[Rumour] Garland to Pittsburgh

[AnthonyG]

7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

It just goes to show that you can draft all the talent in the world but if you don’t have the right GM and coach in place it will be squandered.

 

Look how many years it took Edmonton to get it right and that was because they won the lotto and get a generational player.

It’s all about that right recipe for success. It’s not easy to find and there are plenty more teams that went through a similar struggle like NJD. We as Canuck fans are seriously fucking lucky it only took us this long to ice a contender without a single top 3 pick and the majority of our core is just hitting their prime. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Reznor said:

While I've always liked Garland and he does make up a third of perhaps the most effective 3rd line in the NHL, he SHOULD be, considering his 5m paycheque. For anyone thinking that we shouldn't trade him away for assets if possible simply isn't considering the concept of talent management in a cap world. It was only a year ago we were talking about what the Canucks would have to give away in order to move his contract, and now some are expecting big returns? Ain't gonna happen.

 

Would losing Garland be a hit to the team? Absolutely. However, taking him out and adding a 5m bonified 1b or 2a defenceman would provide better overall benefit. If you look at our entire roster, our forward lines are pretty strong but I feel the most glaring deficiency is on the 2nd defensive pairing. Both Soucy and Myers are ok in a 2nd pairing role in a pinch, but I don't think either are ideal. But I believe our d is more or less set, with bringing in a LD meaning Forbort sits (which is fine), but Myers is still expected to play a 4d role. Bringing in a RD means Myers slips to a comfortable 5/6 role, but then Desharnais ends up sitting with his 2m salary which doesn't make much sense.

 

This appears to be the team we're moving forward with. 

Garland isn't going to get us a 1b or 2a.  Those guys cost a lot more cap than that.   Sure maybe we could find a suitor that would take all his cap and give us a pick.   Then we still need to acquire this person.    It took Horvat, and then another trade to acquire Hronek.   At the bare min, we would need a mid round first, and a third, to get one season of cap for said D.     A lot easier said than done.   We don't have a Horvat to trade.   Maybe Brock would get that done and that's debateable.   And in the Horvat trade, we still took cap back in Beau. 

[Alflives]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

I'm not saying Burrows wasn't great, he was awesome.   I'm saying Garland is too.   It was pretty noticeable to me anyways, his first season with us on a bad team.   Or bad coaching or bad something.    Miller and Garland were the only forwards doing much of anything Greens final days.   Bruce didn't like Garland, for whatever reason.    I like little guys or big guys or any guys who play their hearts out every shift.   Garland is a shit disturber too, like Burrows was.    Also has a little Cliff Ronning in him as far as been able to dipsy doodle around with the puck.    His pay cheque is inline with his production, more so he isn't given any power play time.   Burrows got power play time. 

 

As for Lekkermaki, i'd be surprised if he didn't have more than an audition at some point this season.   Doubt he bumps either Sprong or Hogs.   Definitely won't bump Garland. 

Garland is a nice player. It’s the role he plays for us that is the issue. We would be better allocating his cap to a right shot, checking 3C who is good at faceoffs and the pk. 

[IBatch]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Garland is a nice player. It’s the role he plays for us that is the issue. We would be better allocating his cap to a right shot, checking 3C who is good at faceoffs and the pk. 

Yeah that would be nice too. 

 

As of right now, we are a healthy Demko, a 3C like Sutter ( but healthy) and a top four D away from contending.    Last year it was Lindholm and Zadarov we traded for, we are a little better then we started last season and a lot grittier.   But still going to need those pieces.   If we can do that then why not us? 

Edited Tuesday at 07:50 PM by IBatch

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, IBatch said:

Yeah that would be nice too. 

Imo Garland could return this player directly but it’s more likely we clear his cap and then trade for the 3C with assets from a Garland deal. Too bad Garland could play centre and pk.  Problem solved. 

[IBatch]

35 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Imo Garland could return this player directly but it’s more likely we clear his cap and then trade for the 3C with assets from a Garland deal. Too bad Garland could play centre and pk.  Problem solved. 

