From a Tampa perspective, i dont hate it. we get a cheap LHD for the bottom pairing, a middle 6 winger for 1 year, a 3rd round pick, and a prospect that could use a change of scenery

If it happens, so be it. Need to sure up the 3rd LHD though. Let Hirose (and Woo) marinate with Johansson in Abby and sign a better player over Breeeeeeezebuh. Wolanin and bringing back someone like Burroughs on a minimum deal is better depth and allows the young guys to get game time for development.

Change the CHI 2nd to the OTT 2nd, and CHI likely accepts.

Now youre just getting greedy. I wouldn't do this trade to begin with. I keep asking but yet to get an answer. How is it that people think Garland is a negative asset? What about his game, stats, advanced numbers, age, role suggest that?

Haha. Not being greedy. That based on the value of the picks involved, and the values of the picks are based on multiple in depth studies that have been done on how picks, or more specifically their draft position, are valued in trades. Which, technically is a generalization, but is an average based on data spanning many drafts.

As far as Garland goes, though, he is older and has stagnated quite a bit, maybe even regressed depending on who you ask. Although his cap hit remains the same, his contract is backloaded and these last three years are the most expensive years of his deal with a total of $17M being owed to him in actual cash. Specifically to VAN, they are in fairly dire need of roster space and cap relief, according to their "retool" plan. Coupled with the flat cap, that provides leverage to any acquiring team. Specifically to CHI, we don't want him or need him, he isn't actually "old", but for OUR needs he is a little old to fit our rebuild timeline. So, we wouldn't be buying him, and considering VAN has already tried shopping him unsuccessfully, I don't think positive value for him is in the cards, or at least not anything substantial. Which means, if VAN NEEDS to move him, and there aren't any takers, CHI would be more of a last resort, and would only take him as a pure cap dump.

Garland just turned 27 not old. He is what he is, a consistent 45-55 point guy. Who does that without pp time.

The backloaded part I hadn't heard that could certainly make his value less to some teams.

The scenario you paint is fairly true. We need to move money out. If I'm the Canucks I'm moving Myers after June 1st fairly easily. Considering buying out OEL. And seeing what the market is for Boeser, Garland, Beauviller. Just because teams aren't taking on cap right now doesn't mean they wont want to when they miss their free agent targets. Teams will look to improve.

I say greedy because you are moving up in the draft 8 spots. 19 to 11 is a big jump. To do that you are giving up a 2nd and 3rd. It's fair value. As an expiring deal Garland is worth probably a 2nd maybe more if he plays well. And of course Garland isn't part of the Hawks future long term but they need some guys to play with Bedard. Like it's pretty critical they get a couple lines at least of competitive players. There isn't much at all currently. So the Hawks have a need as much as the Canucks need to move Garland specifically.

If VAN can get a 2nd for Garland, then by all means, go ahead, but it won't be CHI that values him that highly. You can say Garland is worth this or that, but to CHI he is just a means of helping VAN clear cap space to retool. If CHI wants to bring in an influential veteran presence for Bedard, Garland isn't it. And it isn't "critical" that CHI brings in a couple lines.

If there is one thing CHI doesn't lack, it is compete. Skill on the other hand is something they do lack. But, they definitely don't need to go out of their way to add anyone. They have plenty of young players that are ready to either step into larger roles or step into the NHL for the first time that could end up in larger roles over the next few years. This rebuild is happening organically whether people like it or not.

As far as the value of the picks involved, CHI should not trade the 35th overall pick, that coupled with the 19th and the 3rd are worth significantly more than the 11th overall pick. So, if CHI does value Garland as either a cap dump or neutral value, that means they are sending surplus value for the 11th overall AND giving VAN cap relief. In which case, the trade heavily favors VAN. Now, I could make the argument that maybe CHI needs to overpay to move up in this draft, and that could be a valid argument. We'll see... But i think the flat cap creates a more desperation on VAN's side than CHI's quest for higher picks does for themselves. Otherwise VAN wouldn't even consider moving the 11th overall.

I disagree on the outlook of the team. You need to surround Bedard with players he can play with. And in doing so you don't have to pay much or commit to players long term. Im not saying that. Just that if you put him with what is currently on the roster you risk blowing his development. You saw it when Pitt drafted Crosby. They were going to put him out there with the previous yrs team. They went and got Palffy, Recchi, LeClair, Lemieux was back. And I don't expect them to give up much draft capital to get these types of guys.

Here the value based on a wbesite i just found 11th pick is worth 338. 19th is 237, 35th is 116, 67th is worth 32. So ya to move up it would cost roughly the 19th and 35th. To get Garland for the 67th would be excellent value too and fit a team need. But anyway ya the Canucks dont want to drop in the draft. If Garland costs money to shed I'd easily makes any number of other moves i suggested and keep Garland because he is a decent player.

For sure. That is one of the pick valuations I had in mind, actually. I even have it bookmarked. haha. But, I think everyone underestimates what we have, not to mention Bedard will also probably elevate those players, as well as his own game. I could see something like this happening, but I like to play devils advocate and look at things from every possible angle. I still doubt Garland would be up on the top line with Bedard, though. I'd like to see Riechel with him, and then I'm hoping for someone with a lot more experience like Killorn. Which totally depends on what Killorn wants to do, but CHI is a team that could overpay him to come mentor and protect our young players while still bringing a lot of skill to the table. He would also bring elements and the mentality of what is, by all accounts, a great culture, in Tampa.

Yup Killorn would be a decent option.

