He'd be a solid fit, but how do the Leafs afford to give him a min. 500% raise next year?

Leafs could make it work if they trade Kerfoot, sign a cheap replacement for Freddy and let Campbell start, then give Hyman and Garland cheapish bridge deals

So Garland at 25 yo 2 years ago is among the biggest bargains in the league, and this year is likely the biggest bargain in the league is going to say 'yeah, I'll wait a couple more years to really prove myself before I get paid'

And Hyman 29 yo. Coming off his 4th straight season of improving. Among the most valuable Leafs, has been incredibly undrerpaid the last couple of years. Hits UFA - his big chance at his Home Run contract....

And says 'sure, I'll take a cheap bridge deal, I'm sure I'll get just as much when I'm 31 yo and my play inevitably begins to decline!'.

Yeah, sure that seems likely!

Gally has been great. No need to overpay to get Garland

Why phrase it as if Garland is stop gap depth?

Young RFA blossoming into an elite W

Some people would suggest roughly that trade return above for 2 years of Rakell with retention but you'd get Garland for his entire prime and he currently has more points than Rakell, way better possession numbers with no elite linemates boosting him up

Size bias still persists 😑

Let that stuff go y'all

The leafs will actually have roughly 10 mil in cap space this offseason if they trade Kerfoot so let me lay it out for you. Tandem goalie like Ulmark, Driedger, or Bernier for around 3 mil. Considering how many goalies are UFAs this offseason that's what those guys will go for. Then that leaves 7 mil for Garland and Hyman. Hyman will hopefully sign a hometown discount to stay for around 4-4.5 mil for like 4 years. And Garland who's an RFA, would probably be willing to sign 3 years for around 4 mil and then make 6+ as a UFA when owners can actually give out that kind of money

But why would Garland of all players want to take a bridge deal?? He's not 22 years old. The guy has been making just above league min for 3 years now, on an absolute bargain contract, I'm pretty sure he's be ready to get paid.

It's pretty easy to do a backloaded contract btw. He can make $6M per year, and start at 4ish in the first year or 2 while escrow is high. See the Jonas Brodin contract for example. Why wouldn't him and his agent be pushing for this?

Also, your whole premise is garland is being traded because he's going to get PAID.

But, then your arguing he'd take a bridge. Which is it?

Ari can't afford to bridge one of their only decent players??

If he's elite, we can't afford him. Regardless I just don't see the need to pay the price it would take to get him.

Who's gonna pay him??? He's an RFA, he can't just go anywhere. The reason why he would take a bridge deal is because most owners are being cheap during the pandemic, even in Arizona where they have cap space, there is no way he's making more then 6 million. If he's really good, he'll sign a bridge deal for 4-5 million then get payed long term as a UFA when owners have money

So Arizona can't afford to pay him on a bridge deal? Fold the team if they can't pay home-grown guys like Garland $4M per.

Also, owners are going cheap on the guys they can afford to squeeze at the bottom of the roster. Doesn't apply to Garland.

If teams trade for pending RFAs that will play at the top of your lineup, it's usually with the idea your going to sign them long term. Pandemic or not.

Long story short. If he's up for a bridge deal, he'll stay a Coyote. If his agent makes it clear he wants big $$, then Toronto isn't a destination.

Either way doesn't work with the Leafs.

Doesn't even get into the exp draft implications (you know the whole reason Dubas is thinking of a rental this deadline).

So now you admit he could sign a bridge deal. What happened to it being impossible for him to sign a bridge?

IMO he'll sign a long term deal. He's more than earned it.

Guess I've got to try harder to make my main point of him making zero sense for the Leafs, you seem to glaze over that each time.

Well my original point was he's a perfect fit for the leafs and his name was out there a couple weeks ago and if you said before the offseason the leafs would be able resign Muzzin, Holl, Dermott, and Mikheyev and add Brodie for as cheap as they did I'd say no way. So IMO Dubas could make it work but since Arizona is making the playoffs Garland isn't going anywhere

Yes, but they turned over 1/3 of the roster if not more last off-season. After turning over a good chunk of the roster the previous year, and the year before that.

At some point, if a team finds the right mix of players then I'm sure they would prefer having 1 maybe 2 pressing issues each summer and come back with 80%+ of a team that had success in the prior year.

Sure they could get a Garland and give him a 500% raise (min.), and re-sign Hyman but it means another summer of showing several players the door (and not just the Thorntons and the Bogos, some guys making $$ would have to leave), which doesn't do much for consistency year over year. And it certainly doesn't help with the depth on the team (every top 6 fwd in that scenario would be $4Mish or over).

Even without factoring in a Garland, the Leafs will be tight to re-sign both Hyman and Rielly over the next couple years, while having competent goaltending.

The Leafs seem like fairly legit contenders to me, wouldn't it be nice to just make moves around the edges each off-season rather then re-invent the wheel each time?

Furthermore, why spend those assets on a Garland when Robertson is knocking on the door? They aren't the exact same player, but they've got some similarities, and what helps this team more in the next few years? Garland at $4M+ putting up 60+ pts, or Robertson at less than $1M putting up 40ish pts, and putting that $3M to use elsewhere on the roster? And before you say well no guarantee on Robertson. He's way more of a sure thing than Garland was at the same age. IMO, his ceiling is just as high.

Yeah but if the leafs are really interested in adding a top six forward Garland is a better fit for the leafs then Hall, Rakell, or Granlund or any other forwards on the market. Even as a rental he's better than any of those guys and the leafs can keep Kerfoot or have flexibility to add on defense at the deadline.

Unless someone is a headcase, a 25 yo top line RFA is pretty well never acquired as a rental and then dealt 20 games later.

So seems silly to bring that up like it's common.

Ok so the leafs didn't get him but like I said, it wasn't likely. But Friedman did report that the leafs inquired about Garland before getting Foligno. They probably tried to get him but Arizona had no attentions of moving him