SalarySwishSalarySwish
Avatar

Reason

Member Since
Jul. 20, 2020
Forum Posts
1576
Posts per Day
1.1
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 25, 2023 at 9:18 p.m.
Thread: Tanev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BigShoots</b></div><div>The difference is the last yr the cap didn't go up. This yr it goes up almost as much as Garlands whole salary. And there is a yr less on the deal. You can't acknowledge all that and just say well itll go to the stars. That's partly true but there will be trickle down.

But with regards to value if you aren't taking any money back then it's unlikely anyone would give you assets for him. But we aren't looking for that. We are looking to get a dman back. If we are trading him for 5 mil in salary back or 3 mil or whatever then things change. It's a bit too nuanced for most knee jerk fans unfortunately. In the end though if his value is negative we simply keep him. He is a decent player. I don't think anyone would be upset about that.</div></div>

From the updates I have heard on multiple Vancouver sports radio stations over the last year was that the Canucks originally tried to trade Garland for value, then were willing to give him away and are now willing to retain a significant amount (1/3) if they can get an asset in return.

I agree with you they should just keep him. I don't think more dead money on the books or trading young assets in order to bring a bottom pair D in makes much sense to me when he is a decent middle six option.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 25, 2023 at 6:33 p.m.
Thread: Tanev
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>BigShoots</b></div><div>Garland at worst has zero value. Not a negative asset. I'd argue next summer if he just plays the way he has his whole canuck career he'll have positive value with what is then considered a low cap hit and only 2 yrs left.</div></div>

It blows my mind that some Canucks fans still try and argue that Garland doesn't have negative value... and I'm a Canucks fan! It's been confirmed by multiple sources that the organization has been trying to trade/give him away for well over a year and there have been zero takers. I have nothing against the player but without retention he absolutely has negative value, it's not even a question at this point.
Canuck fans were saying the exact thing last season that your saying now, "Wait until the offseason and he will have value", well he didn't. Even with the cap going up it won't change the value much for a decent middle six player that lacks size and plays the least valuable position in hockey, that money is going to the elite players like EP40.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 24, 2023 at 12:01 p.m.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 24, 2023 at 11:59 a.m.
Thread: Beginning to rebuild
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>AK50</b></div><div>Well Garland is younger and dealing TVR can free up a spot for a young D man.</div></div>

I mean I am a Canucks fan as well, but the value is off here. The Canucks haven't been able to trade Garland for over a year, they still haven't traded him yet with offering retention (may come).

Although Garland is a decent middle six winger he has negative value without significant retention, and TVR is a solid player on a pretty good deal who plays arguably the most valuable position in hockey, then WASH adds a 3rd...

Younger is good but doesn't offset the value difference here. In my opinion a non-retained Garland isn't worth a 3rd or a TVR. If WASH needs to make space on RD they could trade TVR for a positive value asset.
Forum: Armchair-GMOct. 20, 2023 at 12:54 a.m.
Thread: If competitive heading into deadline
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>Drshnuckels91</b></div><div>That's why it's conditional, if Carlson brings them to the 2nd round then it becomes a 1st rounder since the trade was worth it, if not then it's just a 2nd. For a young top-4 rd I think it would cost more than this in my mind</div></div>

I don't think the second round is wroth a 1st for Vancouver. They are in a bit of a precarious position where if they spend their diminished assets they need to do so wisely or risk being stuck in mediocrity. If they are going to spend a first it needs to be on a player like Hronek who fits the age group of their core players and comes with fairly long term contract certainty.

That said the value seems fair enough for Carlson, just don't think Vancouver would be willing to pay the price based on his age.