[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade

[Mike Vanderhoek]

On 10/11/2023 at 1:47 PM, JeremyCuddles said:

I mean, people complained about Pearson's contract pre-injury and he is pretty much the same guy Garland is. A good middle 6 guy that can play top 6. The problem is we have too many middle 6 guys and not enough top 6 guys. I'd say we have 3 true top 6ers. Well, I'd say 4 but I am not interested in debating about Boeser with people here. But outside of Kuzy, Petey, and Miller most of our players are middle 6 or depth guys.

We are flatly in cap hell cause we signed too many wingers. Garland has to take the hit for that, just like Pearson already did. But I can see him being a really good 2nd line RWer on a team. He just needs an opportunity. I mean, we are likely gonna watch OEL look good on Florida after we blamed him for this team sucking last year.

 

Vancouver is in flat cap hell for the same reason every other NHL team is. Flat cap, you said it. None of these players or agents are going to stand by and earn " the same " or not go with raises so yeah everyone is feeling it as the agents and those with money try to maintain business as usual.

 

Garland is a good player and his cap hit is not even that bad its not ideal for his role that he seems to continue to fall back into in Vancouver by default into that third line. Its almost like he is a third liner and an NHL club has already figured that out. Yes he can play top six minutes and more special teams, many a player could play elevated roles if called upon. 

 

So, Garland may feel he can play a bigger role or play more special teams etc, the rest of the NHL also seems to think he is where Vancouver sees him. With the Canucks trending upwards and Garland being a part of that it is probably in his best interests to remain in Vancouver. His highest value is in Vancouver right now. 

[Lemon Face]

On 10/10/2023 at 5:18 PM, Lemon Face said:

????????????????

[Huggy Bear]

4 hours ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

So, Garland may feel he can play a bigger role or play more special teams etc, the rest of the NHL also seems to think he is where Vancouver sees him. With the Canucks trending upwards and Garland being a part of that it is probably in his best interests to remain in Vancouver. His highest value is in Vancouver right now. 

excellent post. I think you’re right.

Edited October 14, 2023 by Huggy Bear

[RWJC]

4 hours ago, Mike Vanderhoek said:

 

Vancouver is in flat cap hell for the same reason every other NHL team is. Flat cap, you said it. None of these players or agents are going to stand by and earn " the same " or not go with raises so yeah everyone is feeling it as the agents and those with money try to maintain business as usual.

 

Garland is a good player and his cap hit is not even that bad its not ideal for his role that he seems to continue to fall back into in Vancouver by default into that third line. Its almost like he is a third liner and an NHL club has already figured that out. Yes he can play top six minutes and more special teams, many a player could play elevated roles if called upon. 

 

So, Garland may feel he can play a bigger role or play more special teams etc, the rest of the NHL also seems to think he is where Vancouver sees him. With the Canucks trending upwards and Garland being a part of that it is probably in his best interests to remain in Vancouver. His highest value is in Vancouver right now. 

Totally agree. The question I have is will mgmt use him as long as they need him and then eventually cast him off regardless. I get the impression that this mgmt group doesn’t care much for selfish antics, even if warranted, and that he’s added drama to a team and front office that has tried to minimize that (although they are highly capable of creating themselves as previously witnessed numerous times).

 

Garland is a goner, imho.
Just a matter of time, circumstance and demand all coinciding. 

[Huggy Bear]

11 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Totally agree. The question I have is will mgmt use him as long as they need him and then eventually cast him off regardless. I get the impression that this mgmt group doesn’t care much for selfish antics, even if warranted, and that he’s added drama to a team and front office that has tried to minimize that (although they are highly capable of creating themselves as previously witnessed numerous times).

 

Garland is a goner, imho.
Just a matter of time, circumstance and demand all coinciding. 

Interested to see how long he stays on the first line

[RWJC]

3 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Interested to see how long he stays on the first line

Mik had a minor setback so at least a couple more games I think. 

Garland could define himself and deserve to stick, and if so I hope they would give him the chance. Just don’t think they will longterm.

[higgyfan]

27 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Totally agree. The question I have is will mgmt use him as long as they need him and then eventually cast him off regardless. I get the impression that this mgmt group doesn’t care much for selfish antics, even if warranted, and that he’s added drama to a team and front office that has tried to minimize that (although they are highly capable of creating themselves as previously witnessed numerous times).

 

Garland is a goner, imho.
Just a matter of time, circumstance and demand all coinciding. 

 

I don't see this at all.  It often happens in the NHL, when a player

has been offered up for trade across the league and then the

agent asks permission to give it a try.  It's no big deal.

 

Did you feel the same way when Brock's agent did the same?

