[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade

[Bob Long]

Just now, King Heffy said:

Also makes it pretty clear that there's no trade to be made.

 

yep. Thats why I called it the nuclear option. There's no illusions about moving him at that point. 

Just now, aGENT said:

Clearing a few hundred K isn't really moving the needle. And being that we're operating in Poolman's LTIR, it just gives us less LTIR room.

 

but we'd get to bank cap space for the TDL - it could end up being the difference in a significant move. 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

yep. Thats why I called it the nuclear option. There's no illusions about moving him at that point. 

 

but we'd get to bank cap space for the TDL - it could end up being the difference in a significant move. 

No, we wouldn't.

 

Waiving him only clears ~$1.1m. We're ~$2.4m in to LTIR. Subtracting those still leaves us ~$1.3m in LTIR, plus his replacement....let's say Studnicka @$762.5...still $2m in LTIR and unable to bank space.

[Bob Long]

Just now, aGENT said:

No, we wouldn't.

 

Waiving him only clears ~$1.1m. We're ~$2.4m in to LTIR. Subtracting those still leaves us ~$1.3m in LTIR, plus his replacement....let's say Studnicka @$762.5...still $2m in LTIR and unable to bank space.

 

ah sorry, no I mean waiving him in the hopes he gets claimed, not to bury him the AHL.

[Coconuts]

How about a walk down memory lane?

 

 

https://forum.canucks.com/topic/397848-trade-canucks-trade-jay-beagle-loui-eriksson-antoine-roussel-2021-1st-round-pick-2022-2nd-round-pick-2023-7th-round-pick-to-coyotes-for-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland/

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

ah sorry, no I mean waiving him in the hopes he gets claimed, not to bury him the AHL.

I'm not sure, given the current cap climate, that anyone would claim him. Good, useful player or not.

 

Most teams simply don't have space. The few that do, and that might actually have use for him, will play chicken with you until you're willing to give up assets to take on the cap (and they'll win).

 

 

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

How about a walk down memory lane?

 

 

https://forum.canucks.com/topic/397848-trade-canucks-trade-jay-beagle-loui-eriksson-antoine-roussel-2021-1st-round-pick-2022-2nd-round-pick-2023-7th-round-pick-to-coyotes-for-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland/

 

[King Heffy]

7 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

How about a walk down memory lane?

 

 

https://forum.canucks.com/topic/397848-trade-canucks-trade-jay-beagle-loui-eriksson-antoine-roussel-2021-1st-round-pick-2022-2nd-round-pick-2023-7th-round-pick-to-coyotes-for-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland/

And I got crucified by many for not liking the deal.

[Audio Dave]

I think the best that we can hope for is Garland's agent finds a team interested in signing him to a 1-year deal at a lower cap hit and Garland is willing to bet on himself and terminate his contract with the Canucks for an opportunity to play top 6 minutes.

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, Audio Dave said:

I think the best that we can hope for is Garland's agent finds a team interested in signing him to a 1-year deal at a lower cap hit and Garland is willing to bet on himself and terminate his contract with the Canucks for an opportunity to play top 6 minutes.

When has that ever happened?

[Audio Dave]

2 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

When has that ever happened?

I don't know if it ever has. 

[PureQuickness]

11 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

When has that ever happened?

 

6 minutes ago, Audio Dave said:

I don't know if it ever has. 

 

https://thehockeynews.com/news/red-wings-filip-zadina-agree-to-terminate-contract

[canucks curse]

19 minutes ago, Audio Dave said:

I think the best that we can hope for is Garland's agent finds a team interested in signing him to a 1-year deal at a lower cap hit and Garland is willing to bet on himself and terminate his contract with the Canucks for an opportunity to play top 6 minutes.

I do not see him ever doing this as he would give  up like 17 schmill

[The Duke]

23 minutes ago, canucks curse said:

I do not see him ever doing this as he would give  up like 17 schmill

And zero chance he signs a deal anywhere near that.  Bottom 6 (or middle 6 tweener) wingers have taken the biggest squeeze due to the flat cap.

[tas]

2 hours ago, RWJC said:

So you speak for me now do you?

You’re now appropriating my opinion?

Your use of hyperbole and homogenization is actually what is now contributing nothing. But you can’t see that because like the others posting against him, you’re just so inclined to be an authority over others. 
 

Dont include me in your rant.

im not on your side.

 

are you just being disingenuous and argumentative for fun, or do you actually find childish thrashing and melodrama enjoyable?

[Attila Umbrus]

1 hour ago, Coconuts said:

How about a walk down memory lane?

 

 

https://forum.canucks.com/topic/397848-trade-canucks-trade-jay-beagle-loui-eriksson-antoine-roussel-2021-1st-round-pick-2022-2nd-round-pick-2023-7th-round-pick-to-coyotes-for-oliver-ekman-larsson-conor-garland/

You devil!!

