[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade

[Elias Pettersson]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

not sure why we'd do this one tbh, rather just keep Garland. Why would we want an overpaid 4th liner in Armia?

 

Garland is at $4.95 million for 3 more years.  Armia is at $3.4 million for 2 more years.  So, we wipe Bennings stain one year earlier plus we open up $1.55 million in cap space.  Armia isn't just a 4th line plug.  He's a real good skater with size which we are lacking and actually has played quite well in the playoffs, 15 points in 44 playoff games.

 

The extra $1.55 million in cap space allows us to either sign Bear or get another RHD without having to worry about adding any sweeteners.  Plus, this opens up a trade now where we can trade Beauvillier at 50% retention to maybe get a pick or prospect as we have open cap space now...

[Jatt Sharabi]

9 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Garland is at $4.95 million for 3 more years.  Armia is at $3.4 million for 2 more years.  So, we wipe Bennings stain one year earlier plus we open up $1.55 million in cap space.  Armia isn't just a 4th line plug.  He's a real good skater with size which we are lacking and actually has played quite well in the playoffs, 15 points in 44 playoff games.

 

The extra $1.55 million in cap space allows us to either sign Bear or get another RHD without having to worry about adding any sweeteners.  Plus, this opens up a trade now where we can trade Beauvillier at 50% retention to maybe get a pick or prospect as we have open cap space now...

If he's not good enough for MTL 4th line he's definitely not good for our 4th line and I would not want to give up Garland to get him. 

[Elias Pettersson]

12 minutes ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

If he's not good enough for MTL 4th line he's definitely not good for our 4th line and I would not want to give up Garland to get him. 

 

It's better than retaining 30% of Garland's salary for 3 more years or giving up a sweetener to trade him.  Garland is obviously on the trade block and the Canucks want to get rid of his salary and also get bigger in the bottom 6.  Keeping Garland at this point isn't really an option.  The Canucks have been trying to trade him for over a year.  Tocchet doesn't want him...

[Bob Long]

26 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Garland is at $4.95 million for 3 more years.  Armia is at $3.4 million for 2 more years.  So, we wipe Bennings stain one year earlier plus we open up $1.55 million in cap space.  Armia isn't just a 4th line plug.  He's a real good skater with size which we are lacking and actually has played quite well in the playoffs, 15 points in 44 playoff games.

 

The extra $1.55 million in cap space allows us to either sign Bear or get another RHD without having to worry about adding any sweeteners.  Plus, this opens up a trade now where we can trade Beauvillier at 50% retention to maybe get a pick or prospect as we have open cap space now...

 

Dunno if he couldn't make mtl or get picked off waivers I don't see it.

 

Maybe the Fabbro one but tbh I don't think he's better than Bear who we get for free.

 

Mantha makes the most sense to me. If he's a plug he's off the roster next year.

 

 

[Jatt Sharabi]

12 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

It's better than retaining 30% of Garland's salary for 3 more years or giving up a sweetener to trade him.  Garland is obviously on the trade block and the Canucks want to get rid of his salary and also get bigger in the bottom 6.  Keeping Garland at this point isn't really an option.  The Canucks have been trying to trade him for over a year.  Tocchet doesn't want him...

No it' not better. We can get a much better return for Garland. If we are only offered Armia, I'd rather just keep Garland. Why would anyone want a 3M+ 4th liner for 2 years? Have you not learned anything from the days of Antoine Roussel and Jay Beagle. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Jatt Sharabi

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

No it' not better. We can get a much better return for Garland. If we are only offered Armia, I'd rather just keep Garland. Why would anyone want a 3M+ 4th liner for 2 years? Have you not learned anything from the days of Antoine Roussel and Jay Beagle. 

 

Rous was actually really good for us until he blew his knee up.

[Jatt Sharabi]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Rous was actually really good for us until he blew his knee up.

Not at his salary he wasn't. If he was paid 1/2 of what he got I would say he was good but not at what he was paid, especially as a 4th liner. 

