[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade

[Rusty Shackleford]

4 hours ago, Provost said:

That is true, but that is parsing what he said in a meaningless way.

 

Garlands value is inextricably tied to his cap hit.  You can’t separate the two.

 

The poster a few posts above went on a rant about how dumb folks here and the media were talking about possibly having to retain cap or take other bad money back… and that lots of teams are interested in Garland and will give up assets for him now.

 

Weird to that we haven’t moved him yet if that was the case.

 

I entirely agree with you, the only reason Garland doesn’t have value now if the flat cap.  I have said repeatedly that when (if) the cap rises significantly next summer, teams will be signing worse players than Garland for more money.  He will likely have at least some value then, or at least neutral value.

 

He is one of our best winger.  Only Kuzmenko, Boeser, and Mikheyev are better.  Other guys on our team may complement the top two lines better, and Garland may just not be a fit… but he is a good solid player.

 

I hope the team is patient and waits this out the season, or at least any deal doesn’t involve US sending sweeteners or retaining.  Ideally there is a contract we take back that is a couple million less but also a good player and on shorter term.  That is the only likely winning scenario for an in season trade.

 

100% agreed.  The landscape has changed and is always changing.  Teams have gotten a small look at what they got, league has announced the cap is rising (almost to the amount of Garland's contract), and Garland has switched agents; who's known to be more aggressive.

 

Management has shown that they can make deals quickly if there's a deal to be made.  Happy they've been patient and am hopeful they won't need to attach a sweeter to get it done, and may get some value back.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Attila Umbrus said:

This is good news to me. Fabbro, while decent size doesn’t have much bite to his game. I’ve never been too impressed watching him.

 

Peeke sounds like a better target. But i’ll be honest, I had no idea this guy existed till now lol. Columbus is not a team I watch, like ever.

 

 I’m a Canuck fan, but I do dabble in other teams…mostly because i’ve worked over the years with so many people from all over states and canada. Hockey for all of us has always been an ice breaker. It gave us things to talk about while working away from our spouses. 
 

The only problem is fighting for the TV who’s game you’re watching lol.

 

By the by…Oilers fans are by far the worst of them all lol.

 

Yup, I'd honestly prefer Trenin or Sissons over Peeke from NSH.

 

But yes, Peeke would be a better fit over Fabbro IMO.

[RakuRaku]

19 minutes ago, aGENT said:

 

Yup, I'd honestly prefer Trenin or Sissons over Peeke from NSH.

 

But yes, Peeke would be a better fit over Fabbro IMO.

 

Columbus is loaded on RHD's and it seems like they don't value Peeke as a starting RHD (Severson/Gudbranson/Boqvist/Jiricek all ahead of him)..... we are desperate for a big reliable RHD, basically someone who can take minutes away from Myers!!

 

Columbus is always lacking offensive punch..... we are desperate to offload Garland....

 

It just makes too much sense for a marriage!!

[aGENT]

6 minutes ago, RakuRaku said:

 

Columbus is loaded on RHD's and it seems like they don't value Peeke as a starting RHD (Severson/Gudbranson/Boqvist/Jiricek all ahead of him)..... we are desperate for a big reliable RHD, basically someone who can take minutes away from Myers!!

 

Columbus is always lacking offensive punch..... we are desperate to offload Garland....

 

It just makes too much sense for a marriage!!

 

 

Yup...

 

[Coconuts]

59 minutes ago, Devron said:

Preds can’t expect to make the playoffs anyway, can they? I guess that’s why they’d want Garland though 

 

I think the better question is whether Trotz expects the Preds to make the playoffs, he's a bit of a wildcard imo given how new he is to his role. And if he doesn't, would Garland appeal to his medium to longer term plans? The biggest contract he's doled out was ROR's 4.5x4. The next longest contract he's given out (that wasn't an ELC) was Schenn's 2.75x3. 