I don't think he needs to PK.  We've got enough guys now that can.   You know who doesn't PK?  Crosby.   Neither did the Sedins.   Neither does Brock.   We only need two PK wingers.   And well sometimes wingers/C like Miller and EP.    Bluegar and Heinen can PK.   Same with Joshua and Pius Suter.   It would be nice to have a Maholtra on the team, that's for sure.   We don't have many play making wingers.  Garland and Brock at the moment and of those two, Garland likely has the edge.    Not opposed to trading Garland, it needs to improve the team though in a way that isn't paying borrowing Peter to pay Paul.   Maybe Sprong allows us to trade him.  

Edited Tuesday at 08:29 PM by IBatch

[EastCoastExpress]

1 hour ago, GrammaInTheTub said:

This is an excellent example of something I’d hinted at/asked about earlier re: teams with high end talent not making it before expensive players age out. They’re still running a pretty steady ship over there compared to Edmonton though, in my opinion 

https://x.com/EdmontonOilers/status/1836133020559937644

 

[Madskillz]

Garland isn't going anywhere unless he bombs it out of the gate.

[AnthonyG]

Should probably change the title to speculation at the most… haven’t seen or heard anything about Garland being shopped

[Alflives]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

I don't think he needs to PK.  We've got enough guys now that can.   You know who doesn't PK?  Crosby.   Neither did the Sedins.   Neither does Brock.   We only need two PK wingers.   And well sometimes wingers/C like Miller and EP.    Bluegar and Heinen can PK.   Same with Joshua and Pius Suter.   It would be nice to have a Maholtra on the team, that's for sure.   We don't have many play making wingers.  Garland and Brock at the moment and of those two, Garland likely has the edge.    Not opposed to trading Garland, it needs to improve the team though in a way that isn't paying borrowing Peter to pay Paul.   Maybe Sprong allows us to trade him.  

Those guys you mention don’t play third line. Garland is a third liner on our club. 

[copperlynx]

white noise )

[Alflives]

11 minutes ago, copperlynx said:

white noise )

[Hammertime]

5 hours ago, IBatch said:

Garland isn't going to get us a 1b or 2a.  Those guys cost a lot more cap than that.   Sure maybe we could find a suitor that would take all his cap and give us a pick.   Then we still need to acquire this person.    It took Horvat, and then another trade to acquire Hronek.   At the bare min, we would need a mid round first, and a third, to get one season of cap for said D.     A lot easier said than done.   We don't have a Horvat to trade.   Maybe Brock would get that done and that's debateable.   And in the Horvat trade, we still took cap back in Beau. 

We also got Hroney at 4m so that was probably a wash. NYI had to pay Bo "probably too much"

[wai_lai416]

16 hours ago, smithers joe said:

our 3rd line could end up being henein, suter and sprong. there is nothing in tocchet's thinking that says, our 3rd line has to be garland, joshua and blueger.

tocchet will play his players where they can best serve the teams success.

sure but garland joshua bluegar none of them is a legitimate top 6.. garland was a negative presence when playing with EP or Miller.. garland view himself as the playdriver and carries the puck way too much when you have Miller EP Hughes who are all superior to him.. he doesn't understand his role when playing on those line.. his role is retrieve the puck get it to his playmakers (Miller EP Hughes) and get to the front of the net. not get the puck.. and keep the puck hoping and waiting for those guys to get in front of the net.. it works when he's with joshua and bluegar coz those guy will do exactly that. i like garland's energy and game when he's not in the top 6 fighting our top players for the puck.. the first 10+ game of last season.. EP and Kuzmenko basically ignored garland on the line because they aint' getting the puck back from him

[IBatch]

13 hours ago, Alflives said:

Those guys you mention don’t play third line. Garland is a third liner on our club. 

That's true, the point still stands, we have a glut of wingers who can PK.   Not sure how removing one of the key support players who just adds a ton of value to the club, for a better PKer is going to help much.    We only have four forward slots at any particular time, that PK's... and who knows maybe if they gave him the opportunity, he'd be just fine at it.   Bet he would, all he's been doing his entire career is trying to, and proving doubters wrong.  