[Elias Pettersson]

2 minutes ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

No it' not better. We can get a much better return for Garland. If we are only offered Armia, I'd rather just keep Garland. Why would anyone want a 3M+ 4th liner for 2 years? Have you not learned anything from the days of Antoine Roussel and Jay Beagle. 

 

Armia isn't really a 4th liner.  He's averaged almost 15 minutes a night throughout his career.  Garland has been on the trade block for over a year.  Nobody wants him but you think we can get a better return than Armia?  Only if we retain 30% of his salary.  Which would be stupid...

[Jatt Sharabi]

Pass on Armia for Garland, that's a terrible deal. Would rather keep Garland. He's a much superior player. Armia can't even make the MTL roster. We have players on the farm that could do exactly what Armia brings at a fraction of the cost. 

[Bob Long]

2 minutes ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

Not at his salary he wasn't. If he was paid 1/2 of what he got I would say he was good but not at what he was paid, especially as a 4th liner. 

Dunno.. 0.5 ppg player, gritty, annoying, good defensively, not sure he was a problem at 3 mil specifically. 

[CaptainCanuck12]

2 minutes ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

Pass on Armia for Garland, that's a terrible deal. Would rather keep Garland. He's a much superior player. Armia can't even make the MTL roster. We have players on the farm that could do exactly what Armia brings at a fraction of the cost. 

I think we have wingers on the farm who could be doing what Garland is doing at a fraction of the cost.  This is why his trade may very well be just a cap dump and management will be happy with that.

[Jatt Sharabi]

Just now, CaptainCanuck12 said:

I think we have wingers on the farm who could be doing what Garland is doing at a fraction of the cost.  This is why his trade may very well be just a cap dump and management will be happy with that.

If we take a cap dump it should be for an expiring contract not for a 4th liner with 2 years left and an unreasonable cap for what they bring. 

[CaptainCanuck12]

Just now, Jatt Sharabi said:

If we take a cap dump it should be for an expiring contract not for a 4th liner with 2 years left and an unreasonable cap for what they bring. 

Sure, if we can do that.

[aGENT]

10 minutes ago, Jatt Sharabi said:

Not at his salary he wasn't. If he was paid 1/2 of what he got I would say he was good but not at what he was paid, especially as a 4th liner. 

 

I'm with you on Armia but Rous was producing at borderline 2nd line level, while being solid defensively and playing the role of pest.... That cap was not out of line. We could use a "Roussel" right now....I'd trade Garland for a $3m "Roussel" in a heart beat.

Edited October 26, 2023 by aGENT

[vermette9]

Was reading somewhere of a three way trade.

Chicago- Anthony Mantha

 

Washington- Connor Garland 

 

Vancouver- Connor Murphy 

 

I'm sure there would have to be some other parts in there but I'd be interested in this scenario.

Edited October 26, 2023 by vermette9

[Devron]

Love 3 ways 

[canucks curse]

2 minutes ago, vermette9 said:

Was reading somewhere of a three way trade.

Chicago- Anthony Mantha

 

Washington- Connor Garland 

 

Vancouver- Connor Murphy 

 

I'm sure there would have to be some other parts in there but I'd be interested in this scenario.

I would support this, 

 

then try to sign Tanev or zodorov in the off season if they do not want to Bring back Cole 

 

 

[canucks curse]

16 minutes ago, vermette9 said:

Was reading somewhere of a three way trade.

Chicago- Anthony Mantha

 

Washington- Connor Garland 

 

Vancouver- Connor Murphy 

 

I'm sure there would have to be some other parts in there but I'd be interested in this scenario.

I bet Chicago wants moe for Murphy, he's a right shot D that kinda does a decent job with everything , 

[RWJC]

1 hour ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Garland is at $4.95 million for 3 more years.  Armia is at $3.4 million for 2 more years.  So, we wipe Bennings stain one year earlier plus we open up $1.55 million in cap space.  Armia isn't just a 4th line plug.  He's a real good skater with size which we are lacking and actually has played quite well in the playoffs, 15 points in 44 playoff games.