 

He's likely behind buying out Duchene and moving out Johansen. 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by Coconuts

[WHL rocks]

5 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

He doesn't really have "negative value", or if negative, only marginally and relative to his contract in the flat cap. And that's largely due to flat cap, not his contract itself (which is probably $500k+/-  rich for the current cap)

 

The reason he hasn't been moved is because teams don't have cap space. The few that do, want assets for taking on cap and also don't really need or want someone that makes them better, as they're tanking.

 

Garland the player has value. As noted by the teams actually interested in adding him (and the fact that he's proven able to put up points and help drive pay on two teams). Rising cap this summer makes him more moveable going forward. Cap for cap, he's moveable... But we're hoping to clear $1-$2m by reports. It's the cap clearing that has the "negative value".

 

That's pretty much what I said. You're just putting lipstick and a pink dress on it. 

 

Every players value is directly connected to his cap hit. 

 

Myers makes 1 mill salary. He's worth that. Not the 6 mill cap hit. That's why he can't be moved. 

OEL was bought out for exact same reason. He received 2+ mill on the open market and no one is complaining in Florida.  

 

IF Garland was making 2 mill we could get value for him. We would be able to move him for a pick.

 

As it stands Garland has negative value. 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2023 by WHL rocks

[Goose]

trade trade trade lets go

[JayDangles]

Not sure if its been reported on this thread, but sounds like Canucks are willing to retain up to 30% on Garlands salary. That definitely will make him more appealing to teams, and help garner a better return. Columbus where you at?

 

 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, JayDangles said:

Not sure if its been reported on this thread, but sounds like Canucks are willing to retain up to 30% on Garlands salary. That definitely will make him more appealing to teams, and help garner a better return. Columbus where you at?

 

 

 

man I hope thats not true. 

[JayDangles]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

man I hope thats not true. 

I don't know how to link a twitter post. But Kevin Weekes tweeted it out this morning.

[JayDangles]

[Bob Long]

Just now, JayDangles said:

 

ugh. I really didn't want to see retention. If it pans out this way, we're looking at 6 1/2 mil of dead cap in 25/26.

[Coconuts]

3 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

 

So a max of 1,485,000 worth of cap space, which could potentially free up roughly 3.4M if we take a shorter term contract back. Not ideal considering we'll already have dead cap space but management may not have much of a choice if that's what the trade market demands. 

[King Heffy]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

ugh. I really didn't want to see retention. If it pans out this way, we're looking at 6 1/2 mil of dead cap in 25/26.

At what point does ownership step in and tell management that this dead cap simply isn't acceptable?  These idiots should have been fired on the spot the minute they even suggested the OEL buyout and they're considering doing even more long-term damage to the franchise.

Edited October 18, 2023 by King Heffy

[JayDangles]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

So a max of 1,485,000 worth of cap space, which could potentially free up roughly 3.4M if we take a shorter term contract back. Not ideal considering we'll already have dead cap space but management may not have much of a choice if that's what the trade market demands. 

We really do have a history of buying high and selling low... or more accurately buying our way out of the same thing we paid a high price for. Credit for the Horvat trade, but other than that we cant even give top 6 players away. 

I guess it all depends on what kind of return comes the other way. But with the whole hockey world knowing Garland wants out, and canucks willing to retain it reeks of desperation. Expect a lack luster return.

 

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, JayDangles said:

We really do have a history of buying high and selling low... or more accurately buying our way out of the same thing we paid a high price for. Credit for the Horvat trade, but other than that we cant even give top 6 players away. 

I guess it all depends on what kind of return comes the other way. But with the whole hockey world knowing Garland wants out, and canucks willing to retain it reeks of desperation. Expect a lack luster return.

 

 

I guess if we got our 2nd round pick back from CHI it would sting less. 

 

5 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

So a max of 1,485,000 worth of cap space, which could potentially free up roughly 3.4M if we take a shorter term contract back. Not ideal considering we'll already have dead cap space but management may not have much of a choice if that's what the trade market demands. 

 

I'd hope if we're retaining, we are just going for picks and cap space. I can't see us getting much of an upgrade on a position at that price. 

[Provost]

3 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

Not sure if its been reported on this thread, but sounds like Canucks are willing to retain up to 30% on Garlands salary. That definitely will make him more appealing to teams, and help garner a better return. Columbus where you at?

