[Report] Conor Garland given permission to seek trade

[aGENT]

5 hours ago, qwijjibo said:

You can't renegotiate contracts in the NHL 

 

4 hours ago, Déjà Vu said:

ahh ok that sucks   Rip than hehe

 

You can mutually terminate a contract. No idea if you can turn around a re-sign the player to the same team, to a lower deal. But it's not going to happen either way so I don't really care 

[EdgarM]

8 hours ago, wai_lai416 said:

He didn’t all of a sudden become awful he’s always been awful against good teams his stats and underlying numbers are night and day when it comes to playoff caliber teams and lottery teams. He plays the same way but the good teams deals with him easily coz he’s small predictable just get a bigger body and pin him along the board rather than let him spin over and over again. I love his effort but I can’t stand the way he plays with the puck. Just take the puck and either get to the net with your speed or shoot it on let. Stop spinning along the board ffs.

I still say its a matter of circumstance. He does not play with complimentary line mates nor does he play regular PP minutes. He is pushed down the line up because we simply have too much of what he brings, same with Beauv. 

I could see see Garland flourish with the proper centerman and more PP time.

[wai_lai416]

11 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I still say its a matter of circumstance. He does not play with complimentary line mates nor does he play regular PP minutes. He is pushed down the line up because we simply have too much of what he brings, same with Beauv. 

I could see see Garland flourish with the proper centerman and more PP time.

i mean he never was a pp1 guy so nothing have changed.. nor does he deserves pp1 time.. his playstyle doesn't fit on a pp1 as he holds on to the puck way too long. at least beauvillier have shown in the past with islanders he can still produce a little on a 3rd line role. Garland have yet to shown he can.. i mean nothing his going to change.. he ain't getting any pp1 time nor is he going to play in the top 6.. so are we happy paying 5mil for a 20 point guy that draws a penalty every other game? i don't see any GM that is crazy enough to take on garland at his full cap hit and hope with the right fit he will produce.. at 50% retention then ya someone might take the chance and give you something, i'm pretty sure the management is insisting they are going to retent on garland and also insisting they give us value for it.. hence garland will be subject to every trade rumor but never actually get moved.

[EdgarM]

1 minute ago, wai_lai416 said:

i mean he never was a pp1 guy so nothing have changed.. nor does he deserves pp1 time.. his playstyle doesn't fit on a pp1 as he holds on to the puck way too long. at least beauvillier have shown in the past with islanders he can still produce a little on a 3rd line role. Garland have yet to shown he can.. i mean nothing his going to change.. he ain't getting any pp1 time nor is he going to play in the top 6.. so are we happy paying 5mil for a 20 point guy that draws a penalty every other game? i don't see any GM that is crazy enough to take on garland at his full cap hit and hope with the right fit he will produce.. at 50% retention then ya someone might take the chance and give you something, i'm pretty sure the management is insisting they are going to retent on garland and also insisting they give us value for it.. hence garland will be subject to every trade rumor but never actually get moved.

We are in no rush to move him or Beau, when the time is right, we will take advantage of a team who is more desperate for players like them. They are depth top 6 forwards for us at this point. 

We seem to be doing OK for now, no need to make any rash decisions with our assets.

[qwijjibo]

3 hours ago, aGENT said:

 

 

You can mutually terminate a contract. No idea if you can turn around a re-sign the player to the same team, to a lower deal. But it's not going to happen either way so I don't really care 

I'm pretty sure there's a clause preventing re-signing a player you have bought out or terminated for a minimum of 1 year 

[Ballisticsports]

5 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

We are in no rush to move him or Beau, when the time is right, we will take advantage of a team who is more desperate for players like them. They are depth top 6 forwards for us at this point. 

We seem to be doing OK for now, no need to make any rash decisions with our assets.

I agree

 I don't think Beau has played that bad, he was sick last month and isn't in the top6 now , so can't be expected to score like one

he 

He isn't great when he's in a bottom-six role, but there doesn't appear to be a clear path up the lineup for the winger.

For now he is a good depth piece for if injuries happen

[Tusk]

6 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

i mean he never was a pp1 guy so nothing have changed.. nor does he deserves pp1 time.. his playstyle doesn't fit on a pp1 as he holds on to the puck way too long. at least beauvillier have shown in the past with islanders he can still produce a little on a 3rd line role. Garland have yet to shown he can.. i mean nothing his going to change.. he ain't getting any pp1 time nor is he going to play in the top 6.. so are we happy paying 5mil for a 20 point guy that draws a penalty every other game? i don't see any GM that is crazy enough to take on garland at his full cap hit and hope with the right fit he will produce.. at 50% retention then ya someone might take the chance and give you something, i'm pretty sure the management is insisting they are going to retent on garland and also insisting they give us value for it.. hence garland will be subject to every trade rumor but never actually get moved.

