Coconuts Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 7 minutes ago, HKSR said: I just think having new bodies on every single forward line is asking for chemistry issues. Not many teams that turnover half their forward group see immediate chemistry and success. We'll see I guess. Hard to beat what Garland brings for his cap hit. The player coming in would have to be pretty darn impactful for the cap hit. For $4.95M, Garland brings a LOT to the table. That's why I assume that if Garland is moved it's because we're bringing in a top 4D. Depending on the D, yeah, it could be more impactful. Garland averaged 14:32 a game last season, bring in a D who can play closer to 18-20 minutes and that's probably a larger impact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 11 minutes ago, Coconuts said: That's why I assume that if Garland is moved it's because we're bringing in a top 4D. Depending on the D, yeah, it could be more impactful. Garland averaged 14:32 a game last season, bring in a D who can play closer to 18-20 minutes and that's probably a larger impact. Yes and no... our issue wasn't defence last season. We struggled to get shots and offence. Taking out a 50 point play driver makes that worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cripplereh Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 33 minutes ago, Coconuts said: That's why I assume that if Garland is moved it's because we're bringing in a top 4D. Depending on the D, yeah, it could be more impactful. Garland averaged 14:32 a game last season, bring in a D who can play closer to 18-20 minutes and that's probably a larger impact. Garland is happy and to trade it get another player like him you'd pay more then what his contract is. Let's all get over the fact that he is here and deserves to be on the team. We have others to trade,but if he is traded we need to make sure it will be for a top 6 player,not a D. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post canuck73_3 Posted July 23 Popular Post Share Posted July 23 5 hours ago, LillStrimma said: You just showed that you’re stuck. You don’t think a scout was terrible as a GM. PA and JR has showed you how good it can be. I say as I said to Anthony… What areas as a GM was Benning good at? Scouting isn’t in a GMs workload. The teams core Miller, Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko all brought in by Benning. Additional pieces like Garland, Myers, Hoglander also brought in by Benning so saying he is terrible with a core this strong is completely a brain dead take. What he did fail to do was piece the whole thing together, in 2 years PA and JR have progressed and made this the deepest team I have seen here since 2010-2012, and have done so without pillaging futures like Gillis or overpaying depth like Benning. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hairy Kneel Posted July 23 Popular Post Share Posted July 23 2 6 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Devron Posted July 23 Popular Post Share Posted July 23 Sprong, Sprong, he’s our man. If he can’t do it, no one can! Sprong! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarbularyBattery Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 3 hours ago, DrJockitch said: What is a better place to free up significant salary? Move Poolman okay, past that do we have a significant bad contract to move. Myers is next on the list or do you want to move Joshua instead? Not saying I want to trade Garland (and I didn’t make that argument), there just isn’t really a bad contract on the team that could be moved. Depends what the move is for If you break up Garland-Joshua, you have to replace 50 pts + a play driver, and thats best case scenario. Worst case scenario, you also need to replace Joshua's production if he suffers due to worse chemistry with his new winger. It would already be a challenge to replace Garlands 50pts in a lateral trade with his cap hit. So realistically for it to make sense trading Garland for an "upgrade" at forward, you'd need to bring in a 30 goal/70pt scorer. Seems like a really tall order for his 5m cap hit. If youre looking to upgrade at D, the player we move has to come from there. If its a RD, you probably get rid of Desharnais. Assuming a move is made in October/Nov, thats about 5m in cap to work with to get a 2nd pairing defenseman, which is pretty doable. The risk now is probably over-tinkering. It doesnt make any sense to risk something that works, for a potential marginal upgrade. The big swings are done, now we have to see what we've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LillStrimma Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 28 minutes ago, canuck73_3 said: The teams core Miller, Pettersson, Hughes, Boeser, Demko all brought in by Benning. Additional pieces like Garland, Myers, Hoglander also brought in by Benning so saying he is terrible with a core this strong is completely a brain dead take. What he did fail to do was piece the whole thing together, in 2 years PA and JR have progressed and made this the deepest team I have seen here since 2010-2012, and have done so without pillaging futures like Gillis or overpaying depth like Benning. So you say Benning was a scout? Let’s move on to Sprong as everyone else wants here. