted themselves into five years ago."

Analyzing the Oliver Ekman-Larsson Trade For the Vancouver Canucks

As to trading the 9th..at a certain point in the teams cycle you have to do 'win now' moves..JT Miller and Bo Horvat aren't getting any younger.

Trading first round draft picks for immediate help, is always going to be a polarizing topic on these boards.

Because it all depends on where you think the Canucks are in their rebuild cycle. Clearly, Benning is in a 'win now' mode, partly because of job security but also because the Canucks core isn't getting any younger.

The reality is that the Canucks 2020 first rounder (21st overall) and their 2021 first rounder (9th overall) probably wouldn't have been in a position to even make the Canucks within two seasons. Then a season or two beyond that before they made any impact--assuming a year or two in the AHL.

Meanwhile, J.T. Miller, Conor Garland and OEL are going to be important, contributing players in the lineup next season. What bothers me almost more than the first rounders are the second and third rounders that Benning has coughed up in trades that have had zero impact on the lineup.

 

[rypper]

If they buyout OEL before the 2023 season, when he no longer has any signing bonus to be paid out it's still:


23/24 - 144.667
24/25 - 2,346,667
25/26 - 4,766,667
26/27 - 4,766,667
27/28 - 2,126,667
28/29 - 2,126,667
29/30 - 2,126,667
30/31 - 2,126,667
31/32 - 2,126,667

Now it's nowhere near the dead cap that Minnesota will be carrying. but that's 4.7m in dead cap in some of the years the team should be most competitive.

 

[Hit the post]

Trading first round draft picks for immediate help, is always going to be a polarizing topic on these boards.

Because it all depends on where you think the Canucks are in their rebuild cycle. Clearly, Benning is in a 'win now' mode, partly because of job security but also because the Canucks core isn't getting any younger.

The reality is that the Canucks 2020 first rounder (21st overall) and their 2021 first rounder (9th overall) probably wouldn't have been in a position to even make the Canucks within two seasons. Then a season or two beyond that before they made any impact--assuming a year or two in the AHL.

Meanwhile, J.T. Miller, Conor Garland and OEL are going to be important, contributing players in the lineup next season. What bothers me almost more than the first rounders are the second and third rounders that Benning has coughed up in trades that have had zero impact on the lineup.

Problem is VanJack, we didn’t know that the Canucks would be drafting 21st overall that year & considering they missed the playoffs for each of the previous several seasons, that pick had a good chance at being a lottery pick. *THAT* was a risk a rebuilding team should NEVER take.

 

[racerjoe]

Problem is VanJack, we didn’t know that the Canucks would be drafting 21st overall that year & considering they missed the playoffs for each of the previous several seasons, that pick had a good chance at being a lottery pick. *THAT* was a risk a rebuilding team should NEVER take.

Just imagine if the season continued on and the teams struggles continued…

 

[Javaman]

If they buyout OEL before the 2023 season, when he no longer has any signing bonus to be paid out it's still:


23/24 - 144.667
24/25 - 2,346,667
25/26 - 4,766,667
26/27 - 4,766,667
27/28 - 2,126,667
28/29 - 2,126,667
29/30 - 2,126,667
30/31 - 2,126,667
31/32 - 2,126,667

Now it's nowhere near the dead cap that Minnesota will be carrying. but that's 4.7m in dead cap in some of the years the team should be most competitive.

Do the Canucks still have to pay a recapture penalty if they buyout OEL? Or is it already factored into the above figures?

For the next 3 seasons, they Canucks pay about $2M more in salary than OEL's cap hit.

 

[timw33]

Do the Canucks still have to pay a recapture penalty if they buyout OEL? Or is it already factored into the above figures?

For the next 3 seasons, they Canucks pay about $2M more in salary than OEL's cap hit.

The recapture penalty doesn't exist for contracts signed after the 2012-13 CBA was signed as contracts were no longer able to be structured in a way that a recapture could apply (8 year max term, AAV cannot drop more than 50% over the course of the contract, can't just tack on 5 years at 1MM etc.)

 

[flying v 604]

No one has an issue with Garland, it's that he was chained to an absolute boat anchor of a contract in OEL and we gave up a 9th overall (back to back years no 1st) + 2nd to acquire said boat anchor.

All the positive value added in Garland was immediately taken away with the negative value of OEL, and we paid a massive premium.

Whether you're a fan of OEL or not, I am, the #9 was for Garland. If you think that's an overpay go read his thread before the trade. Posters from every team that shit on every trade involving draft picks or prospects, all agreed his value was very high, first thread I can think of where everyone agreed on value.

