Okay, so there seems to have been some debate around the hockey world about what Garland's trade value is. Here are my two cents on the matter

Garlands value: Scenario 1 - mid 1st rounder + B prospect, Scenario 2 - 2nd rounder + A prospect

If I were to trade Garland for a single draft pick, it would be for a 1st rounder in the 6-10 range. Obviously Garland isn't worth a top 5 pick, but I think a strong argument can be made that he can fetch a pick in the 6-10th overall range because of his exceptional ability to produce even strength offense, coupled with his play driving ability. A single mid-late 1st by itself for Garland feels kind of underwhelming tbh

In other words, I think Jim Benning paid fair price to get Garland with the 9th overall pick, I don't think he overpaid. I know people will argue "LOOK AT GUENTHER!!", yeah, I see, but he still hasn't proven anything at the NHL level yet, so I'm not counting my chickens before they hatch

I know Arizona's asking price for Garland when Vancouver traded for him was a 1st. I agree I don't think Benning overpaid for him but, its hard to isolate what value he had because that trade had several things going on.

I disagree, I think it's pretty easy to identify that the 9th overall was specifically the price for Garland, the rest of the package was for OEL. Despite having term left as oppose to the three expiring contracts VAN sent the other way, OEL still contributes much more than the likes of Beagle, Roussel, and Eriksson were contributing combined, so if you take that into consideration, that part of the deal arguably evens itself out. The problem is that more naive hockey fans just regard Ekman-Larsson as being just dead weight the same as those other three guys when nothing could be further from the truth

I posted in the thread of that trade breaking it down

OEL isn't dead weight but, he isn't a 7.2 Million dollar defenseman. OEL is between 1-1.5 million overpaid. Which to a normal team isn't a big deal but, with Dickinson & Poolman's contracts, 2,4 in buyouts and Halak's 1.25 next year makes the cap situation troublesome. With Vancouver there are just so many fires burning we didn't need 1 more. I would argue if we could flip Garland for a top 4 RHD Vancouver would win the OEL trade. A 9th seems a little high for Garland 1 for 1 considering Dabrincat got a 7th a 2nd and 3rd.

First of all, it doesn't sound like the new front office views Poolman as bad cap, he simply hasn't had a big enough sample size to be written off as such. With Dickinson, I think the club recognizes his lack of value due to the rumblings of him being a prime buyout candidate, and I'm glad it seems they are going to give Dickinson a chance to bounce back and rebuild some of his value, cause I've been advocating for them to do as much. It's only one down year, he has to have multiple underwhelming seasons before he's labelled as a declining asset. I was shocked when I ran into a few people who thought Dickinson was a bust

You're right that while they aren't in a cap crunch, Vancouver's cap situation is very very fragile, but we can't let that obscure or magnify the individual and unique valuations of each player/asset

It's hard to make an apples to apples comparison between what Garland fetched as opposed to Debrincat, because they were different off-seasons, so no doubt the market fluctuates somewhat within that time. That said, most are regarding the Debrincat trade as a fleecing by the Sens, myself included

I am certainly open to moving Garland for a top 4 RD, but I'm not actively shopping Garland, and I certainly won't move him for any other type of asset unless it's an obvious overpayment

I agree about Dickinson but, Poolman is a 950k bottom pair d-man on any other team. I know it has been said the new MGMT likes him, I don't think that changes the fact its a bad contract and if you can move Poolman without paying you would jump on it. There is 3.6 million getting paid to players that aren't playing for Vancouver and probably another 5-6 million in bad contracts. I agree with the new MGMTs approach to only add players that fit the Petterson, Hughes and Demko contention window. I don't thin Garland really fits the long term plans but, if you move him it shouldn't be for futures and to address a pressing need like Vancouver's D.

I'm sorry, despite Vancouver's needs on D, how exactly does that mean Garland doesn't fit the team's contention window? I'm not sure I understand

Poolman is arguably worth more salary simply due to positional demand, being a RD

3.6 million in dead money for a year is manageable, and 5-6 million in inefficient salary isn't too bad either

Hoglander or Podkozin will take his place at some point. I don't think they both will be 3rd liners for their entire career. This would make him expendable. Vancouver's contention window is in 2-3 years. this would make him 29 while Hoglander, Podkozin, Petterson and Hughes are around 24.

So what? Demko will be 29 too. Canucks HAVE to be contenders by the 2024-2025 season, and not a year later

Goalies are on an entire different time table. I don't see a replacement for Demko coming any time soon. My point is you want to keep your team around the same age so you can take several runs at the cup. The Dabricat trade is a great example of moving an asset if it doesn't match your contention window. There are exceptions to this rule like Horvat because he is the captain I don't see Garland as a core player.

The team is looking to make the playoffs with this core from here on out, that is reason enough to keep Garland unless a really sweet offer is made for the player. I could see a replacement for Demko being in the organization by the time his deal is up

We circle back to RHD. The Canucks could probably make the playoffs with the current team but, the skill gap is unbelievable on the right side D. We probably have the 5th worst D core in the pacific. What is the point of making the playoffs if you get knocked out in the 1st round.

5th worst D-core in the pacific equates to having the 3rd best in the division LMAO, I'll take that in the short term. Obviously, Myers and Schenn are only short-term stop gaps, but they ARE serviceable stop gaps for the time being. Yes, the team certainly needs at least a couple of young RD with top 4 potential as possible long-term solutions, but such prospects/young roster players don't need to take up spots in the lineup next season