[tas]

17 hours ago, RWJC said:

see, now you’re just being a presumptive, dismissive***.

Disingenuous?

 

go check your ego at someone else’s expense, you ignorant child.

 

I see you've avoided my question, and resorted to personal attacks. 

 

I'll mark one in the "disingenuous" category. 

 

 

[Canuck You]

I wonder why he asked for a trade? I get the teams been mediocre but it's not like he's in demand. 

[Huggy Bear]

2 minutes ago, Canuck You said:

I wonder why he asked for a trade? I get the teams been mediocre but it's not like he's in demand. 

Good question.

 

My best guesses are:
 

1) knows he’s not in managements plans

 

He’s been in trade speculation since signing his new deal with the previous management group. If he knows he’s not part of the future, he might be anxious to go somewhere else, where he can be. He’s just gotten married, so may be anxious to plant roots somewhere with stability.

 

2) pride / legacy

 

Thinks he should play higher in the lineup and on the PP

 

3) money

 

Thinks his current deployment might hurt his next (and possibly last) contract

[tas]

16 hours ago, RWJC said:

 

If I’m having a discussion with you and your ego, I’m being straight to the point.

if you can’t handle someone’s personality (that is inherently passive with respect to any focus on other members) and try to bully them off of a public forum because of it,  maybe YOU yourself should just get the fuck off the forum? 

Again though, not for me to determine…just like it’s not your right to bully Heffy or anyone else whose opinion or how they carry it is communicated. Try to absorb that, lest it comes back to you.

And btw, I’m not being a hypocrite and blocking your voice am I? Neither is anyone else. You still have your right to participate on the site. So let it go and allow him and others the same.

 

maybe revisit what you typed about Heffy to begin with re: personal attacks.
 

you’re such a hypocrite.

 

if mindless ravings towards management with no grounding in reality are the type of content you want here, I don't know what to tell ya. if that's the kind of discourse we're going for, you're right. I SHOULD leave, because it means there was nothing worth salvaging in the first place. 

 

I'm into intelligent conversation with people that are equipped and interested in the same, not indulging senseless idiocy not even worthy of the morons on twitter. 

 

edit: not to mention, a) me calling him cyanide wasn't a personal attack, it was a reference to your comment about being toxic and b) why does he need you as his white knight?

 

edit 2: and c) I don't even want him to leave, I just want him take a xanax. 

[Canuck You]

6 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Good question.

 

My best guesses are:
 

1) knows he’s not in managements plans

 

He’s been in trade speculation since signing his new deal with the previous management group. If he knows he’s not part of the future, he might be anxious to go somewhere else, where he can be. He’s just gotten married, so may be anxious to plant roots somewhere with stability.

 

2) pride / legacy

 

Thinks he should play higher in the lineup and on the PP

 

3) money

 

Thinks his current deployment might hurt his next (and possibly last) contract

Yeah, 1 and 2 seem like they make a lot of sense.

[RWJC]

9 minutes ago, tas said:

 

if mindless ravings towards management with no grounding in reality are the type of content you want here, I don't know what to tell ya. if that's the kind of discourse we're going for, you're right. I SHOULD leave, because it means there was nothing worth salvaging in the first place. 

 

I'm into intelligent conversation with people that are equipped and interested in the same, not indulging senseless idiocy not even worthy of the morons on twitter. 

 

edit: not to mention, a) me calling him cyanide wasn't a personal attack, it was a reference to your comment about being toxic and b) why does he need you as his white knight?

 

edit 2: and c) I don't even want him to leave, I just want him take a f---ing xanax. 

look, here’s the rub.

I get your point, and I’ve had banter with Heff before about his opinions.

 

the difference is I don’t take it personally (especially as he rarely responds in attacking others here) nor do I feel a need to dissect him as a person or neuter his opinion because it doesn’t jive with mine. 
 

The reality is you’re getting worked up about a singular user’s opinion, when in actual fact there is AMPLE intelligent conversation for you focus on. But you’re not. You’re showing a weakness and ability to have your whole experience undermined simply because of one perspective that’s outside of your uniform view of how this forum should conduct itself. 

If you’re aware of that then it’s pretty easy to disregard counter opinions or commentary or personalities for that matter, that have no real bearing on your existence or your ability to voice your own views.

 

im not being anyone’s white knight, I just don’t like someone trying to exploit another and then denigrate them. I also find it incomprehensible why anyone would feel so offended or violated by the very dialogue/conservations that they themselves choose to engage in in the first place. it’s totally redundant.

so is choosing to become a victim of someone else’s opinion or candour when you aren’t one. 
 

