Conor Garland trade?

[Snuggs]

Just one of the first names to pop up early. Wings don't seem to have a ton of trouble at the moment throwing pucks at the net but still. Does adding Garland make any sense?

Vancouver reportedly would like a defensemen in return while also freeing up 1-2 million for themselves. Red Wings have guys that could fit that bill and also allow a path way for Edvinsson to enter the line-up while adding more scoring up front.

Shrewd move idea or just too early right now to worry about additions?

Report: Vancouver Canucks want to free up $1-2 million in any Conor Garland trade

Earlier this week, <a href="https://canucksarmy.com/news/report-vancou...

canucksarmy.com

Canucks hoping to clear cap space with Garland trade

After forward Conor Garland and his agent were given permission to seek out a trade earlier this week, Sportsnet's Elliotte Freidman reported on Hockey Night in Canada that the Vancouver Canucks are hoping to clear cap space in any potential deal.

www.sportsnet.ca

Canucks targeting defenceman in Garland trade: report | Offside

The Vancouver Canucks may be off to a great start this season, but the team is reportedly not entirely done tinkering with its roster.

dailyhive.com

Click to read more...

 

[norrisnick]

Ship them a D for a pick and call up Bergie. No need to take on nearly $5M in middle 6 winger salary.

If they have to move Garland for salary... $5M costs a 1st to move.

 

[jkutswings]

Vancouver could free up a whole lot more cash by sending us Pettersson.

 

[WingsToPick4th]

3 more years of 5 million no wayyy

 

[Henkka]

Maybe they would want to take Määttä to play with Hronek again... ?

Määttä + low pick <> Garland

Garland is very good 5-on-5 scorer, a middle6 forward.

 

[norrisnick]

Maybe they would want to take Määttä to play with Hronek again... ?

Määttä + low pick <> Garland

Garland is very good 5-on-5 scorer, a middle6 forward.

The pick is on the wrong side and it definitely wouldn't be a low one. Why would we give Vancouver 1. A player they need and 2. $5M in cap space the next few years AND pay a pick for the luxury to do so?

 

[Detroit Knights]

they have been saying they need an RD

Van
Chiarot with some retention for their cap

Det
Garland + 1st

Pipe dream is obviously pettersson and if they can do a blockbuster bs trade that will never happen, I would see:

Van
Chiarot
Kasper
Wallinder
Berggren
First rd pick

Det
Garland + 10-25% retention?
Pettersson

Garland is older so that does suck but we would have him until he is 30 then can let him go. Pettersson is pettersson. We lose kasper/berggren which would suck because of their age, but Pettersson>Kasper+berggren and is only 24, so he fits the core age. Wallinder so they can enjoy what we wanted of willander to wallinder. Chiarot because they want a RD now. They would save roughly 7 mil in cap while getting younger prospects who could be ready sooner rather than later and they always want to compete with no rebuild (even though this is a rebuild essentially).

Let the flames begin!

 

[Indrid Cold]

they have been saying they need an RD

Van
Chiarot with some retention for their cap

Det
Garland + 1st

Pipe dream is obviously pettersson and if they can do a blockbuster bs trade that will never happen, I would see:

Van
Chiarot
Kasper
Wallinder
Berggren
First rd pick

Det
Garland + 10-25% retention?
Pettersson

Garland is older so that does suck but we would have him until he is 30 then can let him go. Pettersson is pettersson. We lose kasper/berggren which would suck because of their age, but Pettersson>Kasper+berggren and is only 24, so he fits the core age. Wallinder so they can enjoy what we wanted of willander to wallinder. Chiarot because they want a RD now. They would save roughly 7 mil in cap while getting younger prospects who could be ready sooner rather than later and they always want to compete with no rebuild (even though this is a rebuild essentially).

Let the flames begin!

I would do that in a heartbeat.

 

[Winger98]

Garland is just so not needed here. @norrisnick point that it would be a salary dump and a really expensive one (I think more than a 1st, considering the number of years) is the only way I would see us involved outside of being a middle man for them to deal him somewhere else, and we again just grab a handful of picks in the process.

 

[Murmansk16A]

they have been saying they need an RD

Van
Chiarot with some retention for their cap

Det
Garland + 1st

But Chiarot is a LD.

 

[DoMakc]

I'd trade Chiarot for Garland in a heartbeat.

 

[SantosHalper]

Garland doesn't add anything to Detroit.

 

[Henkka]

Garland doesn't add anything to Detroit.

He'll definitely add great 5-on-5 scorer to give us more depth than our current great depth. Better version of Fabbri who will stay healthy.

