Jump to content

[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Haddy said:

 

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.

Retaining $1.5M still means clearing about $3.5M in cap, so I can see management looking at it positively that way (especially if teams aren't insisting on a further sweetener). It will give space for EP's raise, and to fill out the rest of the lineup.

 

But I agree with your points. It's pretty brutal to basically have a top 6 winger cap hit worth of dead cap (or a top 4 D).

 

The Canucks are very fortunate that Hughes signed for a longer term than EP.

 

The team really needs some prospects to play way above value.

 

Edited by EternalCanuckFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Breadnbutta said:

Lol what else do you expect them to do?

 

Jim Benning created the worst contract cap crunch in pro sports 

Just keep the players and wait for the contacts to expire, or trade for other bad contracts.  I didn't expect them to completely disgrace the franchise with their misconduct and gross incompetence.  I expected Aquilini to fire these dirtbags before they caused this much damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Provost said:


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

image.png.56a6e92b57b8ef416dc6e72b7a07476b.png

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlockerHigh said:

CBJ fans talk of Peeke like Van fans talk of Myers, not sure we should even bother. Rather get a pick. Maybe it’s the team but I hate reclamation projects from poor teams, seldom works out. 

Yeah I’m not a Peeke fan either. The only positive over Myers is that Peeke only makes 2.5 mill a year. I’d rather target Adam Boqvist. Just play Hronek with Hughes then get Boqvist from Columbus for the 2nd line RHD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Lemon Face said:

If i got some kind of top 4 RD back why do we care.Anyway you will spend free money on top 4 RD later

How are we to afford this top 4 RHD going forward when we have multiple years of 6+mil in dead cap? Stroll out an AHL bottom 6? So are we Edmonton now? Retaining does matter. Cause we especially need every bit of cap space we can scrounge up. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rekker said:

If it's a quality, top four, defensive, righty? Sure. That's a big If though 

 

That's the only think I can think of.... The only way we're retaining 30% is if it's either a LEGIT, top4 RHD (ideally under contract) coming back or it's pure (and decent) futures, no cap.

 

I doubt we're willing to retain that much on say Peeke or Fabbro as the return. 10-20% ($500k-$1m) maybe.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

So if we are retaining $1.485 million of Garland’s contract, that means in the 2025-2026 season we will have a combined $6.251 million in dead cap space. 
 

Thanks Benning for the absolute worst trade in franchise history. 

And thanks to the current management for being stupid enough to compound the problem with dead cap.  These idiots make Benning look like Sam Pollock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s certainly a couple of bold moves by management to buy out OEL and retain on Garland.  
 

While they’re overpaid, both guys aren’t bad players - OEL seems to have bounced back from the injury this year, too.
 

Just don’t fit the vision I guess.  I like what management has done so far, so I’m good with it but these moves are decisions rather than necessities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, JeremyCuddles said:

How are we to afford this top 4 RHD going forward when we have multiple years of 6+mil in dead cap? Stroll out an AHL bottom 6? So are we Edmonton now? Retaining does matter. Cause we especially need every bit of cap space we can scrounge up. 

If you dont trade him,you will be on the hook for 5 mil next 2 years.So you wont have anything anyway.I dont agree for retention too,but you have to get what you need somehow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Lemon Face said:

If you dont trade him,you will be on the hook for 5 mil next 2 years.So you wont have anything anyway.I dont agree for retention too,but you have to get what you need somehow.

Yup. Just do what it takes to cleanse the Benning stains. Even the Gnome sized ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Lemon Face said:

If you dont trade him,you will be on the hook for 5 mil next 2 years.So you wont have anything anyway.I dont agree for retention too,but you have to get what you need somehow.

We can trade him for this top 4 RHD, and lose him cause we can't afford him. Now we are just left with cap retention. This is why some of us just wanted to blow up the roster. We been fighting cap for 5 years, we'll be fighting it for 5 more, if not more. We are never gonna be in an ideal spot to ice a complete roster. But if we are chasing playoffs, I'd rather dump a pick and not retain anything on Garland. We either fight for picks or fight for cap. We can't do both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JeremyCuddles said:

We can trade him for this top 4 RHD, and lose him cause we can't afford him. Now we are just left with cap retention. This is why some of us just wanted to blow up the roster. We been fighting cap for 5 years, we'll be fighting it for 5 more, if not more. We are never gonna be in an ideal spot to ice a complete roster. But if we are chasing playoffs, I'd rather dump a pick and not retain anything on Garland. We either fight for picks or fight for cap. We can't do both.

Why would you loose him?Meyer is gone,so is Beu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...