[Huggy Bear]

4 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Mik had a minor setback so at least a couple more games I think. 

Garland could define himself and deserve to stick, and if so I hope they would give him the chance. Just don’t think they will longterm.

Remember hearing the 96-40-65 line was the most productive in the NHL while they were together, but they may want to ease Mik back in.

 

What’s your prediction on when he’ll be traded, and the quality of return?

[Jester13]

34 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Totally agree. The question I have is will mgmt use him as long as they need him and then eventually cast him off regardless. I get the impression that this mgmt group doesn’t care much for selfish antics, even if warranted, and that he’s added drama to a team and front office that has tried to minimize that (although they are highly capable of creating themselves as previously witnessed numerous times).

 

Garland is a goner, imho.
Just a matter of time, circumstance and demand all coinciding. 

Allvin kept Brock after his agent tried to find a trade. Maybe Garland will do the same after getting a bigger chance, doing well, and the team winning.

[Huggy Bear]

5 minutes ago, Jester13 said:

Allvin kept Brock after his agent tried to find a trade. Maybe Garland will do the same after getting a bigger chance, doing well, and the team winning.

If he wants to click with Petey, scoring of the rush/breakout like last game is a good place to start

[Jester13]

3 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

If he wants to click with Petey, scoring of the rush/breakout like last game is a good place to start

What a way to start game 1. Game 2. Lfg.

[RWJC]

39 minutes ago, Huggy Bear said:

Remember hearing the 96-40-65 line was the most productive in the NHL while they were together, but they may want to ease Mik back in.

 

What’s your prediction on when he’ll be traded, and the quality of return?

If we suffer depth injuries (non LTIR) on D or 3/4 lines, I can envision Garland being dealt with a mild sweetener and/or even 25% retention in order for us to have space to acquire an asset or two to fill in the blanks. Although we can backfill with some prospects, I think this team still requires improvement and needs to shed excess, and PAJR are known to be trigger happy. I would mostly let the prospects marinate in Abby and look to do again what we just did with Lafferty. Obtain something proven.
Look what we had in Beagle, Sutter and Lapierre. We need that kind of defensive experience and consistency on the 3/4. Not inexperienced hopefuls.
 

Yes, cap space is an ongoing issue. 
That said, Blueger is only on a one year deal. Cole too. We improved but also only in the short term with some character/role players of that ilk. We will have some cap space available next year if we let these guys walk, and trade Beau/Myers or let them walk too post season depending on playoff positioning, but I think it would be a better option to define the roster this year and have some further consistency going in to next season.

 

it would also put pressure on some prospects to really show improvement in their games if they want to vie for position with the big club next season. 
 

this roster should be difficult to make.

not like this previous camp where every one of the bubble players was given a chance to prove something and very little came from that. Best way to encourage development is make the competition that much tougher.

Edited October 15, 2023 by RWJC

[RWJC]

20 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

 

I don't see this at all.  It often happens in the NHL, when a player

has been offered up for trade across the league and then the

agent asks permission to give it a try.  It's no big deal.

 

Did you feel the same way when Brock's agent did the same?

The difference being Brock is a close friend of EP, a franchise player, whom they hope to re-sign. BB6 has also had a truly tough go in the past couple years. 
 

Garland doesn’t have the same support, imho. And the recent timing, although he did request in the summer  as well, wasn’t appropriate. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth. If this team was blown out by EDM in the first game the media would be all over this Garland trade request story right now. 
 

I reiterate I wouldn’t trade Garland. I’d give him solid minutes in rotation in the top 6 with Mik. If the D can be managed by committee then so can the top 9 to a degree.  Personally with all the fire and hunger Garland has shown, if give him every opportunity to allow him to prove he belongs in a top 6 role. He’s much easier to trade when his numbers more closely reflect his cap hit. Only problem…does Garland make his linemates better or is it simply him benefitting from playing alongside elite level talent…?

Edited October 15, 2023 by RWJC

[higgyfan]

2 minutes ago, RWJC said:

The difference being Brock is a close friend of EP, a franchise player, whom they hope to re-sign. BB6 had also had a truly tough go in the past couple years. 
 

Garland doesn’t have the same support, imho. And the recent timing, although he did request in the summer  as well, wasn’t appropriate. That leaves a bad taste in the mouth. If this team was blown out by EDM in the first game the media would be all over this Garland trade request story right now. 

 

But it had no effect on the team whatsoever.  They know the process.

It's hockey business.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[lionized27]

IMHO, the defensive responsibility and speed of Garland should shine tonight with DeSmith starting. 

Garland is a "gamer", as we all know. He and Kuzmenko have the defensive wherewithal to get back, feed the puck back up to Pettersson (with the help of the D pairing) and counter.