 

[Catamarca Livin]

Why not just evaluate Miller trade on what happened and not what it could have been? It was a great trade period. Player was underrated, with a team friendly contract. Been team's best player over last two years combined. Last year was not as good but he was still good. Easily team's second most valuable forward. If Garland is anywhere near as good, team will benefit from this trade. Of course Miller trade was more straightforward so OEL will have a big say in total deal value.

 

[J Corso]

The reality is that the Canucks 2020 first rounder (21st overall) and their 2021 first rounder (9th overall) probably wouldn't have been in a position to even make the Canucks within two seasons. Then a season or two beyond that before they made any impact--assuming a year or two in the AHL.

Yeah look how long it took Boeser and Virtanen and Hughes and EP and Horvat! Oh wait. They were all on the team and contributing within 2 years. The only ones that didn't was when they draft a bust.

Your four year timeline is just wrong.

 

[Javaman]

The recapture penalty doesn't exist for contracts signed after the 2012-13 CBA was signed as contracts were no longer able to be structured in a way that a recapture could apply (8 year max term, AAV cannot drop more than 50% over the course of the contract, can't just tack on 5 years at 1MM etc.)

Thanks.

 

[Lindgren]

Why not just evaluate Miller trade on what happened and not what it could have been? It was a great trade period. Player was underrated, with a team friendly contract. Been team's best player over last two years combined. Last year was not as good but he was still good. Easily team's second most valuable forward. If Garland is anywhere near as good, team will benefit from this trade. Of course Miller trade was more straightforward so OEL will have a big say in total deal value.

He was so good over that time that he helped a terrible team become a mediocre one. There's a very good chance, moreover, that over the remaining years of his contract he'll continue to contribute to the Canucks being sustainably mediocre. Even if he walks away in free agency, with the Canucks getting nothing for him, we'll be able to look back and admire what he accomplished.

 

[VanJack]

Yeah look how long it took Boeser and Virtanen and Hughes and EP and Horvat! Oh wait. They were all on the team and contributing within 2 years. The only ones that didn't was when they draft a bust.

Your four year timeline is just wrong.

Obviously we'll never know who the Canucks might have picked had they kept their 2021 first rounder (9th overall) or their 2020 first rounder (21st overall)

But the two guys picked in those spots (Dylan Guenther) and (Shakir Mukhamadullin) by the Coyotes and Devils are probably at least a couple of years away from even helping those teams. And if the Canucks had picked either one, it would be at least 2-3 years before either guy cracked the NHL lineup, and maybe longer.

When the Canucks drafted kids like Horvat, Virtanen, Hughes, Pettersson and Boeser, they were a team with a lineup full of declining veterans. So there were immediate openings. Conversely, there really aren't any 'immediate openings' on this current edition of the Canucks.

Guenther is a winger and Mukhamadullin a d-man. So while they might have beefed up the prospect pool a bit, they'd do nothing to help Benning save his job for the upcoming season, or the season after that.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

Obviously we'll never know who the Canucks might have picked had they kept their 2021 first rounder (9th overall) or their 2020 first rounder (21st overall)

But the two guys picked in those spots (Dylan Guenther) and (Shakir Mukhamadullin) by the Coyotes and Devils are probably at least a couple of years away from even helping those teams. And if the Canucks had picked either one, it would be at least 2-3 years before either guy cracked the NHL lineup, and maybe longer.

When the Canucks drafted kids like Horvat, Virtanen, Hughes, Pettersson and Boeser, they were a team with a lineup full of declining veterans. So there were immediate openings. Conversely, there really aren't any 'immediate openings' on this current edition of the Canucks.

Guenther is a winger and Mukhamadullin a d-man. So while they might have beefed up the prospect pool a bit, they'd do nothing to help Benning save his job for the upcoming season, or the season after that.

Or help the current core.

 

[maroon 6]

This contract isn’t aging so well

 

[Javaman]

Not firing Benning after the debacle of the Canadian division is going to haunt the team for years.

Garland is the gnome that will continue to remind us of just how awful Benning was. His only saving grace is that he's not the highest paid 3rd line winger on the team.

 

[m9]

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.

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.

Stand by this from when the contract was signed. Quit signing guys long-term before you've seen how they fit on your roster.

I get sometimes you have no choice with ufa's but that's just more reasons to avoid ufa's. In this case with an rfa, absolutely no excuse.

 

[timw33]

Stand by this from when the contract was signed. Quit signing guys long-term before you've seen how they fit on your roster.

I get sometimes you have no choice with ufa's but that's just more reasons to avoid ufa's. In this case with an rfa, absolutely no excuse.

Yep, we saw it with Sutter and we saw it with Dickinson too. And of course we can't forget about the mid season extensions to Sbisa (rewarding a player who was a garbage fit) and Dorsett.