This talk reminds me of all the folks who wanted Brock gone all last year.

Garlund has a place on the team, they just are not putting him there yet. 

He reminds me of Cliff Ronning and Morrison. He digs the puck out but he has no one open to feed it to.... imagine brock just gliding into that open space and shit, we get another 29 goals per month.

What has PDG done for us lately? Huh?

[Tusk]

5 minutes ago, qwijjibo said:

I'm pretty sure there's a clause preventing re-signing a player you have bought out or terminated for a minimum of 1 year 

No, we could have signed OEL after buying out his contract, we missed out. and the CAP hit is only the greater of the penalty or the new salary. Calgary did that a couple years ago.

[Tusk]

3 minutes ago, Tusk said:

No, we could have signed OEL after buying out his contract, we missed out. and the CAP hit is only the greater of the penalty or the new salary. Calgary did that a couple years ago.

so basically we could have got a 2.5 million d-man for no cap hit next year. We would be short this year though.... but free cap hit from next year till 2031 when we stop paying the buy out.

[wai_lai416]

16 minutes ago, Tusk said:

This talk reminds me of all the folks who wanted Brock gone all last year.

Garlund has a place on the team, they just are not putting him there yet. 

He reminds me of Cliff Ronning and Morrison. He digs the puck out but he has no one open to feed it to.... imagine brock just gliding into that open space and shit, we get another 29 goals per month.

What has PDG done for us lately? Huh?

he digs the puck out and have no one open to feed to?? more like he digs the puck out and keeps his head down so he can't see anyone to pass to.. when he was on EP/Kuzmenko's line.. the puck dies on his stick more often than not.

what have PDG done for us lately? i dunno at least he's blocking shots and hitting.. something garland doesn't do.. and he's costing us 775k vs 5mil

7 minutes ago, Tusk said:

so basically we could have got a 2.5 million d-man for no cap hit next year. We would be short this year though.... but free cap hit from next year till 2031 when we stop paying the buy out.

... that is so not true.. yes you can re-sign a player you bought out.. no he would cost 2.5mil + his buyout penalty.. calgary did it with michael stone.. his buy out penalty was 1.1mil for 2 years he signed for 750k.. his cap hit was 750k that year+ the 1.1mil buyout so essentially 1.85mil

Edited November 9, 2023 by wai_lai416

[qwijjibo]

9 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

he digs the puck out and have no one open to feed to?? more like he digs the puck out and keeps his head down so he can't see anyone to pass to.. when he was on EP/Kuzmenko's line.. the puck dies on his stick more often than not.

what have PDG done for us lately? i dunno at least he's blocking shots and hitting.. something garland doesn't do.. and he's costing us 775k vs 5mil

... that is so not true.. yes you can re-sign a player you bought out.. no he would cost 2.5mil + his buyout penalty.. calgary did it with michael stone.. his buy out penalty was 1.1mil for 2 years he signed for 750k.. his cap hit was 750k that year+ the 1.1mil buyout so essentially 1.85mil

So apparently it IS allowed providing there was no prior agreement to do so.  If there is evidence that it was previously discussed the new deal won't be allowed by the league 

[Tusk]

7 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

he digs the puck out and have no one open to feed to?? more like he digs the puck out and keeps his head down so he can't see anyone to pass to.. when he was on EP/Kuzmenko's line.. the puck dies on his stick more often than not.

what have PDG done for us lately? i dunno at least he's blocking shots and hitting.. something garland doesn't do.. and he's costing us 775k vs 5mil

... that is so not true.. yes you can re-sign a player you bought out.. no he would cost 2.5mil + his buyout penalty.. calgary did it with michael stone.. his buy out penalty was 1.1mil for 2 years he signed for 750k.. his cap hit was 750k that year+ the 1.1mil buyout so essentially 1.85mil

I am not a Cap lawyer or a bean counter. But I know Calgary circumvented the Cap Hit by buying out the contract and signing him at a league minimum, or else why?

Anyways, you said Garlund was a 20 point guy and you need to check your facts. Just saying.

