I'd think the Hawks accept this ..

Yeah. I wanted to say no, but upon further examination, it probably works for CHI. Like i've said before, contrary to what some people believe, Garland isn't quite a negative asset, especially since the OEL buyout giving VAN a bit more flexibility. But, I like the value here and think I could get behind this trade.

I might even propose 50% retention on Murphy, if we can reduce the TBL 1st to one or two of our 2nd round picks, depending on which ones.

No thanks for me. I just don't see the value for Murphy in this. Garland may not be a negative asset, but I don't see him (for sure for the Hawks) as some positive either...he is neutral at best....meaning someone the Hawks take to make a deal happen but not someone they are actively wanting to acquire. Bear is a guy at this point....but nothing special and likely gone by the time the Hawks are good again.

My counter to this would be Nucks add Danila Klimovich and the Hawks add the Dallas 3rd.

Hard pass from me. With the cap space from the OEL buyout Garland isn't a must move player anymore. Since that's the case, Connor Murphy isn't enough of an upgrade to justify trading down from 11 to 19

Agree w/ @wojohawk. Hawks decline. They value Murphy more than this. Garland at best is a neutral asset. Bear is out until January, and is a downgrade from Murphy at whatever point he comes back. I see this as giving up a late 1st or two 2nd's in value to move up to #11. Garland, Bear and that 4th don't make up the difference in value to me.