Gonna have to do way better than that for the Canucks to move Garland. There is also a difference between taking calls vs actively shopping someone

I love how Vancouver paid a top 10 pick, a 2nd, AND took on OEL's monstrosity of a contract for the pleasure of acquiring Garland, and now already want to move him

Garland for Eriksson, Roussel, Beagle

What are our positional needs if we’re going to “rebuild”, LD/RD, wings, centers what should we be looking for

He's a good player but not extraordinary so maybe a late 1st or a 2nd and a good prospect. He's signed to a good deal.

I agree, not a horrible contract, not extraordinary deal either, he definitely has value. But feel like VAN overpayed to acquire him so idk if we’re going to recoop a first for him BUT having a decent year and not a rental so late first may be possible

Thats not what happened. That was basically two trades in one
OEL for Beagle,Rousel and Loui and a 2nd because they retained money
Garland for 9ovr

I agree, not getting a top 10 back for him though, honestly might be better to take a 2nd and decent prospect ready or almost ready for nhl duty

Who the hell is running things over there? Sweet Moses, they are dumber than a wet sack of hammers.

Nobody said he was definitely moving they’re just saying he’s available and see what they can fetch for him, no different then Miller,

And why the hell should he be available? The guy is young enough and locked into an incredibly reasonable deal. Miller is a lot older and has a lot shorter term. Making Garland available is so far past stupid, we need a new word invented.

Canuckful? Does that work?

"The crap they do over there is endlessly, laughably Canuckful."

Yep, that works.

LOL yup totally fits,

I’m going to assume they’re not going to move him unless they get a first or he just doesn’t fit their “team vision” but it is VAN so who really know why they do what they do

What the f*** does "wet" have to do with the image?!?

Think of what happens if you put some hammers into a wet paper sack. A dry paper sack would be significantly stronger. A wet one may as well be a tissue.

Sorry, doesn't work. How about "wet sack of rice"? Or "wet sack of crackers"? Or even "wet sack of potatoes"?

None of those things have the weight and capability of injury that hammers have. Rice ain;t gonna shatter your foot when it falls through the wet sack. Potatoes are okay from a weight perspective, but again shouldn't cause an injury. Gotta go full force to make the saying work.

Yeah, but the concept is "dumb", not "damaging."

I like "wet sack of crackers" because wet crackers are inedible, therefore useless and dumb.

"Wet sack of tissue paper" might work.

I think they'd be looking for a young RHD + a pick. How good that pick is depends on how good the dman is

Carrying hammers in a wet sack is undeniably dumb on multiple levels. Plus it sounds much funnier.

But I digress. Back to hockey.