Quoting: BigShoots
Now youre just getting greedy. I wouldn't do this trade to begin with. I keep asking but yet to get an answer. How is it that people think Garland is a negative asset? What about his game, stats, advanced numbers, age, role suggest that?
Haha. Not being greedy. That based on the value of the picks involved, and the values of the picks are based on multiple in depth studies that have been done on how picks, or more specifically their draft position, are valued in trades. Which, technically is a generalization, but is an average based on data spanning many drafts.
As far as Garland goes, though, he is older and has stagnated quite a bit, maybe even regressed depending on who you ask. Although his cap hit remains the same, his contract is backloaded and these last three years are the most expensive years of his deal with a total of $17M being owed to him in actual cash. Specifically to VAN, they are in fairly dire need of roster space and cap relief, according to their "retool" plan. Coupled with the flat cap, that provides leverage to any acquiring team. Specifically to CHI, we don't want him or need him, he isn't actually "old", but for OUR needs he is a little old to fit our rebuild timeline. So, we wouldn't be buying him, and considering VAN has already tried shopping him unsuccessfully, I don't think positive value for him is in the cards, or at least not anything substantial. Which means, if VAN NEEDS to move him, and there aren't any takers, CHI would be more of a last resort, and would only take him as a pure cap dump.
McDavid, Connor
$250,000)
Hawksguy81 liked this.
CapFriendly
CapFriendly