 

It's part of the reason I liked him when we got him, ARI fans were freaking out that Garland would be part of the ARI deal (that to me was a huge indicator he was a valuable player at the time, well that and his Martin St. Louis similar origin story, completely shunned by two drafts, despite being a solid pick, and then leading the CHL in scoring).    Both the eye test, and the stats back up his value.   He's managing the same points JT Miller did in TB, without any power play time!   Miller played first unit, 14 minutes total before we picked him, a lot of those on the PP.     Garland is more of a playmaker, but still gets his EV goals.  And he's a two-way player.   Guess who Tochett and Green put out to get the puck, and bring it into and keep it into the zone?   Bruce not so much ... even playing with Bruce, was only a minus five.    Believe he led the team in plus minus once as well.    Look at his takeaway giveaway ratio.    That's something you want to see with your PKers.    Get that he was barely making the par line the first two seasons.    Also get that he doesn't wilt in the second season, and his line played a huge role in the teams success last season too.   Joshua sure got a big deal as a result. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, IBatch said:

That's true, the point still stands, we have a glut of wingers who can PK.   Not sure how removing one of the key support players who just adds a ton of value to the club, for a better PKer is going to help much.    We only have four forward slots at any particular time, that PK's... and who knows maybe if they gave him the opportunity, he'd be just fine at it.   Bet he would, all he's been doing his entire career is trying to, and proving doubters wrong.  

 

It's part of the reason I liked him when we got him, ARI fans were freaking out that Garland would be part of the ARI deal (that to me was a huge indicator he was a valuable player at the time, well that and his Martin St. Louis similar origin story, completely shunned by two drafts, despite being a solid pick, and then leading the CHL in scoring).    Both the eye test, and the stats back up his value.   He's managing the same points JT Miller did in TB, without any power play time!   Miller played first unit, 14 minutes total before we picked him, a lot of those on the PP.     Garland is more of a playmaker, but still gets his EV goals.  And he's a two-way player.   Guess who Tochett and Green put out to get the puck, and bring it into and keep it into the zone?   Bruce not so much ... even playing with Bruce, was only a minus five.    Believe he led the team in plus minus once as well.    Look at his takeaway giveaway ratio.    That's something you want to see with your PKers.    Get that he was barely making the par line the first two seasons.    Also get that he doesn't wilt in the second season, and his line played a huge role in the teams success last season too.   Joshua sure got a big deal as a result. 

Garland is certainly likeable. But in a hard cap league his five mil per would be better allocated to a 3C. Five mil for a bottom six winger who isn’t a pk guy is not money well spent. 

[IBatch]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

Garland is certainly likeable. But in a hard cap league his five mil per would be better allocated to a 3C. Five mil for a bottom six winger who isn’t a pk guy is not money well spent. 

Fair, but good luck trying to find that via free agency.   Personally have grown awfully tired of not having a 3rd line.   Haven't seen one as effective since Nedved, Ward and the early 90's really.   Maholtra was great.    By the way Brandon Sutters cap percentage was way heavier.   Would be like 6 today.   So that's what we would be looking at, for a young "foundational"  middle six RHC.   Garland isn't a bottom six player, he's a middle six one.    Far outperformed Pearson when he was here, and he played entirely in the top six.    Maybe if Garland was given the opportunity's others have just got an automatic pass on, he'd be getting 60-70 points instead.   Sure hope for his and the teams sake, he's given that chance this season.   And yes go out and find a solid two way 3RHC for Hogs and Sprong to feast on.   Hogs wilts, where as Garland has not, the limited time's he's given a shift with EP.    EP was actually given some shifts  with Joshua and Garland "to get him going" in the playoffs ... a little too little, a lot too late. 

 

He's regulary in the top 100 for EV points.   Last year he tied Stamkos, Johnny Hockey (RIP), Conner, Seguin, Giroux,  whole pile of first and second liners, two points behind Eichel (know your fond of him), and one point ahead of Larkin.   If we want to go back to his first year with us, then tied Rhino,  Nylander, Zibanejad, etc and ahead of guys like Hertl, Jack Hughes,  Hirschier, Kopitar, Giroux,  Hintz, Laine,  Svexknikov,  Marshmellow ... a whole pile of top line and top six players.   All for a modest 4.95.     Maybe consider that too.   Since he's arrived, he's produced at EV, with limited minutes (and revolving door linemates)  like a top six player. 

