Trading Garland for an LD would be a very questionable move

It is a risky move.

This is interesting. Value's decent for the canes but idk if they accept with how thin they would be on LD. If they did this we'd basically have Slavin and.... De Haan if he makes the team.

Canes rapidly say no. I think this favors Vancouver. Skjei and Pesce were one of the best pairings in hockey last year. Carolina doesn't have the LD to replace him. This doesn't move the needle for the Canes

Value wise (in a vacuum) Garland is greater than Skjei, but this goes back to value to team and team construction. This favors Vancouver as their need for Defense is greater than Canes need for a forward. However Canucks are looking for RHD…

All of this to say this trade makes no sense for either side…

Comments below are a bit too direct and Canes centric

I disagree with saying Garland is better than Skjei in a vacuum. Otherwise, this is right. A top 4 D guy that can put up 30 points and be one of the best defensive pairings in their own zone is more valuable than a 50 point forward that is nice to have, but he's nothing special.

Garland would lead 14 teams in the league at even strength points this past season. He would have been 4th in Carolina in points, and 2nd in 5v5 points. Everyone continue to underrate him

I'm not underrating Garland, you're underrating Skjei. Skjei - Pesce was one of the best pairings in the NHL, and helped to shelter DeAngelo on Carolina's top pair. He'd instantly be the best player in his own end on the Canucks. He'd have been the best player in terms of dxGA on 25 teams, including Vancouver. This isn't a conversation about Garland's important to a bubble team. It's about Skjei's importance to a true contender. Like you said, "Everyone continues to underrate him"

Right but I never said anything denying the Skjei is very good. I am simply replying to you saying there is nothing special about Garland...

He's not special. McDavid is special. Matthews is special. Makar, MacKinnon, Hedman, Stamkos, Ovechkin, Crosby are special. Garland? Nah, run-of-the-mill middle-six winger.

"Middle six winger". Would be the best middle six winger in the league considering he was 31st in the league in 5v5 points, which means he would have led 14 teams in that category. More 5v5 points than Crosby, Barkov, Aho, Svechnikov, Barzal, Marchand, just to name a few. McDavid had a lower 5v5 points/60 than Garland but I guess Garland is just another average winger. All those bonafide elite first line players were worse producers at even strength than "run of the mill middle six winger"

Garland was also drastically up on his xSh%, and his QoC factor. His even strength metrics are middle six. 50 point winger? Middle six. He's not a ppg-100 point guy so he's not a top liner. He can play bottom line, but that would be dump due to his skill. So middle six. A good comparable for me is Nino Niederreiter. Nino is far superior analytically, but not the point. Middle six solid winger, can fill in anywhere, but 2nd or third line is where he belongs.

Top liner means 100 point guy now huh? Continue to ignore the stats I provided, I'll wait until you have come to your senses. "Middle six winger". Tanner Pearson is a "middle six winger", not Garland. He is a very good top 6 player who produces at an ELITE rate at 5v5.

No, Tanner Pearson is a bottom six winger. He's also a cap dump.

You cherry pick even strength points. So let's have fun with this. xGF was middle of the pack, about +1 to replacement level per 60 minutes. dxG was about 1.5. His QoC quota is higher than most due to the Pacific and West in general deciding Tanking was an olympic sport. Garland's defensive stats are replacement level. -0.74 xGA and a dxGA of about -0.5 (I'm rounding this). Not great defensively, goaltender didn't bail him out. Garland is a middle six winger that scored 50 points

I think conversations like this are perpetuated by such direct comments like ‘he’s also a cap dump’ and Nino is ‘far superior analytically’. I’m curious if there is a understanding that when definitive statements are written like this that it comes off very stand-off’ish.

Shouldn’t we just leave it that Garland and Skjei are both solid players, agree that it’s hard to compare Defenseman and Forwards, and that a trade like this doesn’t help either team?

When a player has a +1.0 on a player per 60 minutes, they're far superior analytically. Pearson is a cap dump, look at any Vancouver ACGM, they will try to bin him off because he's a cap dump. No one wants him at his AAV when there are cheaper alternatives. Neither statement can be argued.

This statement is what I was talking about - it comes off very arrogant and argumentative.

Pearson is not a cap dump, you're valuations of non-Hurricanes players are always lame

Don't you have anything better to do than spew throwaway metrics? @Juiceman already made a strong case and all you can do is throw your arms up in petty denial

Garland's got a better value contract than Skjei, can say that much

Pearson is a cap dump. He's worth about 1.5 mil. He makes north of 3 and has trade protection. That is a bad contract my friend.

Are you serious? All he said is even strength points. Everything I said is backed up by NST, EH, or MP (numbers vary slightly depending on source, but consensus is stable). Skjei has a better contract, because he's CLEARLY the better player. Your Canes player valuations are comical.

3.2 mil for a 30-40 point 0.5 point per game isn't really that bad. That production at 1.5 mil is quite rare.

It is, I'm honestly baffled that some people believe that 40 point forwards are a dime a dozen and can typically be signed for around 1.5M AAV. That's absolutely not true, 40+ point forwards make 3+ million on the open market. Now granted, the market for forwards, especially wingers is depressed right now, but in a none flat-cap environment, middle six production very much costs a decent chunk of change. The reason some people gawk at Pearson making middle class money is because they recognize he isn't a skill guy, offensive ability isn't front of mind when they think of Pearson as oppose to a guy like Sonny Milano, Alexander Kerfoot, or J.T. Compher to name a few examples. I might argue that Pearson is better defensively than those three players a listed

Better player doesn't equate to better value contract bro, come on, you're better than this. Also, your over-reliance on analytics is what's comical