that doesn't get garly

dont think canucks have to trade garland but leafs would have to add something as it isnt enough

Not even close. Garland was 31st in even strength scoring. Let’s see what this deal accomplishes.

Can’t miss prospect- no
2023 first- no
D man to play with Hughes- no

It accomplishes nothing. In no world does Vancouver do this.

And Vancouver is not that worried about cap. They maybe need to clear up 1-2 million.

Easy pass from Vancouver

Canucks pass

Bjorkstrand trade is a close comparable, this is far more than that. I love Garland but his value just isn’t that high. Unless they pay a team to take on cap dumps next year they need to move Garland (if they want Horvat to stay and to build a competent d core). I hate to say it but trade values are screwed rn, it’s the same reason a guy like Kerfoot is worth far less on the market than he actually is. Also, Garland wouldn’t even fetch a 1st at the deadline apparently, his value hasn’t gone up with one less playoff run. And, the cherry on top, Canucks have been rumoured to be looking for a “lockerroom change” and have been shopping Him.
I hate to say it, his value isn’t insane. Kerfoot was a 50 point player, almost entirely all at 5v5, and he’s worth barely anything. Bjorkstrand was a really good 2nd liner and got a 3rd and a 4th. Kulikob got traded for FC. This value totals up to close to a 1st, I don’t know how much you Nucks fans want for Garland but you aren’t getting full value

Vancouver has no reason to move Garland for less than a fair deal and there's no way we'd help out Toronto by taking Muzzin's contract, even if we had the cap space to do so.

Unlike Columbus we don't need to drop a player for cap reason, if we are trading Garland it will be for a top 4 rhd otherwise we will just keep him

Bjorkstrand isn't a close comparable. Columbus needed to get under the cap after signing Gaudreau. The Canucks don't have that problem. So, there's no comparison.

Do you know how many teams Garland would have led in 5-5 points? 14. Nearly half the league. Vancouver doesn’t have to move him for scraps. He’s not a “cap dump” You want Garland? We want Niemela++. We don’t want “a basket where if you add up all the value you get a first” Garland had more even strength points then Nylander at 2 million less.

Canucks aren’t in that issue this year, but this mock trade is for Next Year. If they resign Horvat and want tk fix the d core, which I can’t see them not doing; then cap needs to be cleared one way or another. It would either need to be cap dumped via Myers or a collection of others, which would cost assets, or trade Garland for below average value. If they go the Garland route, the return won’t be high. Niemela+++ is a bigger return than what Kevin Fiala got my guy. Kerfoot had 43 5v5 points; is he worth a 1st + now? And again, this isn’t a knock on Garland. He’s a really good 2RW. This is the league we’re in rn, just look at trade values and how they’ve been. It’s really stupid, but don’t take it out on me for mocking a trade that is built similar to what we have seen around the league

Canucks would most likely dump the other assets with 2 of pearson Dickinson or Myers to create the cap room before dumping Garland for scraps, Kerfoot is an ufa at the end of the year being the reason why he isn't worth a high package also most teams would contribute his success on playing with Tavares and Nylander

I certainly agree with Kerfoot getting help from those two, but he still produced on the same level as them or even outproduced them at 5v5. 1 year being left on the deal never scared people for asking for 3-4 1st rounder worth of value for guys like Miller/Kane. And in regards to dumping those guys, the cost to dump them would likely balance out in terms of assets than if you were to trade Garland for a package like this (trading lets say a 2nd and a 3rd to clear cap to fit in Garland might not be as ideal for Vancouver as they instead could get a 2nd and 3rd and young guy or whatever the return is, and keep the others while breaking even for cap yk)

Kinda like what Columbus did with Bjorkstrand. They could have paid to dump Voracek, but the ask for dump him was a 1st + a prospect. They could choose between losing the 1st and prospect, and Voracek as a player, but keep Bjorkstrand, or they could choose to keep the pick and prospect, keep Voracek, and move on from Bjorkstrand

Columbus had to trade Bjorkstrand, Canucks are under no obligation to trade Garland. If you want him it will cost a package including Lilijegren

Miller is getting a 3 mil raise. Say Horvat gets a 2 mil raise which is GENEROUS. Thats an extra 5 mil we need to create. With the cap increasing my 1 mil, we only need 4 mil extra. With Holtby and Virtanen buyouts coming off the books, there is an extra 2.5 mil coming off the books. Now we just need to get rid of 1.5 mil. Last time I checked, teams don't trade elite 5v5 point producers because they need 1.5 mil in cap space to accomodate recent RFA extensions...