Put him with Brock and JT against Toronto. Matthews will hate that little pest.

[Sophomore Jinx]

On 10/26/2023 at 10:28 AM, RWJC said:

Conor Garland trade destinations: Four proposals for Canucks to consider

 

Jack Rabb

October 26, 2023, 9:49 AM

 

It hardly broke the internet when Sportsnet’s Elliotte Friedman broke the news that Vancouver’s Conor Garlandwas drawing interest from multiple teams across the league. 

It was well known that Garland, who recently hired a new high-powered agent in Judd Moldaver of Wasserman, had been given permission by the Canucks to seek a trade. It’s also widely recognized that the diminutive Garland is a reliable secondary scoring threat in any scheme. 

 

What remains to be seen, however, is just how much the price tag that Garland comes with ($4.95 million AAV for the next three seasons) will affect his trade return. 

 

It’s largely that contract, another vestigial feature of former GM Jim Benning’s regime, that has made Garland the odd man out for a Canucks team with just $162,500 of breathing room beneath the cap. 

 

At the time of his acquisition from Arizona, Garland was fresh out of his rookie deal and looked to be on the cusp of breaking out — he had just posted 39 points in 49 games during the COVID-shortened 2020-21 season on an objectively bad Coyotes team — and Benning bet big on the five-foot-10, 165-pound winger taking the next step. 
 

While that $4.95-million promise hasn’t entirely materialized, Garland has established himself as a dependable secondary threat with his above-average playmaking and finishing ability, skills that make him a valuable asset in the eyes of many. 

Shopping Garland around makes a lot of sense for Vancouver — their needs are defensive depth and financial manoeuvrability according to Friedman, and the wing is easily their greatest indulgence: Brock Boeser, Andrei Kuzmenko, Anthony Beauvillier, Ilya Mikheyev, and Garland all make around $5 million. 

 

The Canucks are reportedly willing to retain up to 30 per cent of Garland’s contract to facilitate a deal. They want to create $1-million-to-$2-million in cap space and get a defenceman in return, ideally somebody who would allow them to break up Quinn Hughes and Filip Hronek to allow Hronek to anchor the second pair. 

 

Complicating who the Canucks target is the potential return of UFA Ethan Bear, whom Vancouver is reported to have an interest in bringing back as he continues his rehab from off-season shoulder injury.

 

So, where will Garland land, and what can the Canucks expect to get back for him? Let’s take a look at some of the rumoured destinations: 

 

 

WINNIPEG JETS 

 

Winnipeg was one of the first teams that came knocking when Garland officially hit the trading block, and they look like a good match — they’ve got a backlog on the backend, $1.6 million in cap space, and without a doubt would benefit from some scoring punch outside of their top line, especially in light of the recent injury to Gabe Vilardi. They also have a habit of acquiring players who have term left on their contract. 

 

The Jets have several prospects who impressed during camp and the pre-season, including their smooth-skating 2019 first-rounder Ville Heinola and Declan Chisholm, who put up 43 points in 59 games last season in the AHL, plus four more in five playoff games. 

 

But at present, Nate Schmidt’s declining play and hefty price tag make him functionally unmoveable, creating a logjam on the back end. At some point, the Jets are going to have to move off of somebody — either standing pat with their defence corps and shipping off prospects to address other areas of need, or making space for their homegrown talent. 

 

None of the Jets’ expendable NHLers make sense cap-wise for the Canucks, besides perhaps Logan Stanley (who would be a spectacle next to fellow giant Tyler Myers), so they would have to hope that one of their intriguing prospects would be enough to get Vancouver to bite. 

 

Potential trade: 

 

Vancouver receives: Declan Chisholm, Mason Appleton 

 

Winnipeg receives: Garland (Canucks retain 15 per cent)

 

 

 

NASHVILLE PREDATORS 

 

Another early suitor in the Garland sweepstakes, rumour has it that Nashville isn’t as keen to make a deal anymore. 

 

The Canucks reportedly had their heart set on Dante Fabbro, a 25-year-old right-shot defenceman from Coquitlam, B.C. who’s been getting top-pairing minutes beside Roman Josi — in other words, the full package. Fabbro is on a one-year, $2.5 million contract after which he’ll become an RFA, and the Preds have an envious $7.6 million in cap space at the moment. 

 

However, with the recent injury to Luke Schenn, Fabbro has become far less expendable. Schenn is out of commission for four-to-six weeks with a lower body injury, and Nashville made off-season moves that suggest it’s trying to be competitive this year — do they trust a prospect like Jake Livingston to step up and work meaningful minutes after playing five games when his college season was over last spring? 