The one great strength of the Canucks is scoring/scoring opportunities off the counter.

Two passes and out.

[RWJC]

11 minutes ago, higgyfan said:

 

But it had no effect on the team whatsoever.  They know the process.

It's hockey business.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough but quick question - why is it that Garland so far hasn’t secured a definitive top 6 position? Is he further down the perceived depth chart? If so, that somewhat makes him less of a fixture on the club, which equally in turn also renders him more of a liquid asset. Could argue everyone is an asset, but some players are much easier to replace and let go than others.

 

Goal scorers/snipers have far more priority and importance to a club than two way players with average to less than average point totals for their salary/cap hit/role/TOI. You add natural, proven chemistry to that equation and I think it becomes clear that, as much as I like him, Garland somewhat isolated himself with the trade request. But I suppose that was the intention to begin with. 

Edited October 15, 2023 by RWJC

[Nucker67]

Guessing

 

Garland ($1.5m retained) for Fabbro 

 

Hughes - Hronek

Cole - Fabbro

Soucy - Myers

 

[RWJC]

1 minute ago, Nucker67 said:

Guessing

 

Garland ($1.5m retained) for Fabbro 

 

Hughes - Hronek

Cole - Fabbro

Soucy - Myers

 

It makes sense given needs for both clubs. Maybe not the ideal resolution, but a serviceable outcome for sure.

[lionized27]

1 minute ago, Nucker67 said:

Guessing

 

Garland ($1.5m retained) for Fabbro 

 

Hughes - Hronek

Cole - Fabbro

Soucy - Myers

 

 

I like this because of the Canucks

addition of Cole.

Not a fan of any more retention, however. 

[Alflives]

2 minutes ago, Nucker67 said:

Guessing

 

Garland ($1.5m retained) for Fabbro 

 

Hughes - Hronek

Cole - Fabbro

Soucy - Myers

 

Fabbro isn’t a top four D though. And he’s too soft to be a defensive minded PK player. If we can dumperoo all of Garlsnd’s contract then okay. But a definite bad move if we add sugar or retain. 

[RWJC]

1 minute ago, Alflives said:

Fabbro isn’t a top four D though. And he’s too soft to be a defensive minded PK player. If we can dumperoo all of Garlsnd’s contract then okay. But a definite bad move if we add sugar or retain. 

 

ahhh yes, but Fabbro as a RHD should be an easier option to trade come TDL than a Garland.

[RWJC]

Friedman right now on HNIC:

 

Believes multiple teams beyond most recent reported (WPG, NSH, CBJ) are in on Garland.

Van looking to clear 1-2 mill in cap space with any Garland trade, and to secure a Dman out of it 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2023 by RWJC

[Billabong]

Nashville, wpg and Columbus are interested Friedman reported 

 

I'm so disgusted of retaining on garland on top of buying out OEL 

 

like we all knew that OEL contract would not age well but even that garland contract is now considered too rich when once upon a time at was a good value deal 

 

that trade gets worse and worse 

Edited October 15, 2023 by Billabong

[higgyfan]

3 minutes ago, RWJC said:

Fair enough but quick question - why is it that Garland so far hasn’t secured a definitive top 6 position? Is he further down the perceived depth chart? If so, that somewhat makes him less of a fixture on the club, which equally in turn also renders him more of a liquid asset. Could argue everyone is an asset, but some players are much easier to replace and let go than others.

 

Goal scorers/snipers have far more priority and importance to a club than two way players with average to less than average point totals for their salary/cap hit/role/TOI. You add natural, proven chemistry to that equation and I think it becomes clear that, as much as I like him, Garland somewhat isolated himself with the trade request. But I suppose that was the intention to begin with. 

 

The Canucks have made it known that they have been shopping Garly with

no successful results.  I don't think that his followup of requesting a trade

is an unusual thing to do.

He was very good in his 1st year as a Canuck and more than proved that

he was a top 6 player. I thought he had very good chemistry with JT/Podz.

Last year was an historically bad season for our team and he struggled

(as did a few other players).

 

I think the reason that he hasn't been traded is that his salary is too high and the

management doesn't want to retain. 

 

[RWJC]

1 minute ago, higgyfan said:

 

The Canucks have made it known that they have been shopping Garly with

no successful results.  I don't think that his followup of requesting a trade

is an unusual thing to do.

He was very good in his 1st year as a Canuck and more than proved that

he was a top 6 player. I thought he had very good chemistry with JT/Podz.

Last year was an historically bad season for our team and he struggled

(as did a few other players).

 

I think the reason that he hasn't been traded is that his salary is too high and the

management doesn't want to retain. 

 

I agree with all this, what are we actually disagreeing on?