If I had to choose one, the second one. Both are off on value, but the first one is further off. Colombus is paying the Canucks in the first one for that trade, not the other way around.

Benning might have done something like this, but giving up the best player, a decent pick AND retaining salary is pretty much a teenage boy fantasy more than anything else.

VAN wants and needs to add a defenseman, and is going to have to move money out to do so. Garland is the better player, but I don't think it is a massive disparity. There is quite a bit of precedent across the league with the cap situation teams' are in for them to have to pay to move a contract with as much money and term as Garland's. Even with the retention it is taking 200-350k off of VAN's books for the next three years, and CBJ are adding that to theirs.

The value is slightly in CBJ's favor here, but no one is giving you a defenseman and taking Garland back without retention and pick.

Vancouver wants cap space, but they're not gonna get hosed to do it, especially not for 200-300 k over three years. They know they need to retain, that's the payment relative to his value. They aren't gonna retain, pay a sweetener and take on a bad contract of a marginal player. Like I said jizz in your pants.....

It sounds like you're probably underestimating these defensemen. They have flaws, but Peeke's numbers looks so bad due to how he was overutilized, and NHL GMs value physical dmen. Boqvist is an offensive dynamo with a rare skillset and is still young and developing. His defense sucks, but he still has a really high ceiling. 350k x 3 years is 1.05m, which based on established trades in this league, that is worth about a 4th round pick.

Maybe the retention has to be a little less, and/or maybe the pick has to be a round lower, but I do not believe this is that far off.

I wouldn’t want to retain 2M. If I had to choose one I’d take the Boqvist deal, would rather have him than Peeke

I'd pass on both. Peeke for Garland is a bit of a gamble for both teams but fair value, doesn't work if Vancouver retains and adds a pick.

Peeke is a gamble given the term remaining on his deal. Can't see Vancouver trading for him unless they are also creating some more cap space than this. Peeke might be okay but I don't think anyone is convinced he is an improvement on other replacement level dmen. Boqvist still has some upside but he is small and poor defensively which simply isn't a fit for Van.

I don't think Van is desperate enough to move Garland with that kind of retention for what could be considered project dmen. They'd probably be more interested in a short term veteran that they know is reliable. If Van absolutely needs to move out salary to address RHD this season and teams are asking for the moon on Garland retention and sweetners then they probably just pivot to moving an expiring contract like Beauvillier.

I think Peeke was miscast in a higher pairing and this has damaged his outlook. He was a great D man in college and could be a reliable and serviceable 3rd pairing guy in time. Boquist has all the skill to be a 1st or 2nd pairing defenceman, but is he strong enough for the North American game? If the Canucks are eyeing up Bear again and get him back in the fold, they would likely prefer Peeke as a replacement for Myers.

Boqvist by all accounts is not at all what they are looking for. Defence, size and physicality are the priorities apparently and he has zero of those qualities. Peake has size and physicality so that's something, but it's almost certainly on the low end of what they want to accomplish. I don't know who is undervaluing whom, me a pure bottom of the rotation D man with bad numbers or you a middle six forward with good numbers. The much rumored trade hasn't happened so......might never know.

Two more years at sub $3mil for a 25-year-old is a gamble? He still has a good likelihood to further improve, but he is far from being a "project".



In time? He is 25. going to still refine him game further, but at this point he essentially is what he is. He's a bottom-4, shot-blocking PK dman who played a good chunk of minutes the past two years on the top pairing where he was asked to do things in which he was not well suited. He is already a serviceable 2nd pair guy and a good 3rd pair guy. He has a big body and leaves it on the ice every night. Just about every GM understands that you need a guy or two like that on your blue line.




Again, I agree Garland is clearly the better player, but he's not a world-beater and in this era you are 1000% not going to move a guy like that who has $5mil AAV contract with term for any kind of decent return. If VAN doesn't retain or take even money back it would cost a 1st round pick to move him.

I will yield that $200k x 3 years is not enough cap relief to justify the 4th rounder on Peeke, but it absolutely going to cost VAN to move Garland.