Now you are just making up some hypothetical person. Well I know this guy from your team who says Garland is an all star if he plays on the right line. It's nonsense. He is a play driving middle six winger. He wants the puck on his stick. Name me who he played so well with? Depending on where you play up or down the lineup your role is going to change as will your production. This is a simple concept.

What does Garland need to make an excuse for ? He is a middle 6 winger. Not a top line player. He produces like a middle 6, drives play, plays defensively sound. That is who he is. His value is around 5 mil, right in line with his contract. He's also expendable. Doesn't mean he's bad or that we need to pay to trade him. Just that we have lots of wingers and need help elsewhere.

That is why I like to use the stats (which you haven't done at all) because it takes out the aspect of he said/she said, or this is who he is.

Dreger also said the Canucks had to add sweeteners and retain on Garland and Boeser.

You yourself have mentioned linemates as an issue. Jumbo Joe or whatever his name is said as much as well. But now you guys just deny it because it hurts your argument. Spoiler alert there is no argument here. Garland is not money well spent at 5 million. End of story. There is no debate. Keep him and enjoy your 40 points and literally nothing else from him.

I haven't made that argument anymore than it's a given that if you play with better players you'll do better. If anything I could say it's something that he was trusted with less experienced guys on the check line.

But again you just reach your conclusion purely on feelings. You said he wasn't good defensively. Data says he is. You said he isn't good on the pp. Data says he is good on a 2nd unit. You said he's overpaid. Models that project salary based on play suggest again you're wrong. So you can just continue saying "he's not worth the money" but if you don't back it with any argument or data than what are you saying? nothing in the end. Just that you misinterpret the situation and no amount of stats could ever prove to you any different.

You act like it's this gotcha moment to say "enjoy him". We are fine keeping him if it comes to that. I love it as an argument though because it means you've got no more points to make.

Ultimately though you are just confusing the pre UFA market for the normal market. Teams with cap space aren't going to make it easy for you to clear to then compete with them for UFAs. That is the reason Garland would ever need a sweetener to trade him. You confused that to mean he isn't worth his contract. The reality is he's paid about what he deserves. Last season he was well above that and this season probably slightly below. At 27 we're not expecting a huge drop. He's a good player who most teams would want for the right price.

Send me the link.