 

The other thing to consider, when you look at teams that win a cup or contend, you will find guys who get paid Garlands wage and more.   Some third lines have guys making piles of dough like Jamie Benn with Dallas.    TB, had a string of guys making 5 plus during their hey days.   Garlands cap hit doesn't bother me.   He's earned his pay cheque's so far.   The only one that really does is EP's.   He's getting paid like a top five center now.  

 

Agree we need a 3C upgrade.   

 

Going into this season, Garland is getting 5.5% of the cap.  EPs getting close to 14%.   For perspective, EP would need to get 240% more EV points to match Garland .... Nobody, not even McDavid, is going to score 110 or so, EV points.  Only guys to do that were Gretzky and Mario.  I'd rather we have a team full of guys making 5-6 million, and in the top 60 EV points, then a few superstars and zero Conner Garland, Joshua, De-Brusk types.   We need a balance.   As for the 3C, we can accrue cap space and address that the same way we did with the Lindholm trade.   We will need that and a top four D, plus what we already have.   
 

Maybe Sprong will make Garland expendable.    I doubt he's going anywhere though.   Also absolutely, if we can find a 20/20 two way RHC who plays third line only, for Garland cap hit, and the brass thinks he's a good fit (won't blow the chemistry), go for it.    Wouldn't risk that personally.    Garland to me is a glue guy.    

 

Finally, as an aside, you know who's not in the top 100 year to year EV points?   Brock.   The only time he's beat Garland was last year .. by six points.    JT Miller was 12th.   And is regularly in the top 20 since arriving.    Stud.    Adding Garland and Joshua to EPs line, and loading up Millers line and then finding a shut down 3RHC makes a lot of sense too.   From where I'm sitting,  Garland definitely has earned the shot, the same way JT Miller earned the shot when arriving from TB. 

 

The team could roll four lines with Hogs and Sprong feasting on weaker competition with a Sutter/Maholtra type 3C.    And the fourth line can be like it should be, a grinding hitting wear you down line.   Heinen Bluegar Sherwood. 

 

De-Brusk Miller Brock

Joshua EP Garland 

Hogs Suter Sprong

Heinen Bluegar Sherwood 
Thats the actual depth chart.    Garland is not a bottom six player, he's a middle six player that outperforms a lot of first and second liners at even strength, he reminds me of Cliff Ronning.    Has similar size and wheels.   Has some Martin St. Louis in him too.   I'd bet him and Jt Miller would form a great line with Joshua too.  Miller and EP are interchangeable.  

 

My bet is this is what Tochett will go with a different look then the obvious.   A lot of new faces.   Not sure De-Brusk and EP will have chemistry.   Sprong is a total wildcard.   

Edited yesterday at 01:28 PM by IBatch

[IBatch]

On 9/12/2024 at 10:51 AM, Provost said:

Not sure where it started but has been making the rounds since yesterday on various sites.  They seem to read it in one spot and then report on it.

 

If there is really a long term issue with the health of one of our goalies it certainly doesn’t seem crazy.

 

Garland and a pick for Nedeljevic and Eller.

 

We get some goaltending insurance and the cap works out.  It doesn’t make sense to get another goalie that pushes Silovs to the minors if they are going to be healthy at the start or near the beginning of the season.

 

Eller is a solid addition that maybe lets Suter stay in the top six.

 

https://www.canucksdaily.com/nhl/trades/ridiculous-trade-speculation-sees-conor-garland-moving-to-pittsburgh

This is a terrible trade.   If we need goaltending insurance, a second rounder  should allow for this all on its own.   Sure hope it isn't true.    We don't need the spare parts. 

[IBatch]

18 hours ago, AnthonyG said:

It’s all about that right recipe for success. It’s not easy to find and there are plenty more teams that went through a similar struggle like NJD. We as Canuck fans are seriously fucking lucky it only took us this long to ice a contender without a single top 3 pick and the majority of our core is just hitting their prime. 