 

While this is approaching a best-case scenario for the Canucks, they’ll likely have to wait for Nashville’s defence to heal up before this could go through. Does Patrick Allvin have the patience to get his guy? 

 

Potential trade: 

 

Vancouver receives: Dante Fabbro 

 

Nashville receives: Conor Garland

 

 

 

 

WASHINGTON CAPITALS 

 

Washington would love to have someone like Garland on their side right about now. It’s early, but the Caps rank 30th in the league in shots per game (24.8), 32nd in goals per game (1.25), and they’ve got the worst goal differential in the competitive Eastern Conference. 

 

They can’t afford to fall behind. It’s also a question whether the Caps can even afford the asking price of an NHL-caliber defenceman for Garland when they’re giving up 33 shots a night and have $0 in cap space, but GM Brian MacLellan has been resolute in his desire for a top-six forward. 

The Capitals have a glut of defensive prospects, although much like the Jets, getting a deal done here would require the Canucks to compromise on their objective to land somebody who can slot into an NHL role when he steps off the plane. 

 

Factor in that Washington would likely need Vancouver to retain as much salary as organizationally possible on top of getting a third team involved to cover most of what’s left over and you’re left wondering if it’s worth the effort for the Canucks. 

 

Potential trade: 

 

Vancouver receives: Justin Barron 

 

Washington receives: Conor Garland 

 

Montreal receives: Anthony Mantha, Washington’s choice of 2024 or 2025 first-round pick

 

 

COLUMBUS BLUE JACKETS 

 

Columbus is one of the most closely linked teams with Vancouver on the Garland front, and for good reason. They’ve got the cap space ($3.387 million currently), a wealth of right-handed defencemen, and a need for scoring wingers. 

 

Friedman used some innuendo on Hockey Night in Canada to imply that the Canucks were interested in Andrew Peeke in particular. Peeke is interesting — his reputation is that of a shut-down guy, but on a brutal Blue Jackets squad last year he had a team-low minus-41. He has strong one-on-one defending abilities, but got exposed by other teams’ top lines in a bigger role last season. 

 

Defencemen are notorious for taking longer to develop, and Peeke is still only 25 and signed through 2025-26 at a reasonable $2.75 million AAV. He was third in the league in blocked shots last season with 197 and threw 180 hits while averaging 21:15 of ice time across 80 games, which gives credence to the idea that he’s willing to play a stay-at-home game that could complement somebody like Quinn Hughes. 

 

However, he wasn’t a minus-41 for nothing. His lack of defensive zone awareness was alarming at times, and might be a contributing factor to why he’s losing a positional battle to Erik Gudbranson. Garland’s contract isn’t ideal, but this is far from a straight salary dump — the Blue Jackets might be the ones throwing in a sweetener here. 

 

Peeke could provide good minutes in a sheltered role for the Canucks right away, and if he can clean up his game in his own end to actualize his shut-down potential then this could be a respectable move for Vancouver, especially considering the $2.2 million in cap savings. 

 

Potential trade: 

 

Vancouver receives: Andrew Peeke, third-round pick in 2024 (via LAK) 

 

Columbus receives: Conor Garland 

 

 

link to rest of article:

https://www.sportsnet.ca/nhl/conor-garland-trade-destinations-four-proposals-for-canucks-to-consider/sn-amp/

 

 

I’d be all over us obtaining Justin Barron everyday and twice on Sunday…

Peeke AND a 3rd? 

 

I like Garly, but that's a deal I'd take for sure.

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Sophomore Jinx

[wai_lai416]

16 minutes ago, Tusk said:

I am not a Cap lawyer or a bean counter. But I know Calgary circumvented the Cap Hit by buying out the contract and signing him at a league minimum, or else why?

Anyways, you said Garlund was a 20 point guy and you need to check your facts. Just saying.

