before people say this is an overpay for Garland - it absolutely isnt. fair deal

Don't like giving up Mercer in a deal for Garland. Fair or not based on 12gs in a 49 game season, I'm not interested. I'm not buying into Garland hype.

Also, the Boqvist giveaway makes no sense...

Exactly what I was going to say

I would rather hold on to Mercer. I think he's gonna be a solid NHLer

If we are going to trade something for Garland, I'd rather give them Bratt. He's already signed for one more year, but has been more of a setup guy. His stats are comparable to Garland, but I'd rather build a RW depth chart around Holtz and Mercer.

A solid NHLer isn't much

Garland is either a really good or elite NHLer

Depending on perspective

for 4 years at 5.5 million, it is close, but still kind of a hard sell for me. A first and and a team's top or #2 prospect is not far off from blockbuster value if we look at recent history. There's no guarantee that will be the real figure though. I believe Garland is also player arb eligible, so its entirely possible that this could be a trade for 2 years of conor garland at more than 5.5 million. At that point I think that is massive overpayment. It's buyer beware, and I just dont think the garland is tantalizing enough to take that risk.

Equally, Mercer looks very promising...like probably shouldn't have fallen to the 18th pick. Either way, lets say mercer is worth the 18th pick in a good draft on average. it looks like you are a bluejackets fan, so to put it into perspective, if there devils were to turn around and flip Garland to CBJ, are you willing to trade two first rounders for him, or a late first and your #2 prospect? I am not opposed to trading either of those assets, but I am certainly opposed to trading those assets for a contract-less Garland.

Abysmal analysis ^

How convenient that you left out how his assist total combined with that goal total had him up near point per game and ahead of the likes of Kuznetsov 🙄

Also: what of his 22 G last year in shortened season

When you factor in linemates he vastly outperformed RNH (who played mostly with 97 in 5v5 and with McDraisaitl on PP) offensively this year for instance

Overall he bested RNH in pts/g from 0.8 to 0.7

Also:

Pts/g this season
Barzal 0.81
Garland 0.79

These things are very easy to look up

One has to assume y'all are disingenuous

If the research isn't being done 🤨

Oof I hate getting into this but it's gotta be done:

Did y'all watch Garland play this season?

Often he was their offensive catalyst and carried their tope line, constantly creating chances, dominating the possession, arguable he outplayed Keller/Schmalz

I actually did watch his videos because of all this hype on him and I have been checking him out because of how much talk has been around him. He is good, but if the Devils are going to trade Mercer, I'd rather it for a pure scorer.

The guy has a real nice shot, but he's also 25 and should be right about his peak.

The Devils shouldn't be buying on someone like Garland while they are rebuilding and selling off a guy like Mercer.

Have you looked at the division the Devils are in? Is it wise to sell off for "now" assets while the top end is still on it's last gasps of holding on until PITT and WSH finally fall off?

Are the Devils going to be better than CAR, NYI, WSH, PITT, or even NYR next season? Now even PHI after the Ellis trade? What would be the point to trading off Mercer now for a piece that by the time the Devils grow into a real contender, now Garland is 27-28?

Leave the big asset deals for when you can actually make the move up. Now is not the time.

The Graves trade was one to at least establish something on the backend and only cost a 2nd. That I can live with.

Mmm sounds like you’re stat watching. I’m not even an AZ fan but I’ve seen a lot of Garland and this is a pretty bad take. He’s a great player, much better than stat line would indicate. Suggest you research further.

Yep couldn’t agree more. I can respect someone saying it’s not a fit, but the assessments of Garland here are wrong. It’s not enough to stat watch him as a player. Much, much more to the story.

Im not opposed to trading Mercer either. You can only make deals when the other party in the trade likes what you have to offer. That said, I am opposed to giving up mercer for Conor Garland. A first and a top prospect are the kind of assets that should only be basis of a blockbuster trade for a team like the devils. if you are at the deadline, and trying to win a cup, that is a different story, but its still a ton to give up. The devils should be willing to make this kind of deal if it means getting somebody that could rapidly accelerate the rebuild.

In order to get a legitimate star player, youre probably gonna have to give up a 1st and a top prospect at the very least, but thats gonna be most of the value in the deal. Considering recent history the devils could get a bonafide stud winger like maybe forsberg or boeser by adding either an additional top prospect like foote or boqvist to that deal or an additional pick in the first two rounds. Would you be willing to give the overwhelming majority of that package for Garland instead? He's a really good player, but I think you have to try to swing for the fences a bit more if youre going to include both of those assets in a deal.

Fair lol I just didn't have a spot for him in the lineup and wanted to make the lines look nice

would you be willing to give up a package like Boldy and #22 for garland?

Was on pace for 65 points over 82 games playing for a pretty bad offensive team. Imagine what he could do playing with Hughes. Sharangovich would score a ton of goals.

To get a 25 year old 60-70 point winger you're going to have to offer something legitimate. The "first" you're referring to is the 28th pick, not exactly massive value there. I would say there's a high chance the Devils screw up that pick anyways. I think an A prospect and a late first is very fair for Garland

giving up one of their top 6 forwards for another one just to make a medial improvement seems counterintuitive

hes also been doing this on the worse offensive team the last 2 years AND he has lots of intangibles, for example he draws the most penalties in the league

then you should buy in.

it would be a huge slam dunk if mercer turns into a bonafide top liner like Garland lol. sometimes yall overrate futures here too much

That's a fine analysis, I agree with most of it. However, how many pure goal scorers under the age of 24 ever become available? I think Garland would score more goals playing with Jack Hughes too but that's just me.

Also in a few years when NJ is actually good, not all of their roster is going to be under 25. Nothing wrong with having a quality veteran under the age of 30 that can still contribute.

Futures get overrated all the time on here lol. I like Mercer but what are the chances he actually becomes significantly better than Garland? TopDownHockey on Twitter has him at a 4% projected chance of becoming a star in his NHLe model.