Contender might be pre-mature, but agree what we went through, was always going to happen, and it was just as likely we'd end up having to start all over again,  or re-tool the rebuild etc.   We aren't out of the woods yet, but agree we were lucky to get what we did without more then a 6th and two 5th's (one was supposed to be a second, the other a 3rd though...stupid lotto!) a 7th a few 10-15's.    You can also see the ascension clawing back to relativeness on the other side.   Vegas for sure impacted things as well (picking the right horse in Demko or Markstrom ... sure would have been nice to of had the chance to trade one).    JB screwed the pooch trying to accelerate with OEL, that nail sealed the coffin.    But hit a total home run in JT Miller, what a great trade.   And Garland worked out fine too. 

[AnthonyG]

2 hours ago, IBatch said:

Contender might be pre-mature, but agree what we went through, was always going to happen, and it was just as likely we'd end up having to start all over again,  or re-tool the rebuild etc.   We aren't out of the woods yet, but agree we were lucky to get what we did without more then a 6th and two 5th's (one was supposed to be a second, the other a 3rd though...stupid lotto!) a 7th a few 10-15's.    You can also see the ascension clawing back to relativeness on the other side.   Vegas for sure impacted things as well (picking the right horse in Demko or Markstrom ... sure would have been nice to of had the chance to trade one).    JB screwed the pooch trying to accelerate with OEL, that nail sealed the coffin.    But hit a total home run in JT Miller, what a great trade.   And Garland worked out fine too. 

Contender isn’t a stretch by any means. Number 1 contender, yes maybe we aren’t there yet, but we are damn close. 
Personally I am not trying to come across bias in any way, but with a healthy Demko, this team when fully healthy is a top contender. We have how many 20 goal scorers?????? We have Hughes and Hronek who are a top tier pairing, our back end is massive and comes with a lot of shot suppression and physical as hell.

 

 

OEL is misconstrued it’s not even funny. 
2021-22 look at the first 41GP how the team played and look at Petterssons production then look at the 2nd half. 
Vancouver was 7th in the league the last 41GP. That’s when Pettersson finally started to produce. 
The defensive metrics of Myers and OEL were top 5 shutdown pair league wide. I could revisit that and show you how bad goaltending in 2022-23 changed everyone’s view, that and OEL was playing through a high ankle sprain. You look at his 2023-24 season right back to his career average and playing all important minutes in the SCF.

The buyout was trigger happy imho. 
 

edit: Can’t blame a guy’s production for not being given opportunity or being utilized defensively. (63% defensive zone starts 184 total 3rd highest league wide as a pair) individually 8th highest dzone starts league wide Myers 4th most.

 

.940oiSV% for OEL in 2021-22….. that’s insane which was 3rd best league wide. Myles wasn’t far behind either at .932

Edited yesterday at 04:36 PM by AnthonyG

[LillStrimma]

7 hours ago, IBatch said:

Fair, but good luck trying to find that via free agency.   Personally have grown awfully tired of not having a 3rd line.   Haven't seen one as effective since Nedved, Ward and the early 90's really.   Maholtra was great.    By the way Brandon Sutters cap percentage was way heavier.   Would be like 6 today.   So that's what we would be looking at, for a young "foundational"  middle six RHC.   Garland isn't a bottom six player, he's a middle six one.    Far outperformed Pearson when he was here, and he played entirely in the top six.    Maybe if Garland was given the opportunity's others have just got an automatic pass on, he'd be getting 60-70 points instead.   Sure hope for his and the teams sake, he's given that chance this season.   And yes go out and find a solid two way 3RHC for Hogs and Sprong to feast on.   Hogs wilts, where as Garland has not, the limited time's he's given a shift with EP.    EP was actually given some shifts  with Joshua and Garland "to get him going" in the playoffs ... a little too little, a lot too late. 