Put him with Brock and JT against Toronto. Matthews will hate that little pest.

they bought out stone coz he was injured prior and become a depth defenceman on the calgary flames with a 3.5mil cap hit.. then an injury in september made room to re-sign him as a depth defenceman.. they weren't planning to sign him without the injury.. you need to check your facts.. garland is a 20 point guy right now at his current pace no need to fact check.. he's on pace for 20.5 points.. and that's witht he first 7 game spent on the top line

[wai_lai416]

19 minutes ago, qwijjibo said:

So apparently it IS allowed providing there was no prior agreement to do so.  If there is evidence that it was previously discussed the new deal won't be allowed by the league 

you can re-sign anyone after buy out as long as it's not a compliance buy out.. but most would not re-sign with the team that bought them out because why would they unless there's absolutely no one else to sign with.. it's clear the team that bought you out thinks that you are either not worth what they are paying you.. or they dont want you there. if you re-sign the player on day 1 of the ufa period.. pretty sure the league will investigate and others will point and accuse you of previously discussing a deal

[Tusk]

15 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

they bought out stone coz he was injured prior and become a depth defenceman on the calgary flames with a 3.5mil cap hit.. then an injury in september made room to re-sign him as a depth defenceman.. they weren't planning to sign him without the injury.. you need to check your facts.. garland is a 20 point guy right now at his current pace no need to fact check.. he's on pace for 20.5 points.. and that's witht he first 7 game spent on the top line

Some times its about chemistry. Garlund is not a petey Kuz player, Hogs or Podz would have been a better fit till Mik was back.

But Garlund is more likely to be a JT Boeser fit even though he is so short. He is fast with his stick. His first goal against edmonton, everyone just talked about the petterson pass, but garlund took it from backhand to forehand faster than I can shart.

[RWJC]

Just now, Tusk said:

Some times its about chemistry. Garlund is not a petey Kuz player, Hogs or Podz would have been a better fit till Mik was back.

But Garlund is more likely to be a JT Boeser fit even though he is so short. He is fast with his stick. His first goal against edmonton, everyone just talked about the petterson pass, but garlund took it from backhand to forehand faster than I can shart.

New CFF monthly feature event should be live streamed public events where user’s physically test their posted theories. If you can shart that fast I will happily pay to send you to a GI specialist. 

[wai_lai416]

5 minutes ago, Tusk said:

Some times its about chemistry. Garlund is not a petey Kuz player, Hogs or Podz would have been a better fit till Mik was back.

But Garlund is more likely to be a JT Boeser fit even though he is so short. He is fast with his stick. His first goal against edmonton, everyone just talked about the petterson pass, but garlund took it from backhand to forehand faster than I can shart.

so you think tocchet is dumb then? why would he not put garland with miller and boeser all season and preseason if he's a fit there and instead rather put him with EP when it's clearly not a fit? garland is a fit for someone more like horvat who doesn't really carry the puck and just go straight to the net or just shoot the puck.. garland is not a fit for JT because JT and EP needs the puck on their stick.. not the puck on garland stick.. garland likes to carry the puck that's why he didn't work with EP coz he rarely have the puck

[Tusk]

Whoa there buddy I do NOT think Tocc is dumb. In fact, I think by putting PDG in a spotlight we can get some interesting trades in the future.

I just am not done with Garlund.

I would like to see him in SELECT games with the "superstar" mcdavids and dryercycles, maybe the dave matthews and some Crosby,stills, nash and young.

As much as JT and Boeser takes pride in playing against the top lines, Garlund would too. 

 

 

[Tusk]

18 minutes ago, wai_lai416 said:

so you think tocchet is dumb then? why would he not put garland with miller and boeser all season and preseason if he's a fit there and instead rather put him with EP when it's clearly not a fit? garland is a fit for someone more like horvat who doesn't really carry the puck and just go straight to the net or just shoot the puck.. garland is not a fit for JT because JT and EP needs the puck on their stick.. not the puck on garland stick.. garland likes to carry the puck that's why he didn't work with EP coz he rarely have the puck

Sounds like Brock the sniper.

Everyone has complained that Brock is a slow skater. But it seems intentional, he gets into open space when the other team is skating 2x faster.

Ever watch Ovi highlights? That Brock Shot is from a garlund guy one timed.

Boeser is getting back to what he does. Just like Demko doing Demko things.

Garlund is worth his money but you dont put the dancing monkey in a corner near the bathroom at the grocery store, do you

 

[Tusk]

I would like to see Beau on the JT Brock line for a few months before the trade deadline.

Maybe not against any teams higher than 500, but enough games to make him tradeable for cap space and a draft pick.

 

[aGENT]

9 hours ago, RWJC said:

New CFF monthly feature event should be live streamed public events where user’s physically test their posted theories. If you can shart that fast I will happily pay to send you to a GI specialist. 

Mexican for lunch, Indian for dinner, and a nice big coffee in the morning... I'll see you in the lavatory sir