You know what I mean? It’s just not worth persecuting someone over, as they aren’t directing anything towards you to begin with. I’m for acceptance, that’s what I’m arguing with you for because I don’t see how any of your privilege is being affected by Heffy having his as well.

 

I don’t want to continue arguing and hijacking this thread - and my sincere apologies to anyone reading through it.

 

can we just end the convo here please. You can feel vindicated about protecting your own interest and I can feel satisfied about mine.
Deal?
 

 

[Alflives]

17 hours ago, RWJC said:

 

If I’m having a discussion with you and your ego, I’m being straight to the point.

if you can’t handle someone’s personality (that is inherently passive with respect to any focus on other members) and try to bully them off of a public forum because of it,  maybe YOU yourself should just get the ***off the forum? 

Again though, not for me to determine…just like it’s not your right to bully Heffy or anyone else whose opinion or how they carry it is communicated. Try to absorb that, lest it comes back to you.

And btw, I’m not being a hypocrite and blocking your voice am I? Neither is anyone else. You still have your right to participate on the site. So let it go and allow him and others the same.

 

maybe revisit what you typed about Heffy to begin with re: personal attacks.
 

you’re such a hypocrite.

No good gnome puts himself ahead of the overall good of the garden. 

[RWJC]

Just now, Alflives said:

No good gnome puts himself ahead of the overall good of the garden. 

Preach, sir Alfred, preach!

[tas]

8 minutes ago, RWJC said:

look, here’s the rub.

I get your point, and I’ve had banter with Heff before about his opinions.

 

the difference is I don’t take it personally (especially as he rarely responds in attacking others here) nor do I feel a need to dissect him as a person or neuter his opinion because it doesn’t jive with mine. 
 

The reality is you’re getting worked up about a singular user’s opinion, when in actual fact there is AMPLE intelligent conversation for you focus on. But you’re not. You’re showing a weakness and ability to have your whole experience undermined simply because of one perspective that’s outside of your uniform view of how this forum should conduct itself. 

If you’re aware of that then it’s pretty easy to disregard counter opinions or commentary or personalities for that matter, that have no real bearing on your existence or your ability to voice your own views.

 

im not being anyone’s white knight, I just don’t like someone trying to exploit another and then denigrate them. I also find it incomprehensible why anyone would feel so offended or violated by the very dialogue/conservations that they themselves choose to engage in in the first place. it’s totally redundant.

so is choosing to become a victim of someone else’s opinion or candour when you aren’t one. 
 

You know what I mean? It’s just not worth persecuting someone over, as they aren’t directing anything towards you to begin with. I’m for acceptance, that’s what I’m arguing with you for because I don’t see how any of your privilege is being affected by Heffy having his as well.

 

I don’t want to continue arguing and hijacking this thread - and my sincere apologies to anyone reading through it.

 

can we just end the convo here please. You can feel vindicated about protecting your own interest and I can feel satisfied about mine.
Deal?
 

 

because it's not as simple as "different strokes for different folks" or "c'est la vie".

 

I don't care what his opinion is, everybody is entitled to their terrible opinion. I care that he chooses to express it in the most obnoxious, click-baity, incendiary way he possibly can. and even then I only care because it detracts from my personal user experience.

 

it's exhausting to have to read that trash, it's like being forced to scroll through the most exaggerated, over the top canucks army drivel I could possibly imagine. so, duh, put him on ignore, right? well, people still quote him. ok, so yeah, you just go to the next level of ignore that ignores that too. great. all is well and good in the world. 

 

except that, inevitability, somebody takes the bait and an entire thread that was otherwise perfectly rational and reasonable has now derailed into stupidity. 

[RWJC]

9 minutes ago, tas said:

because it's not as simple as "different strokes for different folks" or "c'est la vie".

 

I don't care what his opinion is, everybody is entitled to their terrible opinion. I care that he chooses to express it in the most obnoxious, click-baity, incendiary way he possibly can. and even then I only care because it detracts from my personal user experience.

 

it's exhausting to have to read that trash, it's like being forced to scroll through the most exaggerated, over the top canucks army drivel I could possibly imagine. so, duh, put him on ignore, right? well, people still quote him. ok, so yeah, you just go to the next level of ignore that ignores that too. great. all is well and good in the world. 

 

except that, inevitability, somebody takes the bait and an entire thread that was otherwise perfectly rational and reasonable has now derailed into stupidity. 

Don’t know what else to say. 
maybe go check out Reddit or any other Canucks based hockey forum, then come back to CFF, and maybe you’ll just be thankful like most people for what we do have here.

 

anyway, hope you can eventually accept that the user experience is generalized for everyone, not just to be dictated by your tastes. 
 

take care, good luck 

Edited October 11, 2023 by RWJC