i might sound like a Bruins homer here but I think this is a little too much for Garland. Damn good player and my favorite currently in the league, but just don't think he's worth two formers firsts, a current first, a guy with a little bit of potential, and a later pick.

I feel given JDB being vocal about a trade request, Fredric having a nagging injury, and Studnicka not living to his potential that it wasn’t a far fetched overpayment. Maybe the Canucks add another depth player or pick to balance it out. But considering Garlands contract, I’d pay a decent amount for him.

This is a steal for the Bruins.

Not a homer comment, the Bruins never make this move - Garland is good, but this just ridiculous - lets just toss Swayman and Pasta in there to make sure its super even.

@jim you may want to steal better things if you think this is a steal as it is a hard pass from the Bruins.

Former firsts do not matter unless they turn out. You wouldn't say that Yakupov is a solid piece in a trade as a former 1st. Or Olli Juolevi. Or Jake Virtanen. Come on.

Yeah but Yakapov had 8 seasons to prove himself as have some others you have mentioned are like like 20 years old, or 22. Regardless of former 1st or what ever picks, this is still way to much for Garland - if Garland is that good it would have cost the Canucks more than a 1st round pick for him and OEL.

it did

When I say "cost" I mean that is something of value that they gave up. Bad contracts and bad players like Loui Eriksson, Jay Beagle and Antoine Roussel are not what I would define as a cost, that is more like a good riddance. Not sure how "it did" makes any sense here as the only asset of any value was the 1st rounder. So the cost to Vancouver was only a 1st.

It did cost more. Thats show desperate ARZ was to get rid of OEL's awful contract

Fair but the Bruins were in discussions and found the price was to high for what the return was. Which was a 1st rounder for OEL and Garland, if you think moving all those assets and a 1st for Garland alone is something the Bruins would have interest in doing, its not likely.

All those assets, I'm not sure. Those assets aren't really all that attractive though. Vancouver is looking to gain cap space, so their preference is likely picks and prospects.

DeBrusk - next year on his QO would be $4.4 million, which is 500k less then when Garland makes. DeBrusk doesn't really help them achieve their goal of gaining cap space. Now sure they could not QO him, but if that's the case then he's little to no value in this trade

Frederic - Bottom 6 grinder who has 10pts in 83 career gp. Sure he plays a heavy game, but he also takes some ill advised penalties and can disappear at times. You can find guys like these all around the NHL. I think if he hits his potential he could be a quality 3rd liner, but not a guy whose going to produce a lot of points. He's also more than likely on his 2nd concussion of the season

Studnicka - Best player Boston is giving up. He's projected as a middle-6 center and would be a piece of interest

Beecher - Injury plagued NCAA career, where he's actually produced less each season. He (like Frederic) project as a bottom 6 forward if he makes it. He does have good size and speed which works in his favor though

If I was Vancouver none of those pieces really entice me to move my 25yr old RW that's played at a 20G/30A pace over the last 3 years and is signed to a very team friendly deal for the next 4 years.

DeBrusk has upside to be scoring 20 goals a season - his QO is 4.1 and he can sign for less (or more) pending contract negotiations. Frederic you are right is an energy player that plays bottom 6 and is paid accordingly. Look at the 3rd and 4th line player dumps the Canucks moved to bring Garland in (Roussel, Beagle and Loui - 3mil, 3mil and 6mil in AAV. So by virtue of his age and the cost makes him serviceable (and perhaps some upside who knows).

Studs and Beecher are still pretty young and they could turn out to be good players or middle of the pack and then you have a 1st and 3rd round picks.

So essentially the Bruins are moving a winger we know can score and up until he fell out of favour with the brass was putting the same points at Garland, a low cost, coachable and serviceable bottom 6 player and 2 players that could have decent ceilings and adding in a 1st and 3 round pick. Its way to much for someone who isn't a game changing player. If you are the Bruins you take your chances on Suds and Beccher and the pick this year in a very deep draft. Bruins window is getting smaller each year/day, but ideally they won't mortgage the future for Garland.

