Vancouver isn’t paying to dump garland, take the OEL contract and Vancouver would do that

Why Chicago does it:
They get out of the Karlsson contract without retention. Even accounting for taking on Murphy, they free up significant space that they can use to accrue more assets via taking bad contracts. It's very clear that despite a Hart level season, there is no value in Karlsson. Nobody wants to take the risk of absorbing his contract. This deal allows San Jose to turn the page on the rebuild/tank and move on from Karlsson. It saves their ownership a significant amount of liability.

Why Vancouver does it?
This trade has been rumored in the media. Anybody who is not delusional knows Garland has negative value. They probably should just ride out the contract, but this is done rumored trade with Chicago.

Why Chicago does it?
It gets them another star to play with Bedard. There is massive risk with Karlsson, but they are one of the only teams in the league who has both the cap flexibility and ownership willing to spend real money to absorb that risk. It also makes them look more attractive as a free agent destination, since adding another big star signals that they are ready to turn the page.

Chicago wouldn't do that for the OEL contract I don't think.

I don't think VAN should do it either, but this a rumored deal. The Karlsson aspect is not rumored, but I think Chicago makes an interesting landing spot. They also are the only team who would likely take him without retention.

No retention is why the return for San Jose is effectively nothing. Look at the Burns trade.

Chicago has almost $40 million to spend, and I'd take OEL just for a veteran presence and to hit the floor.

Absolutley not if I'm SJ, Karlsson isn't a cap dump anymore.

Why the hell would San Jose trade a 100 point defenseman and the soon to be Norris winner for Connor Murphy and a 3rd???????

Horrible pathetically bad trade for Vancouver. GARLAND IS NOT NEGATIVE. He's been amazing at the worlds. He's definitely a great middle 6, and an average top 6 winger. He's not negative, like Boeser is.

Why does Vancouver give up a good winger, and the 11th overall for 19th overall and whatever that second is, cbf to look cuz this trade is a non starter.

If it was Boeser, I can see it more likely.

If this was true, he would not longer be a Shark.

The reality is that there isn't even a market for him with retained salary. The issue is his term and injury history. If a team trades for Karlsson and he regresses back to being the player he has been for the last few years, they destroys any chance that team has at a Cup. His cap hit and term is too big and buyout proof.

Because he wants out, nobody wants to give up assets for him (even when significant retention), and his presence is a detriment to San Jose, not a benefit. Karlsson cost them significantly this year by helping them win and hurting their draft position. They are 3-5 years away in their rebuild.

The value is getting out of his contract without retention. That additional space can be used to accrue more assets..

It's a rumored trade.

I wouldn't do it if I was VAN.

With that said, Garland has negative value. He is an undersized forward who is failing to produce as expected. He has term at a relatively large cap hit. Players don't have to be David Clarkson bad to have negative value. Teams are practically begging Bettman and the NHLPA to find a way to raise the cap. Cap is king right now.

Teams don't take contracts with money owed to "hit the floor". They take contracts with superficial cap hits, like Shea Weber.

I think OEL is owed too much for too long, and unlike Karlsson, there isn't that franchise player ceiling to justify the risk.

If it is OEL in place of Garland, I wouldn't want to send the TBL 1st. That contract is really bad.

I like this for Chicago and thats it but i think Chicago almost has no reason to do this but they could flip Karlsson and Garland for draft picks and for the Canucks and San jose this is terrible value