 

He's regulary in the top 100 for EV points.   Last year he tied Stamkos, Johnny Hockey (RIP), Conner, Seguin, Giroux,  whole pile of first and second liners, two points behind Eichel (know your fond of him), and one point ahead of Larkin.   If we want to go back to his first year with us, then tied Rhino,  Nylander, Zibanejad, etc and ahead of guys like Hertl, Jack Hughes,  Hirschier, Kopitar, Giroux,  Hintz, Laine,  Svexknikov,  Marshmellow ... a whole pile of top line and top six players.   All for a modest 4.95.     Maybe consider that too.   Since he's arrived, he's produced at EV, with limited minutes (and revolving door linemates)  like a top six player. 

 

The other thing to consider, when you look at teams that win a cup or contend, you will find guys who get paid Garlands wage and more.   Some third lines have guys making piles of dough like Jamie Benn with Dallas.    TB, had a string of guys making 5 plus during their hey days.   Garlands cap hit doesn't bother me.   He's earned his pay cheque's so far.   The only one that really does is EP's.   He's getting paid like a top five center now.  

 

Agree we need a 3C upgrade.   

 

Going into this season, Garland is getting 5.5% of the cap.  EPs getting close to 14%.   For perspective, EP would need to get 240% more EV points to match Garland .... Nobody, not even McDavid, is going to score 110 or so, EV points.  Only guys to do that were Gretzky and Mario.  I'd rather we have a team full of guys making 5-6 million, and in the top 60 EV points, then a few superstars and zero Conner Garland, Joshua, De-Brusk types.   We need a balance.   As for the 3C, we can accrue cap space and address that the same way we did with the Lindholm trade.   We will need that and a top four D, plus what we already have.   
 

Maybe Sprong will make Garland expendable.    I doubt he's going anywhere though.   Also absolutely, if we can find a 20/20 two way RHC who plays third line only, for Garland cap hit, and the brass thinks he's a good fit (won't blow the chemistry), go for it.    Wouldn't risk that personally.    Garland to me is a glue guy.    

 

Finally, as an aside, you know who's not in the top 100 year to year EV points?   Brock.   The only time he's beat Garland was last year .. by six points.    JT Miller was 12th.   And is regularly in the top 20 since arriving.    Stud.    Adding Garland and Joshua to EPs line, and loading up Millers line and then finding a shut down 3RHC makes a lot of sense too.   From where I'm sitting,  Garland definitely has earned the shot, the same way JT Miller earned the shot when arriving from TB. 

 

The team could roll four lines with Hogs and Sprong feasting on weaker competition with a Sutter/Maholtra type 3C.    And the fourth line can be like it should be, a grinding hitting wear you down line.   Heinen Bluegar Sherwood. 

 

De-Brusk Miller Brock

Joshua EP Garland 

Hogs Suter Sprong

Heinen Bluegar Sherwood 
Thats the actual depth chart.    Garland is not a bottom six player, he's a middle six player that outperforms a lot of first and second liners at even strength, he reminds me of Cliff Ronning.    Has similar size and wheels.   Has some Martin St. Louis in him too.   I'd bet him and Jt Miller would form a great line with Joshua too.  Miller and EP are interchangeable.  

 

My bet is this is what Tochett will go with a different look then the obvious.   A lot of new faces.   Not sure De-Brusk and EP will have chemistry.   Sprong is a total wildcard.   

Remember that Garland has it much easier since the other teams has to guard both Petey and Millers lines. 

How many teams has quality through three lines?
 

Garland is a luxuary going forward with all the dead cap. 

par example if Demko and Boeser had to get their raise now we might trade both of them just because it's too much cap now.

And let Silovs and Lekkerimäki go in early.

[Provost]

1 hour ago, LillStrimma said:

Remember that Garland has it much easier since the other teams has to guard both Petey and Millers lines. 

How many teams has quality through three lines?
 

Garland is a luxuary going forward with all the dead cap. 

par example if Demko and Boeser had to get their raise now we might trade both of them just because it's too much cap now.

And let Silovs and Lekkerimäki go in early.

This was also the secret sauce for Hoglander.  On the 4th line he was feasting on lesser competition, in the top six he was almost completely ineffective.