What do you think is there that people are underestimating?

I wouldn't suspect Garland would be a top line player but he could play there. The reason I said you need two lines is so you can mix and match and try different lines to find who works well with Bedard. And then you at least have another line the other team has to worry about if you are trying to actually compete. And I get you are rebuilding but you do want to keep the culture competitive enough that it isn't disrupting development and culture.

Raddysh, Johnson (if he can stay healthy), Reichel, Guttman, and Kurashev, to name a few. Free agents even... Domi expressed interest in possibly coming back next year, Athanisiou, Killorn (as previously discussed), Bjork, etc. Then there are some guys that could be ready as soon as the 24-25 season, like Dach, Ludwinski, Nazar, Hayes, Saarela, Luypen, and whoever we draft this year. I think Savoie will be a solid grit/energy (Marchand-esque) bottom 6 guy with the potential to develop into a top 6 forward. Guys like Greene, James, Thompson, and Safonov will be ready within a few years. Someone like Kayumov could finally come over next summer and probably slot right in, although I think he would end up being more of a trade chip, considering his age.

I don't think we could mess up Bedard even if we tried. He is going to be very good. There will be no holding him back. I think adding protection will be more important than adding skill, in the short term.

Ya you need some help short term. That isn't exactly a group of killers.

As for Bedard, as crazy as it may sound, I actually think he is the type of player that could be mismanaged. I've seen him play in person and he is not a go getter, grab the game by the scruff type of guy. He is kind of a floater. And his finishing a pick skills are just so elite he doesn't have to do anything else in junior. He needs support in my mind. Obv hes an incredible prospect and I'm not knocking him but he's not in the Crosby or even McDavid mould. I think he'll need a little bit more support. There is even talk of whether he's a center at the NHL level. That wasn't the case for Crosby or McDavid.

Yeah. I've watched a lot him, not in person, though. I'm aware of the question marks surrounding him in certain areas. I still think we have enough talented and experienced players to get him started minus maybe one or two acquisitions. I certainly believe, they will be looking for someone to put on a line with him, but I don't really think Garland or Boeser are necessarily upgrades or solutions for that need.

It really depends on a lot of variables, though. Who is gonna get moved between the start of next season, who does CHI think is part of their future, what kind of offers are out there now versus what we might get at the TDL, who is actually available and open to coming to CHI when free agency opens, what they think of players like Garland among others that teams are willing to move and what their fit would be with CHI, etc.

Again, I think you and most people, including a lot of CHI fans, underestimate what CHI already has. Players don't have to be killers to become a killer. We have guys poised to take big steps that are absolutely more talented than anyone he has played with yet, and taking away opportunities from other guys just because we draft Bedard isn't fair to the rest of the players in our system. Locking ourselves into contracts this early in the rebuild isn't consistent with the vision Davidson and his front office have presented. Using assets to buy NOW would be an injustice to the rebuild. So, I'm not saying Garland to CHI can't happen, and not saying I necessarily would mind it, but there is plenty of room for doubt and maybe some better possible options to be explored before going that route.

We'll see though. Either way, it's going to be exciting! Sometimes I wonder what I like more about hockey, actually watching games or the drafting/scouting/trading/development and politics of it all.

I agree pretty much with all of this and Ill just reiterate that I don't think Chicago should be committing to players long term or giving up assets to get better. Weaponizing cap space is all you need to do. Do the Pacioretty type deals. Maybe sign one or two FAs to short term deals. The irony of the whole convo is that Garland is worth a 3rd I think as a value proposition but for Chicago there isn't much urgency, nor is there for Vancouver (in my opinion) because i think if a team is making us pay to trade him we should look at making other moves as he is a serviceable player.

i almost agree on the drafting/scouting/trading might be better than the actual product. That could be because my team has been so bad for so long though. When were good it was a hell of a lot of fun to watch them.

Heard some new things about Garland recently that would make him an even more concerning acquisition. What do you know about him having some serious character issues? If this is true to any degree, I doubt CHI would want to bring him into their locker room and muddy up their culture building process.

I wouldn't have suspected that in the 2 yrs he's been here. I've always been fairly impressed by his attitude given he's probably had a smaller role here than he and many fans would have suspected. Where'd you hear this?

A BUF fan said it on a BUF post that had them acquiring him. Said he was "a head case" and "not a team player".

Personally, I have never heard that about him from anywhere else, though. But I also haven't heard much about him period. Most of what I know is from stats and video, which doesn't always show personality. So, I know nothing.

Haha ok I thought you had it from a real source. I've never had any reason to suspect that but if you find an actual report let me know.

Did he think he was talking about Miller? You could make that argument with him but even that wouldn't be totally accurate.

Yeah. No. But still a bit worrying. But yeah, he was probably thinking of the wrong player or lumping players in together or something dumb like that. Miller I wouldn't touch. I know there is nuance to everything, but after seeing the way he treated Delia, I wouldn't leave the door open for that to ever happen in CHI. Doubt Miller would want to go to CHI anyway. He obviously wants to win now and he is getting older.

But, yeah. Not a credible source. Which is why I went to you because you seem to be on the up and up with the Canucks.

Ya I wouldn't call it worrying at all. People literally say anything and everything on these boards often with absolutely zero substance. As I say though its never been reported in Vancouver, he seems well liked, Doesn't seem the type to complain. His game is hard working, sacrificing himself for the team.

For sure, I know all too well how much bologna gets said on here. haha. Just seemed specific enough that it was worth asking someone who would know.