Its fair if Vancouver wants to keep him - to be honest the players that are supposed to take this team into the playoffs are all similar ages to Garland and it would be odd for Rutherford to rebuild when his core players are only 23-28. But this trade favours the Canucks if they are looking to rebuild.

CF must be wrong then because they show him with a QO of $4.4 million. Could he sign for less or more, sure. Does it still make sense for Vancouver to take a player that over the last few years has been worse than Garland, but cost roughly the same amount? I don't think so.

Yes Studs and Beecher could turn out to be good players then could also turn out to be nothing. Garland IS a good player its not a wait and see game with him.

Garland last 3 years - 158gp / 102pts
DeBrusk last 3 years - 144gp / 64pts

Yes DeBrusk showed great potential early on, but all I can look at is what he's done recently and compare it to what Garland has done over the same time. To say Garland isn't a game changer is interesting considering since last year he's 9th among RW's in points at 5v5 and 23rd among RW's in all situations. How much better are you looking for?

I honestly think you're overvaluing some of these players a valuing them as what's the ceiling is vs what their floor is. I also think you're significantly undervaluing Garland.

I am not underestimating Garland at all - he would look good in a Bruins uniform, but to be honest the offer the Canucks gave AZ was the best one to land him - which means the Bruins don't see moving a 1st is ideal for their fit and needs (as they were in the running for Garland and OEL). Bruins don't need a RW and when I say game changer, I mean mean someone that is super dynamic or takes things to another level which you need come playoffs.

If you are following the last couple years vs entire sample size (given both are not in their respective 10th season) its not that terrible. Its like saying Danton Heinen would be the same value as Garland when Bruins traded him, and for anyone who watched hockey knows Garland is far superior to Heinen. DeBrusk can still play hockey and the simple fact that with him getting more ice time 5v5 and PK right now he as 7pts in his last 12 games. He just really needs out of Boston.

This isn't purely a value of one person over another, and very often teams do value the more unknown commodities like picks or younger talent vs something they see on the ice like Garland (it happens every season and will continue to for the rest of time). The reality is twofold (1) its an overpayment for Garland (2) Bruins don't need a RW so to move this asset capital (even if was just the 1st round pick) makes no sense to the team.

Or and this might sound crazy....Boston didn't want and couldn't take on OEL's $8+ million cap hit like Vancouver could along with giving Garland an extension. As for game changer, those super dynamic players are very rare so good luck finding one.



Sure lets look career

DeBrusk - 282gp / 149pts / 0.53 pgp
Garland - 205gp / 120pts / 0.59 pgp

^Now that doesn't even factor in that Garland is trending up while DeBrusk has been trending down. You can throw all the JDB numbers you want, I'm sure I could throw even more at you as I'm constantly having to defend him, but Garland is worth more than DeBursk because right now he's actually producing like a top 6 winger.



Yes they do like picks and prospects, but Vancouver isn't looking to rebuild, they are looking to re-tool. The prospects are meh and really only Studnicka projects to have a chance to crack a top 6. The rest are dime a dozen prospect that every team has. They don't move the needle or are key pieces you'd want for a re-tool. While you can say they don't need a RW, what they do need is support in 5v5 scoring.....where they currently rank 21st in the league, just ahead of Buffalo and Seattle (YIKES!). Garland again since last year is one of the top 10 producing RW's at 5v5 in the NHL and would be a MASSIVE upgrade on Smith, who then slots into a more suited 3rd line role where he sees better matchups.

Marchand - Bergeron - Garland
Hall - Haula - Pastrnak

^That's the top 6 of contending team and assuming Bergeron returns, its a top 6 you can roll for at least another year.

All those former first are looking like they will not become NHLers. Show the issues Boston has had drafting since 2016 and mcavoy

Keep debrusk, he has not value and turn the 3rd into a second