 

Garland, partly due to his success and partly due to his salary should get an audition in the top six during training camp.  See if he has chemistry with new additions.

 

If he is a third liner, that is a lot of salary to commit to that spot and we have better depth players this year for cheaper.

[Reznor]

On 9/17/2024 at 1:46 PM, IBatch said:

Garland isn't going to get us a 1b or 2a.  Those guys cost a lot more cap than that.   Sure maybe we could find a suitor that would take all his cap and give us a pick.   Then we still need to acquire this person.    It took Horvat, and then another trade to acquire Hronek.   At the bare min, we would need a mid round first, and a third, to get one season of cap for said D.     A lot easier said than done.   We don't have a Horvat to trade.   Maybe Brock would get that done and that's debateable.   And in the Horvat trade, we still took cap back in Beau. 

Not sure I agree, considering assets can be added to put it over the top. Besides that, players like Tanev (who would be a perfect 1b to Hughes) don't go for as much as a high end all-around defenseman which is what I think you're referring to. The right fit doesn't necessarily require a high end guy.

 

But even for a defensive guy you could say: Well yeah, but Tanev old so he's cheap. And to some degree that's true. But if you look around the league, there are several strong defensive defensemen out there in this price range. It's possible. If there was a way to get such a guy then drop Hronek down to the 2nd pairing along with Soucy, it then allows Myers to drop to the 3rd pairing where he probably belongs. It suddenly makes the entire defensive corps more capable.

[IBatch]

2 hours ago, Reznor said:

Not sure I agree, considering assets can be added to put it over the top. Besides that, players like Tanev (who would be a perfect 1b to Hughes) don't go for as much as a high end all-around defenseman which is what I think you're referring to. The right fit doesn't necessarily require a high end guy.

 

But even for a defensive guy you could say: Well yeah, but Tanev old so he's cheap. And to some degree that's true. But if you look around the league, there are several strong defensive defensemen out there in this price range. It's possible. If there was a way to get such a guy then drop Hronek down to the 2nd pairing along with Soucy, it then allows Myers to drop to the 3rd pairing where he probably belongs. It suddenly makes the entire defensive corps more capable.

Tanev, he's just signed a deal and we won't be targeting anyone with a full NTC/NMC.   That leaves players aged 27 or younger.   Who aren't into their clauses, or ones who are older and but probably a lot of control over where they are going as well.   According to Burke "you can bet the first 7 teams on any players no trade list is to Canada" might be too literal, all the same it's traceable, and he did run two Canadian teams.   Why?  Taxes.   These are guys with term left on their deals.    Going back to the original post, you said 1b 2a types.   Hronek fits that bill.   It required two trades and like most TDL deals with guys of Horvats caliber, the other teams wants a roster player off for them to make cap work.   For us it was Beau.   

 

Maybe Tanev fits the 2a bill, as a number 3 ... maybe not that's debatable.  Let's say he does.   He's out of the picture.  
 

The only guy we'd have to trade in a deal like that is Brock.   And would expect a similar thing ... a roster player, a pick and a guy back to make it work from a middling team to get that middling pick, as in a mid first round, 14-16ish at the time of the trade, then flipped to a team with an RFA on a good deal with maybe a year, two at best before his pay day is up.    That guy plus the roster players cap, is unlikely going to work for us, so need to trade a Suter or Bluegar and replace with league min.   Get where i'm going with this?

 

It's way more possible that we "rest Demko" for a spell and accrue extra space.    Or do the same with one of our forwards goes down and we replace with a cheaper option, or well maybe Soucy again who knows.    And use that cap space on a rental, where retention  works or as in Zadorov's case a 2b 3a comes in...Or middle six D.     Your asking for something better then that, and for that to occur, it's unlikely it will be Garland unless he's exploded on EPs line or something.   Or on the third line doing his best Martin St. Louis impression.      The cost for Zadarov a 3rd and 5th.    No players exchanged.    We got very very lucky there.     That seems more realistic and the plan.     

Edited 17 hours ago by IBatch

[bh90]

@AnthonyG can you please not turn this thread in a Benning one again?

Your OEL talks is the appy to the Benning entree isnt it?