 

The extra $1.55 million in cap space allows us to either sign Bear or get another RHD without having to worry about adding any sweeteners.  Plus, this opens up a trade now where we can trade Beauvillier at 50% retention to maybe get a pick or prospect as we have open cap space now...

No offense, but why is he a trade option then? If he has the value you’re pointing out, he’d be worth holding onto, no? Instead he’s a an only recent call up from the minors. No thanks, especially without any expiring contract. 

[Rusty Shackleford]

Taking a look at cap friendly, on this supposed 3-way; Mantha has the highest cap hit at 5.7m, Garland at 4.95m and Armia at 3.4m. 

 

The suggestion of Barron from MTL and picks from WSH, trade could look something like:

 

WSH: Garland

 

MTL: Mantha (retained) + WSH pick

 

VAN: Barron + Armia

 

MTL gets a big body to play with their smaller guys and a pick for their build, WSH gets Garland for their top 6/Ovi.  VAN get's a young RHD they can play in the line up. 

[aGENT]

2 minutes ago, Rusty Shackleford said:

Taking a look at cap friendly, on this supposed 3-way; Mantha has the highest cap hit at 5.7m, Garland at 4.95m and Armia at 3.4m. 

 

The suggestion of Barron from MTL and picks from WSH, trade could look something like:

 

WSH: Garland

 

MTL: Mantha (retained) + WSH pick

 

VAN: Barron + Armia

 

MTL gets a big body to play with their smaller guys and a pick for their build, WSH gets Garland for their top 6/Ovi.  VAN get's a young RHD they can play in the line up. 

 

That is a much better route for us than the original suggestions.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, aGENT said:

 

That is a much better route for us than the original suggestions.

 

My deal was just a baseline.  Never said others couldn't be involved...   

[Elias Pettersson]

1 hour ago, RWJC said:

No offense, but why is he a trade option then? If he has the value you’re pointing out, he’d be worth holding onto, no? Instead he’s a an only recent call up from the minors. No thanks, especially without any expiring contract. 

 

If we could offload Garland for an expiring contract, it would have happened already.  That's why there is discussion around retaining 30% of his contract.  I'm not saying Armia is an ideal player for us, but I'd rather trade for him than retain 30% of Garland's contract which lasts for 3 years.  

 

As someone else mentioned, there could be more pieces involved in the deal.  Getting Justin Barron included would be quite nice, but not sure Montreal is going to trade him.

[RinkonRenfrew]

The market for Garland should be better after the season. He’s still a quality player and should not be a negative value dump if the cap increases as expected.

 

He isn’t hurting us, so i don’t see the point in trading him for another team’s dead weight this season. If it makes sense to include him as part of a larger trade to make the cap work - great, pull the trigger.  

 

Hard pass on guys like Armia or Mantha. They don’t improve the team this year.

 

If we could somehow trade him straight up for Pearson though, that’d be cool.

 

 

 

 

[RWJC]

2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

If we could offload Garland for an expiring contract, it would have happened already.  That's why there is discussion around retaining 30% of his contract.  I'm not saying Armia is an ideal player for us, but I'd rather trade for him than retain 30% of Garland's contract which lasts for 3 years.  

 

As someone else mentioned, there could be more pieces involved in the deal.  Getting Justin Barron included would be quite nice, but not sure Montreal is going to trade him.

I hear ya, I just think there will be better options for what we need than Armia. I just don’t see us taking back another F on a multi-year high cap deal unless it’s because of a need, and not sure Armia fits that. 

Garland offers too much too as a legit top 9 NHL player for us to be trading him for minor short term cap space savings in a potential healthy scratch F.
 

If anything, I think mgmt will hold him until the right deal that involves some D help comes along. Or provides real cap relief. We have two high end RFAs to re-sign. Tacking Armia’s cap hit onto next season doesnt assist all that much in that process.