Jump to content

[ARTICLE] What it might take to sign Nikita Zadorov and if it makes sense for the Canucks


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, NoCupSyndrome said:

 

I don't the the technical specifics but if Poolman's cap hit fits into their opening day roster (sure someone can describe it better), they will be able accrue LTIR space during the season, allowing for more space to acquire players at the TDL. OEL's buyout is just on the books unfortunately.

 

 

Yes, but their ltir space is $2.5m and OEL's penalty is $2.4..........so it's like having no ltir

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, German Canuck said:

Horrible top 6

 

I disagree, Garland is a remarkably consistent scorer who puts up 50 points a year on the third line.........I'm betting he's good for 15-20 more than that on Petey's line.

 

Joshua, hard to say, but that's be a tough line to play against......... Miller the driver/retriever, Boeser the shooter and DJ the garbage clean up 

 

Most importantly, it leaves money for other areas.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, German Canuck said:

Horrible top 6

ya ppl seem to want quantity of average player over low quantity of quality players for some reason.. i mean if we trot out a line up where we have no stars and everyone is making exact same cap hit you think we'll win a cup? i don't think we even make the playoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stawns said:

 

I disagree, Garland is a remarkably consistent scorer who puts up 50 points a year on the third line.........I'm betting he's good for 15-20 more than that on Petey's line.

 

Joshua, hard to say, but that's be a tough line to play against......... Miller the driver/retriever, Boeser the shooter and DJ the garbage clean up 

 

Most importantly, it leaves money for other areas.

 

70 point Garly? if he had that potential, why hasn't it been used more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

70 point Garly? if he had that potential, why hasn't it been used more?

Well, his last 4 years in van

 

39 points in 49 games

52 pointd

47 points

46 points

 

Pretty much in third line duty.  Is it out of the realm of possibility he gets 15-20 points over the course of a season?  That's like an extra point every 4 games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

dunno, can he produce like this against harder matchups? 

 

It's been tried over the years a lot. He hasn't really been able to hold down any top 6 opportunity he has been granted

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

dunno, can he produce like this against harder matchups? 

And that’s it with Garland. He’s a very good third line player. If he was a top six guy Tocchet would use him in that role. 
IMHAO that’s why it’s been so hard for PA to trade Garland. Other teams see him exactly like we do; a third line winger. We need a Benning like GM who thinks Garland is a top six player. You know. A moran. 

  • Haha 3
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, fuzzy said:

Agreed. He has shown no chemistry with Petey or Miller. 

 

Disagree, he was great with miller.  The problem is BB not RT never left him there long enough to develop chemistry.  It takes time to learn how to play with players, especially Petey.

 

Garland might have the best hockey IQ on the team in that context.........he'd figure petey out pretty quick, imo.

 

I think too many people are mesmerized by the shiny trinket on the market and not looking at deeper issues

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HKSR said:

He's not gonna get over $5M.  I dunno how they get those kinda projections lol


He is for sure getting over 5 million at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, J-23 said:


He is for sure getting over 5 million at least.

I'll wager you on it.  He is coming off a 40 point season.  If that's worth $5M+, then Dakota Joshua will be getting close to $5M.  There's no logic to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alflives said:

And that’s it with Garland. He’s a very good third line player. If he was a top six guy Tocchet would use him in that role. 
IMHAO that’s why it’s been so hard for PA to trade Garland. Other teams see him exactly like we do; a third line winger. We need a Benning like GM who thinks Garland is a top six player. You know. A moran. 

Tocchet is a depth coach and felt garland was more of a play driver than boeser or mikheyev hence he was moved down to drive the 3rd and did heck of a job doing it, imagine if he was feeding miller and petey with his insane puck retrieval rate, he’s never had an extended look with the top 6 and I agree with Stawns he has potential to be around a 70 point guy in the top 6 and power play time 

  • Upvote 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

Disagree, he was great with miller.  The problem is BB not RT never left him there long enough to develop chemistry.  It takes time to learn how to play with players, especially Petey.

 

Garland might have the best hockey IQ on the team in that context.........he'd figure petey out pretty quick, imo.

 

I think too many people are mesmerized by the shiny trinket on the market and not looking at deeper issues

 

Well, if we buy our Mik, maybe we get both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Captain insano said:

Tocchet is a depth coach and felt garland was more of a play driver than boeser or mikheyev hence he was moved down to drive the 3rd and did heck of a job doing it, imagine if he was feeding miller and petey with his insane puck retrieval rate, he’s never had an extended look with the top 6 and I agree with Stawns he has potential to be around a 70 point guy in the top 6 and power play time 


Like others have said it’s been tried but hasn’t worked. Why would it be any different now?

 

I like Garland he’s one of my favourite players on the team, but this seems like a major reach.

Edited by J-23
  • Cheers 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread sure gets into non-Zadorov talk.

On that note, a hypothetical question: if we could have had Tanev for Pettersson (the defenseman) and a second rounder to Calgary, and having Tanev would have been enough to put us in the finals, would you have made that trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, HKSR said:

I'll wager you on it.  He is coming off a 40 point season.  If that's worth $5M+, then Dakota Joshua will be getting close to $5M.  There's no logic to that.


This is going to be the new standard now with the cap increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, J-23 said:


This is going to be the new standard now with the cap increasing.

It's gone up 5% since last year.  That's not equivalent to jumping from $4M to $5M.  That would be a 25% increase.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

I disagree, Garland is a remarkably consistent scorer who puts up 50 points a year on the third line.........I'm betting he's good for 15-20 more than that on Petey's line.

 

Joshua, hard to say, but that's be a tough line to play against......... Miller the driver/retriever, Boeser the shooter and DJ the garbage clean up 

 

Most importantly, it leaves money for other areas.


Garland is a 3rd liner who gets points off of the other team’s bottom 6. He can drive the play on the 3rd line so that’s where he belongs. 
 

He absolutely is not a top 6 player. Only if injuries occur. He’s never played 18-19 minutes a night against top competition and won’t be as effective. Plus he has zero chemistry with Petey or Miller. 

  • ThereItIs 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Captain insano said:

Tocchet is a depth coach and felt garland was more of a play driver than boeser or mikheyev hence he was moved down to drive the 3rd and did heck of a job doing it, imagine if he was feeding miller and petey with his insane puck retrieval rate, he’s never had an extended look with the top 6 and I agree with Stawns he has potential to be around a 70 point guy in the top 6 and power play time 


Garland is only effective as his own play driver on the 3rd line. He’s not effective playing with other play drivers like Miller and Petey. Plus, Miller already has his winger in Boeser. And we have Lekkerimäki coming to play with Petey. So the right side is full. Also, Garland doesn’t get enough PP1 time to ever get 70 points. 

Edited by Elias Pettersson
  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:


Garland is a 3rd liner who gets points off of the other team’s bottom 6. He can drive the play on the 3rd line so that’s where he belongs. 
 

He absolutely is not a top 6 player. Only if injuries occur. He’s never played 18-19 minutes a night against top competition and won’t be as effective. Plus he has zero chemistry with Petey or Miller. 

Well said. Love what Gar brings but the Canucks need better in the top six to move on. 

  • Cheers 2
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...