 

 

I haven’t seen that, do you have a link?  I have seen that teams are asking for us to retain 30%, not that we are willing.

 

That is a lot of term to do that for and in the summer we wouldn’t be able to get an equivalent player for 65% of his cap hit, so would be going backwards by trading him.

 

Having an first line player equivalent of dead cap over the next few years would be bad mojo

[WHL rocks]

25 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

man I hope thats not true. 

Depends what they get in return. If they eat 1.5 mill per year and not take anything back they should do it. 

 

Eat 30% (1.5mill) and trade him for future considerations. I'd take that.

 

If they get a player making 2 mill + eat another 1.5 that's 3.5 mill total so they clear 1.5 mill. That is something they definitely have to think about...

[EternalCanuckFan]

If the Canucks retain $1.5M on Garland, that'll be about $6.2M in dead cap when combined with OEL's penalty for the 2025-2026 season

[Coconuts]

22 minutes ago, JayDangles said:

We really do have a history of buying high and selling low... or more accurately buying our way out of the same thing we paid a high price for. Credit for the Horvat trade, but other than that we cant even give top 6 players away. 

I guess it all depends on what kind of return comes the other way. But with the whole hockey world knowing Garland wants out, and canucks willing to retain it reeks of desperation. Expect a lack luster return.

 

 

We don't exactly have much leverage if we want to move him, it's true. 

 

18 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I guess if we got our 2nd round pick back from CHI it would sting less. 

 

 

I'd hope if we're retaining, we are just going for picks and cap space. I can't see us getting much of an upgrade on a position at that price. 

 

I guess it depends on what's coming back, term attached to any player, and whether retaining can free up cap space sooner than later. 

[higgyfan]

18 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

ugh. I really didn't want to see retention. If it pans out this way, we're looking at 6 1/2 mil of dead cap in 25/26.

 

It doesn't look good for sure.  But...that's a couple of seasons away and many things can happen.

 

The cap will go up in the next 2 years to $92m. 

Either Brock(6.5) or Kuze(5.5) will probably be gone (or both). 

Pete + Hronek are the major signings, but there will be cap +4m, Myers ufa +6m and

Beau ufa +4m and whatever is left from Garland trade (3.45 at best).

 

Having some ELC and lower paid youngins of the team would be the kicker.

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

 

It doesn't look good for sure.  But...that's a couple of seasons away and many things can happen.

 

The cap will go up in the next 2 years to $92m. 

Either Brock(6.5) or Kuze(5.5) will probably be gone (or both). 

Pete + Hronek are the major signings, but there will be cap +4m, Myers ufa +6m and

Beau ufa +4m and whatever is left from Garland trade (3.45 at best).

 

Having some ELC and lower paid youngins of the team would be the kicker.

 

I guess if there's a near-ready prospect coming back?

 

I suppose looking at the roster, this would be the final retention deal from the Benning era as well. 

 

It just bugs me that its come to this. 

[Haddy]

10 minutes ago, EternalCanuckFan said:

If the Canucks retain $1.5M on Garland, that'll be about $6.2M in dead cap when combined with OEL's penalty for the 2025-2026 season

 

That's why all these silly reports of us willing to retain make no sense to me.... we'd have a whole assed Boeser in dead cap.

 

...And its not like Garland id a bad player! One of our best guys 5v5, plays a hard game.. plus will likely be very tradeable once the cap goes up.  We've had enough dead cap space over the years with the Luongo penalty and signing Eriksson.

[higgyfan]

10 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I guess if there's a near-ready prospect coming back?

 

I suppose looking at the roster, this would be the final retention deal from the Benning era as well. 

 

It just bugs me that its come to this. 

 

And to make matters worse, both players will probably play better for their new teams...

 

[Breadnbutta]

46 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

At what point does ownership step in and tell management that this dead cap simply isn't acceptable?  These idiots should have been fired on the spot the minute they even suggested the OEL buyout and they're considering doing even more long-term damage to the franchise.

Lol what else do you expect them to do?

 

Jim Benning created the worst contract cap crunch in pro sports