Isles, Pageau is more of a need then another mid 6 right shot wing.

Fair point, but they do have too many centers.

The Canucks easily.

I'm not so sure Rutherford declines this. Solves his 3C issue

Barzal is no longer a center.

Rutherford is an idiot. Maybe he says yes. But there are far better options in trade and ufa.

He oughta be. Granted the time was limited with him and Horvat partnered up, but Barzal looked lost to me. He thrives in the middle of the ice, even if he is not the greatest faceoff man or defensive center in the league. Playing on the wall is as foreign as Mongolia to him.

He had about 10 games on wing. Maybe he will end up back at center but he will be a Rw to start this season.

This text book definition of moving deck chairs. Both are overpriced pieces. I think Garland has more tread left on the tires but neither should make what they do.

jgp says no because of that ntc. Canucks gotta be on his list

I'll answer it this way, if this was offered to Vancouver I can't see them saying no.. but I don't see it being offered.

I am dubious that will last though. Guy needs to be carrying the puck in open space. Not along the boards.

Like who? I really don't think there are many better options but give me a few trade or ufa options you think are better.

The one thing on UFAs too is that Garland prob still has to go.

If you can move a third line winger for a 3rd line center that would be huge for the Canucks. We have depth on the wings an no real 3c.

I'd be ok with losing a trade even just to strengthen the position. Dvorak for Garland for example I'd consider.

Canucks are seem to be strictly targeting 25 and under in trades so the Canucks decline

Compher, domi, ROR, haula, kampf, kerfoot, suter, Rodriguez, Toews.... that's just off the top of my head in ufa. Probably 20 or more options in trade.

I don't believe garland has negative value. Not in the least.

Pague isn't very good, at 5 million? That's too much. Same for what Garland offers, if they made 3.5 or so? Both have good value. So I'm either case, it's sort of just moving deck chairs.

Rutherford has reportedly said that they are fine with adding older players as they feel the retool is over

Source? The retool barely started

I agree. It was reported on Sekeres and Price

Not sure how much I trust anything that comes from Sekeres. Unless Rutherford himself said this, I’m not buying into it

If Garland was a center he would not be in any trade discussions. He'd be our 3c. So no it's not moving deck chairs to trade for a comparable player to Garland who plays a position we desperately need for a player in a position we have good depth.

Ok most of those guys are not better. Others are comparable but with UFA you generally need to sign them longer than you want to entice them to come.

I don't think Garland has negative value either. How did you get to that? You think Pageau does?

I do think Garland has basically no more than a 3rd in value though and that seems hopeful.

50% of that list is better most if not all will be cheaper.

Pageau has zero positive value and would only be picked up by a bad GM. He won't be seeing 18min a night and pp time in Vancouver. Jay Beagle 2.0.

He isn't a centre though