 

[VanJack]

For Garland to be an effective player for the Canucks, he has to be a scorer.....even last season's totals of 19 goals and 33 assists, are slightly below what you'd hope for.

But this year, with three goals and seven assists through 25 games, he's on pace for nine goals and 35 points. There has to be some reason for a player to drop off so dramatically, and I'm suspecting it might be some sort of injury.

But the bottom line, is the Canucks were expecting 25-30 goals out of Boeser; and an equal number from Garland. And for a combined cap-hit of more than $11m a season, they're getting miles less.

Unfortunately if the Canucks trade them, it comes when they're at the bottom of the market.

 

[Nucker101]

For Garland to be an effective player for the Canucks, he has to be a scorer.....even last season's totals of 19 goals and 33 assists, are slightly below what you'd hope for.

But this year, with three goals and seven assists through 25 games, he's on pace for nine goals and 35 points. There has to be some reason for a player to drop off so dramatically, and I'm suspecting it might be some sort of injury.

But the bottom line, is the Canucks were expecting 25-30 goals out of Boeser; and an equal number from Garland. And for a combined cap-hit of more than $11m a season, they're getting miles less.

Unfortunately if the Canucks trade them, it comes when they're at the bottom of the market.

Disagree.

Garland's 51 5v5 points last year ranked him 31st in the entire NHL, in the same range as guys like P.Kane, Panarin, Guentzel, J.T. Miller, Rantanen, etc.

He's not a guy you want out there on the top powerplay unit, but at 5v5 he was excellent value last season for his cap hit.

An it's not like that was some outlier for Garland, the year before last season he ranked 38th in the entire NHL at 5v5 scoring, so he's coming off of 2 straight years of being a top 40 NHL point producer at 5v5. He's been producing as a 1st line player at 5v5 for 2 straight years coming into this one.

He's currently shooting 3.4% below his career average and the team is shooting just 5.63% at 5v5 when he's on the ice so I 100% expect him to pick up the pace.

For Garland to be an effective player relative to his cap hit, he just has to produce like he has been the last 2 seasons prior to this one.

 

[TruGr1t]

Check out the league-wide view of Garland before he came to Vancouver. This organization ruins players.

 

[mathonwy]

Disagree.

Garland's 51 5v5 points last year ranked him 31st in the entire NHL, in the same range as guys like P.Kane, Panarin, Guentzel, J.T. Miller, Rantanen, etc.

He's not a guy you want out there on the top powerplay unit, but at 5v5 he was excellent value last season for his cap hit.

An it's not like that was some outlier for Garland, the year before last season he ranked 38th in the entire NHL at 5v5 scoring, so he's coming off of 2 straight years of being a top 40 NHL point producer at 5v5. He's been producing as a 1st line player at 5v5 for 2 straight years coming into this one.

He's currently shooting 3.4% below his career average and the team is shooting just 5.63% at 5v5 when he's on the ice so I 100% expect him to pick up the pace.

For Garland to be an effective player relative to his cap hit, he just has to produce like he has been the last 2 seasons prior to this one.

For Garland to be an effective player he needs to join a team that doesn’t sign two additional wingers and extends two existing wingers on long term contracts in the off-season and isn’t coached by BB.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Disagree.

Garland's 51 5v5 points last year ranked him 31st in the entire NHL, in the same range as guys like P.Kane, Panarin, Guentzel, J.T. Miller, Rantanen, etc.

He's not a guy you want out there on the top powerplay unit, but at 5v5 he was excellent value last season for his cap hit.

An it's not like that was some outlier for Garland, the year before last season he ranked 38th in the entire NHL at 5v5 scoring, so he's coming off of 2 straight years of being a top 40 NHL point producer at 5v5. He's been producing as a 1st line player at 5v5 for 2 straight years coming into this one.

He's currently shooting 3.4% below his career average and the team is shooting just 5.63% at 5v5 when he's on the ice so I 100% expect him to pick up the pace.

For Garland to be an effective player relative to his cap hit, he just has to produce like he has been the last 2 seasons prior to this one.

otoh he was receiving better ES minutes and opportunities before this year.

on shallower teams, he was at 15+ ES mins/game in his last arizona year and 14:46 last year.

this year he is at 13:20, and has been playing largely in the third option among wing pairs.

smells (and from eyetest, looks) like a bad team scorer to me. ie, for garland to be an effective player he has to be gifted prime offensive icetime or outplay kuzmenko/mikheyev and miller/partner.

 

[Kevinsane]

He’s a player who produces if utilized properly. This team has not utilized him properly. Whether the current regime doesn’t think highly of him or not, it’s terrible asset management.
The Canucks are going nowhere this season, but Bruce is coaching for a gig next year, so Garland just gets devalued all year and turns into someone you can’t trade.

Brilliant.