Smashian Kassian Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away 1 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilunga Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 6 minutes ago, MikeBossy said: Kuz was never going to fit into Rick's system. Very easy to pick up your game playing for a team out of the playoffs without the structure Vancouver had. I do agree with you about not being crazy about the prospect we gave up in Brzustewicz. Yes, as I stated I get that he had to go. However people also kinda forget about reputation damage. He chose to sign with us in the first place. What will other prospects in his situation think in the future about signing with us in similar circumstances. The point I was trying to make with my original post is that I will be a bit disappointed if we gave up all we did for a pure rental. What does give me hope for next season is that we took the team that is now in the Stanley cup final to seven games, with our third string goalie, our star forward who it now appears was injured, and the team playing far from what was it's best hockey. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away The only way it works is if we become a top 6 heavy club and fully dependent on those two lines for the majority of offense. We aren’t going to receive the same level of production from a less talented less expensive 3rd line. As such, I imagine because it’s in his coaching wheelhouse, if we go this route we will see RT open up the top 6 offensively and forge a much more defensive minded 3/4 lines. PA mentioned Hronek on his own pair which would be ideal as his line can play the transition/utility role, QH line offense driving, and 3rd D pairing solely shut down. Still, would hurt to lose Garland’s instincts and especially our quality depth. We really need to bring in some gritty/grinding defensively minded 3/4 line players if our Abby crew can’t cut it. Guys like Jeannot who have something to prove and are nasty to play against. Edited June 8 by RWJC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 16 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away They’re not looking to trade him but after the season he had he’s one of the more moveable contracts. As we saw in the playoffs this team will not reach another level if they keep plugging guys like Hoglander and Mikheyev with Pettersson. They need a true top 6 player and I imagine they’re looking at every possible way to do it. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 hour ago, RWJC said: we probably can’t afford what CHI or DET would be willing to pay him. I’d be pleasantly surprised if we offered though. Because he'd be significantly cheaper than any other option and short term., they could afford to over pay to get him. Unless he wants to finish his career in Chicago, Vancouver is a place he might get another shot at a Cup 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syntheticity Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 2 hours ago, DeNiro said: Wouldn’t be surprised if management tries to sign Lindholm and still get an impact winger. Rumour has it they’re trying to move more than one contract. Wouldn’t surprise me if Mikheyev is moved along with Garland. I'm not opposed to that. But it would mean they're spending 27-28m of the cap on 3 centers, plus 7-9m on a top 6 winger. That would then leave other holes to fill: on the third line (bc Garland gone and likely unable to afford Joshua's price) and also on defence (bc likely unable to afford Zadarov's price). But it would certainly be a busy & exciting Summer if they pulled all of that off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 47 minutes ago, Smashian Kassian said: I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away Tocchet relied on him so much. If Miller is the heart and soul of this team Garland cant be far behind. He’s a + for this team not a - 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Déjà Vu Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 (edited) he turned down the 7yr 7mill anyway, so this thread is mute now Lindholm Reportedly Turning Down Long-Term Offer from Canucks (msn.com) Edited June 8 by Déjà Vu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tas Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 6 minutes ago, Déjà Vu said: he turned down the 7yr 7mill anyway, so this thread is mute now Lindholm Reportedly Turning Down Long-Term Offer from Canucks (msn.com) moot 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 hour ago, Rick_theRyper said: I'm not sure forcing Petey to play wing is a bad thing either, he doesn't have the position down quite yet. He's a great two way center defense wise and that but he doesn't have the strength yet to be a great dominant center. Yet. Maybe splitting it would be easier. I don't think we should bring Lindy in for 3C at that cap! He's capable of being a 65-75p guy still for years but I don't see that being a shut down guy. Maybe 55-60 for 7? Who knows maybe we're building a new style team with a money maker or two on each line with a elc or bridge deal on each line. Toch doesn't seem interested in the Petey/Lind combo .. I thought that was the plan last year whilst we had Blue and Suter and he still didn't so .... Chances are slim of that being in his foresight. i mean RT is very specific and wanted 3 C down the middle.. if that means sacrificing offence or have no one to play with EP? i think it's pretty obvious he doesn't care.. he literally let EP rot the entire playoff until the very end when it's clear hoglander and mik was doing nothing.. i think ep will continue to struggle until they bring him a forward that have playmaking ability so that unlocks both his shot and playmaking ability. right now team just have to guard against his pass coz no one can pass him the puck to shoot 5v5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Déjà Vu said: he turned down the 7yr 7mill anyway, so this thread is mute now Lindholm Reportedly Turning Down Long-Term Offer from Canucks (msn.com) Thread isn’t moot, just gets edited as the negotiation goes along or fails. And just to be clear, this is all being based on Friedman speculation/reporting. If folks can find other sources please post. Thanks Edited June 8 by RWJC 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 20 minutes ago, RWJC said: Thread isn’t moot, just gets edited as the negotiation goes along or fails. And just to be clear, this is all being based on Friedman speculation/reporting. If folks can find other sources please post. Thanks i mean let's be real he turned down 8mil+ from calgary why wouldn't he turn down less term less money from vancouver? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWJC Posted June 8 Author Share Posted June 8 (edited) 14 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said: i mean let's be real he turned down 8mil+ from calgary why wouldn't he turn down less term less money from vancouver? I’m not denying any of it. Just saying that the offer and the rejection are both Friedman suggestions. We haven’t heard any other sources confirm either yet but if there are then please post. Also apparently Rangers tried to trade for Lindholm as well but our deal won out. Be interesting to see where he goes and for how much if we can’t get him on dotted line. Edited June 8 by RWJC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 55 minutes ago, syntheticity said: I'm not opposed to that. But it would mean they're spending 27-28m of the cap on 3 centers, plus 7-9m on a top 6 winger. That would then leave other holes to fill: on the third line (bc Garland gone and likely unable to afford Joshua's price) and also on defence (bc likely unable to afford Zadarov's price). But it would certainly be a busy & exciting Summer if they pulled all of that off! Guenztel (8.5) Miller (8) Boeser (6.65) Pettersson (11.6) Lindholm (7) Hogz (1.1) Joshua (2.8) Suter (1.6) Podz (1) Di Giuseppe (775) Aman (825) Extra (850) Extra (850) 51.55 Hughes (7.85) Hronek (7.25) Zadorov (4.8) Myers (3) Soucy (3.25) Juulsen (775) Extra (775) Extra (825) 28.5 Demko (5) Silovs (1.1) 6.1 That equals about 86 mil. Still over by a bit with the OEL cap hit but it’s not crazy to think we could sign everyone. But we’d have to be willing to go long term with pretty much everyone to get the cap hits down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lock Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 (edited) 33 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said: i mean let's be real he turned down 8mil+ from calgary why wouldn't he turn down less term less money from vancouver? Well, considering Vancouver has more of a chance to win the cup than Calgary, that's often a reason players take paycuts. Even just preferring 1 hockey team over another can be reason enough. In Lindholm's case, it could be timing and the fact that his regular season wasn't the way he had hoped which could lower his asking price potentially. It depends on the player and anyone who claims they know his actual motivations are going to be full of crap at best to be honest, whether in favour of our team or against. Not saying that's what's happening or anything by the way. I honestly don't know if he'd take a paycut or not. I'm more just answering your question Edited June 8 by The Lock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 2 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said: I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away If I noticed a trend it’s trading good pieces in their mid 20’s and replacing them with old dudes. It’s really weird tbh Most of the time it’s not even improving the club even in the short term lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Just now, Devron said: If I noticed a trend it’s trading good pieces in their mid 20’s and replacing them with old dudes. It’s really weird tbh Most of the time it’s not even improving the club even in the short term lol Guenztel is most certainly an upgrade on Garland. That’s who they’d be moving his contract for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stawns Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 2 hours ago, Smashian Kassian said: I don't understand trading Garland, were looking to add pieces that help create more offense not take those pieces away Yeah, trade away the guy who, arguably, was the most effective fwd in the playoffs and one of the catalysts of a very successful regular season. I thought the goal was to build on this season 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 37 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said: i mean let's be real he turned down 8mil+ from calgary why wouldn't he turn down less term less money from vancouver? His stock dropped though. Hes not coming off a 40 goal season, if he’s just after money he should have stayed in Calgary. Great player and I think 7 x 7 is more than fair considering his inconsistencies on offence. Hopefully he stays but he can also walk if 7 x 7 doesn’t cut it for him 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 minute ago, stawns said: Yeah, trade away the guy who, arguably, was the most effective fwd in the playoffs and one of the catalysts of a very successful regular season. I thought the goal was to build on this season Not saying I wanna trade him, but the team even with Garland wasn’t good enough. You wanna build on this season you have to be open to trading players in order to upgrade in other areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 2 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Guenztel is most certainly an upgrade on Garland. That’s who they’d be moving his contract for. Agreed. Not knocking your proposal, just seems to a trend of trading guys like garland and Hronek and filling in with Tanevs and crap haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 4 minutes ago, Devron said: Agreed. Not knocking your proposal, just seems to a trend of trading guys like garland and Hronek and filling in with Tanevs and crap haha Definitely not on the Tanev bandwagon unless he gives us a sweetheart deal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3aL Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 28 minutes ago, DeNiro said: Guenztel (8.5) Miller (8) Boeser (6.65) Pettersson (11.6) Lindholm (7) Hogz (1.1) Joshua (2.8) Suter (1.6) Podz (1) Di Giuseppe (775) Aman (825) Extra (850) Extra (850) 51.55 Hughes (7.85) Hronek (7.25) Zadorov (4.8) Myers (3) Soucy (3.25) Juulsen (775) Extra (775) Extra (825) 28.5 Demko (5) Silovs (1.1) 6.1 That equals about 86 mil. Still over by a bit with the OEL cap hit but it’s not crazy to think we could sign everyone. But we’d have to be willing to go long term with pretty much everyone to get the cap hits down. I almost wonder if trading a pick for guentzels rights to try and get the 8 year deal tog et his cap hit down and let management know what numbers we have to work with for all our customers pending guys earlier would be beneficial since theirs so many ??? And moving pieces right now even though we already have such little draft capital this year 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 Be cool if we signed at least one of our big Free Agents before the draft. I don’t wanna wake up July.1st and relive 2020 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devron Posted June 8 Share Posted June 8 1 minute ago, R3aL said: even though we already have such little draft capital this year Yeah basically nothing. May as well trade the rest of it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.