Garland is at 5-on-5 Top3 xGF% player for Canucks from time he has been on the team (158 games). Only Pettersson and JT Miller are better. But he is not paid by top millions. Also has been starting more from defensive end than those two top guys, and has still been able to produce.

Very interesting player. Probably Vegas will trade for him, and he is their next middle6 steal.

 

[Detroit Knights]

But Chiarot is a LD.

He plays on the right side often. Especially last year after he was sent off of Seider's pairing

 

[Detroit Knights]

Garland doesn't add anything to Detroit.

I agree and disagree. His height is a bit rough, especially since he would most likely need to be in the top i would assume, or at minimum middle 6. He does bring scoring and even more speed to our lineup. Adding in perron or someone similar (copp/fabbri?...but i do love fabbri :/ ) to the trade would help aid the more speed throughout the lineup.

With that being said, chiarot for garland straight up wouldn't make a ton of sense, red wings wise. We already have a lot of forwards, so we would need to send an nhl forward back. The only real ones I would be okay with do that is probably perron (hasn't looked stellar so far...just two games) and probably kostin.

By adding a forward, it wouldn't make sense for vancouver because they want to save money on cap, I am assuming to acquire a RD so I guess that point would be moot with chiarot. And if we are adding a forward, we would need them to add a pretty high pick (think 1st, because I do not believe they have a 24' second).

With all that being said, it would make a hell of a lot more sense with all these pieces if they add pettersson to a deal. It would help fix a lot of the trade banter back and forth when it comes to cap and the amount of forwards on our team. Obviously, not what they want or fans want but here we are.

 

[norrisnick]

Garland is a cap dump. Barring a cap dump of our own or getting assets in addition it makes zero sense to trade for him.

If we want Garland on this roster, just call up Berggren instead.

 

[Henkka]

He plays on the right side often. Especially last year after he was sent off of Seider's pairing

Not very often. He heavily a left-side D.

If we want Garland on this roster, just call up Berggren instead.

Why not both?

 

[norrisnick]

Why not both?

Because there apparently isn't any room for Berggren let alone Garland.

 

[Henkka]

Because there apparently isn't any room for Berggren let alone Garland.

Yes there is, if you move Fabbri and Perron out at the same time, in different trades.

I think you would love those guys gone, right?

 

[JediOrderPizza]

I dunno, they seem to want 1-2mil in cap space as well. So if you trade Chiarot you are retaining a mil at least.

So that's almost 6 mil Garland for 3 years.

 

[norrisnick]

Yes there is, if you move Fabbri and Perron out at the same time, in different trades.

I think you would love those guys gone, right?

And how many assets are you burning to do that?

There is no need for Garland. There really is no need to burn assets to make room for Garland. Fabbri and Perron will phase our naturally or get flipped at the deadline. Paying to be rid of them when the team isn't in contention is just wasteful.

I dunno, they seem to want 1-2mil in cap space as well. So if you trade Chiarot you are retaining a mil at least.

So that's almost 6 mil Garland for 3 years.

f*** that.

 

[SantosHalper]

He'll definitely add great 5-on-5 scorer to give us more depth than our current great depth. Better version of Fabbri who will stay healthy.

Garland is at 5-on-5 Top3 xGF% player for Canucks from time he has been on the team (158 games). Only Pettersson and JT Miller are better. But he is not paid by top millions. Also has been starting more from defensive end than those two top guys, and has still been able to produce.

Very interesting player. Probably Vegas will trade for him, and he is their next middle6 steal.

I think his scoring already exists in Sprong, Ras and Perron. Ras already doing good things on ice, it's only matter of the time when numbers starts rising and Perron is still shaking the summer rust off. I don't see the point to acquire more secondary scoring with longer contract, especially when Kasper, Danielson and Mazur are on their way. And secondary scoring for this season seems to be working fine, so far.

 

[Henkka]

It could just be the Yzerman trade-fest triangle:

1. Sign players for FREE from free agency
2. Trade some players you don't want to keep + picks <> for better players, by losing quantity, and getting quality.
3. Replace those lost quantity players with own prospects, who are NHL-ready.
4. After getting Quality player, trade other player to draft picks, who did lose the roster spot for a quality player.
5. Draft more prospects with those picks you got.
6. Back to --> 1.

That's Steve Yzerman at work.

 

[Dresden]

And how many assets are you burning to do that?

There is no need for Garland. There really is no need to burn assets to make room for Garland. Fabbri and Perron will phase our naturally or get flipped at the deadline. Paying to be rid of them when the team isn't in contention is just wasteful.


f*** that.

There is no market for a guy that is hurt all the time with a cap hit of $4M per year for the next two years.

 

[PajamaBoy]

I would do that in a heartbeat.

A real difficult declaration.