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Sprong has Springed! I’ll show myself out now. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophomore Jinx Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, zduck14 said: Agreed. I don't actually think bringing in Giroux is realistic. I do, however, think adding a Vatrano or Konecny up front could be done. Debrusk-Petey-Sprong Vatrano-Miller-Boeser Joshua-Blueger-Garland Heinen-Suter-Podkolzin (Hoglander would likely be part of return for Vatrano) This to me is a little more realistic and I still think it's one of the best forward groups in the league. I also have zero issue going into the playoffs with Blueger as the 3C. His shutdown game along with line chemistry makes me extremely confident in using him there. 3 hours ago, zduck14 said: I like everything about this except Barrie. The guy is awful and more of a liability than Cole was post-injury in the playoffs. And that's on his best days. If we can trade Poolman, the accrued cap space allows for around 12+ million to be added. At that point, trade for both Giroux and Adam Larsson. If we really want another puck mover on D, I'd rather sign Schultz. He's a proven winner and looked pretty good on a pair with Soucy in Seattle 2 tears ago. However, adding Larsson allows Hughes & Hronek to be split up. Debrusk-Petey-Sprong Suter-Miller-Boeser Hoglander-Giroux-Heinen Joshua-Blueger-Garland Hughes-Larsson Soucy-Hronek Forbort-Myers/Desharnais Honestly, what team in the league would be better this? Wait, how come in all of the lineup scenarios I'm seeing in this thread, I am seeing no love for Sherwood??? He will be a huge part of the bottom 6, yet he's forgotten already, no respect lol. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Déjà Vu Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, Jaimito said: Well, if you had a big Z jersey, just switch the name bar. lol 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJockitch Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 46 minutes ago, HarbularyBattery said: Depends what the move is for If you break up Garland-Joshua, you have to replace 50 pts + a play driver, and thats best case scenario. Worst case scenario, you also need to replace Joshua's production if he suffers due to worse chemistry with his new winger. It would already be a challenge to replace Garlands 50pts in a lateral trade with his cap hit. So realistically for it to make sense trading Garland for an "upgrade" at forward, you'd need to bring in a 30 goal/70pt scorer. Seems like a really tall order for his 5m cap hit. If youre looking to upgrade at D, the player we move has to come from there. If its a RD, you probably get rid of Desharnais. Assuming a move is made in October/Nov, thats about 5m in cap to work with to get a 2nd pairing defenseman, which is pretty doable. The risk now is probably over-tinkering. It doesnt make any sense to risk something that works, for a potential marginal upgrade. The big swings are done, now we have to see what we've got. I think that is about it. ‘At this point we have a lot of pieces up front for Tocch to play with and the D is better than what we started with last year. PA will tinker after he sees what pieces fit. ‘Would be a good idea to trade Poolman’s contract if not too expensive. Accrue cap and see how this group comes together. Like last year adjust as you go. Better group starting this year so likely less tinkering needed. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeNiro Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 3 hours ago, Jaimito said: Well, if you had a big Z jersey, just switch the name bar. The real reason they didn’t re-sign Zadorov revealed! Seems like we recycle numbers a lot. Like when Blueger took over Horvats 53 right away. Like nothing to see here! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, Coconuts said: That's why I assume that if Garland is moved it's because we're bringing in a top 4D. Depending on the D, yeah, it could be more impactful. Garland averaged 14:32 a game last season, bring in a D who can play closer to 18-20 minutes and that's probably a larger impact. Zub please? 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wai_lai416 Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 8 hours ago, The Duke said: I agree with some of this, but not the tone I guess. I think chemistry certainly plays a role, but it’s not as negative as you’re putting it. Garland does his best work with the puck on his stick and so does Petey. Spreading them out is just more effective. Those top lines also play a lot with Hughes, and he loves to have the puck as well. Too many chefs in the kitchen and all that. I could see Garland on the Miller line, however. OTOH some of my favourite shifts to watch are when Hughes and Garland have the puck in the ozone together. It’s a hilarious game of keepaway. It’s not a negative I’m just pointing out if we have a line of ep Joshua garland. Ep is going to struggle more than he did this season. He needs a playmaker that will enable his shot so he can be a dual threat. Garland is not that. He works great with Joshua and bleugar in a 3rd line role dominating other teams 3rd line. Let’s just keep it at that. Moving them up to a top 6 also means playing tougher matchup/opponents. They are good at what they do.. but let’s not go in over their head and all of a sudden thinks they are legit top 6. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Face Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 19 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said: It’s not a negative I’m just pointing out if we have a line of ep Joshua garland. Ep is going to struggle more than he did this season. He needs a playmaker that will enable his shot so he can be a dual threat. Garland is not that. He works great with Joshua and bleugar in a 3rd line role dominating other teams 3rd line. Let’s just keep it at that. Moving them up to a top 6 also means playing tougher matchup/opponents. They are good at what they do.. but let’s not go in over their head and all of a sudden thinks they are legit top 6. How about we ice Miller,Pettersson,Boeser like forth line,so MMA players play first and second line.Why not.Third line DeBrusk,Suter and Sprong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 The coaches must be salivating looking at the line up possibilities. It's like Christmases 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 5 hours ago, LillStrimma said: Allvin has cut it though so I’m happy nowadays. Hell, even JR seems a bit swedish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 40 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said: It’s not a negative I’m just pointing out if we have a line of ep Joshua garland. Ep is going to struggle more than he did this season. He needs a playmaker that will enable his shot so he can be a dual threat. Garland is not that. He works great with Joshua and bleugar in a 3rd line role dominating other teams 3rd line. Let’s just keep it at that. Moving them up to a top 6 also means playing tougher matchup/opponents. They are good at what they do.. but let’s not go in over their head and all of a sudden thinks they are legit top 6. If your thinking they could bump Joshua and Garland to play with EP, had a similar thought as soon as we signed De-Brusk. De-Brusk is a massive upgrade over Suter, and he can go back to playing center. With all the other horses they can create two very good fourth lines or a meh third line and a great fourth line. Debrusk Miller Brock is a proper line. Sure pine for the days when we always iced six top six players, and four of them were solid top line guys (early 90') and one exceptional. Edited July 24 by IBatch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBatch Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 51 minutes ago, aGENT said: Zub please? Ok. That's something worthy of Garland. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 18 minutes ago, IBatch said: Ok. That's something worthy of Garland. Really though, after re-upping Myers (and Willander on the way), we probably need a #3LD more than a righty. But a comparable LD to Zub? Yes please. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herberts Vasiljevs Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 1 hour ago, IBatch said: Ok. That's something worthy of Garland. Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HKSR Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 41 minutes ago, aGENT said: Really though, after re-upping Myers (and Willander on the way), we probably need a #3LD more than a righty. But a comparable LD to Zub? Yes please. Yup, but then again we also have DPetey knocking on the door. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coconuts Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 2 hours ago, aGENT said: Zub please? I'd happily take Zub, I'd be surprised if Ottawa moved him tho Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zduck14 Posted July 24 Share Posted July 24 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sophomore Jinx said: Wait, how come in all of the lineup scenarios I'm seeing in this thread, I am seeing no love for Sherwood??? He will be a huge part of the bottom 6, yet he's forgotten already, no respect lol. Man, I love the Sherwood signing. He was actually my top, bottom 6 free agent target and I'm pumped that he signed in Vancouver. That said, look at the lineup below and tell me who he'd replace if everyone is healthy. It's an absolutely stacked lineup..... Debrusk-Petey-Sprong Suter-Miller-Boeser Hoglander-Giroux-Heinen Joshua-Blueger-Garland As much as I like Sherwood, he's not overtaking any of them. Imagine a forward group with Sherwood as a 13th man... Edited July 24 by zduck14 1 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.