Member Since
Nov. 22, 2016
Favourite Team
Vancouver Canucks
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 21 at 3:46 p.m.
Thread: TDL trade
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 21 at 3:40 p.m.
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>alwaysnextyear</b></div><div>I didn't explicitly say it, but the extension with Severson is implied. No way the Canucks should entertain trading Garland unless there's at least the knowledge that Severson would be willing to extend with VAN and what the contract ask would be.</div></div>

I understand that it was implied. But when dealing away one of the most efficient deals your team has on the books, you need to be certain you are receiving similar value, if not more. Given that Severson has averaged close to .5PPG his past 3 seasons, and the inflation in AAV for defensemen, especially those who produce at such a level - it would be difficult to see Severson get anything less than 6.5M x 6-8 years on the open market (with a .5M decrease/increase depending on the desirability of the destination).

Given that Garland has 3 more years after this one at a hair under 5M, after an extension, we'd be paying Severson a minimum of 1M more (in an ideal world) - this too, in the midst of having to offer major extensions to our core, such as that which we are currently negotiating with Horvat. We cannot fix one issue by causing another, this deal unfortunately would do exactly that. Ultimately, Severson is a fantastic piece to bring in when we see his nationality, pedigree, and production. However, the Canucks will find it quite difficult to retain Severson without moving out a piece such as Myers first. Which is why I don't believe this deal makes sense for the Canucks. Ethan Bear has a much lower acquisition cost and is an RFA, which means we can move him for future assets if we cannot re-sign him, rather than lose him to FA like we potentially would with Severson.
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 20 at 4:28 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMSep. 14 at 4:01 p.m.