Jump to content

[Proposal] Garland for E. Kane


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, 27 Percent said:

Good call. These two would kill eachother.

No, they wouldn’t. There would only be 2 hits. JT hitting Kane and Kane hitting the ground. I doubt it would come to that though. Kane would get a lot of ice time here playing with either EP or Miller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Goal_thecup said:

Edmonton gets rid of 3 years times $5.15m, NMC and M-NMC 16 team list for an aging and mentally-muddled winger of questionable character and a history of making bad decisions.

What do we get?

We dumperoo our Smurf and his 17 million owed over the same three years. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Snoop Hogg said:

No, they wouldn’t. There would only be 2 hits. JT hitting Kane and Kane hitting the ground. I doubt it would come to that though. Kane would get a lot of ice time here playing with either EP or Miller.

Kane would absolutely beat millers ass but okay. 

  • Haha 1
  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Didn’t I? What’s exactly a tag? Thought I put proposal. 
Don’t really get it. But thanks for fixing all the same. 

 

We have "tags" that I noticed you use, but "tag" also refers to putting information in the title such as [Proposal] or [Rumour]. When users see a new topic on the right, all they see is the title, so something like "Garland for E. Kane" is ambiguous and could be a trade or just a proposal. To avoid baiting readers into the thread, we like to make sure the titles are clear like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, -AJ- said:

 

We have "tags" that I noticed you use, but "tag" also refers to putting information in the title such as [Proposal] or [Rumour]. When users see a new topic on the right, all they see is the title, so something like "Garland for E. Kane" is ambiguous and could be a trade or just a proposal. To avoid baiting readers into the thread, we like to make sure the titles are clear like that.

So a trade idea thread needs “proposal” in the title and again in the tag spot.  Understood and thanks for the explanation. 🥃
 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we could have him as Petey's forechecker and outlet pass option then I could see Kane be very successful here as Petey is obviously a wizard with the puck, and if Kane wants it he would add a much desired power forward presence here (though it begs the question also of why that hasn't worked out this year with McDavid).  Offensively, he's probably got more talent than Mikheyev whose two way game probably fits better with the likes of Joshua and Suter anyway.  IMO, Garland, Beauvillier and Myers are odd fits here so if we could move Conor and let Beau and Myers walk we could be a better team, and rehabbing a mercurial Kane would add a needed element if he would be disciplined.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 4petesake said:



He’s 32.

His second, third….chances came in his 20’s.

Like his skill set and size but still waiting for him to grow up so I’m out on this one. Only way the Oil move him is if they’re tired of him and that would be another red flag.
 

 

Yep it would be risky. But Alfs premise is Garland for Kane.

 

If EDM wanted to get rid of him and that's the deal, I don't think Allvin could say no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would Oils retain and take Garland's whole contract such that we gain the cap room that PA is seeking? Oils is also up to the cap. This isn't feasible for both sides.

 

More importantly, our biggest need now is not more scoring. We're also assuming he'll mesh with our team, but it's more likely he'll underperform and clash with the team's personalities. If it doesn't work with McDavid and Draisaistl, not sure why he'll be a better fit for us. Considering the risks attached with this player both on and off ice, pass for me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edmonton is in complete panic mode.  The coach has lost the room.  They may make a panic trade here.  Kane was on the 3rd line last night.  

 

He'd be a perfect fit in our top 6 playing with Miller.  He's a huge upgrade on PDG.  PDG can slide to the 3rd line.  If they take Garland off our hands for Kane, then Allvin should win the GM of the year award hands down...

Edited by Elias Pettersson
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Wing said:

So would Oils retain and take Garland's whole contract such that we gain the cap room that PA is seeking? Oils is also up to the cap. This isn't feasible for both sides.

 

More importantly, our biggest need now is not more scoring. We're also assuming he'll mesh with our team, but it's more likely he'll underperform and clash with the team's personalities. If it doesn't work with McDavid and Draisaistl, not sure why he'll be a better fit for us. Considering the risks attached with this player both on and off ice, pass for me.

 

 

Sure it is.  Their cap hits are almost identical and both contracts have 2 years left after this one.  The Oilers don't have to retain anything...

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said:

 

Sure it is.  Their cap hits are almost identical and both contracts have 2 years left after this one.  The Oilers don't have to retain anything...

I guess you're right that it does work cap wise, but we're moving Garland for help on defense, not add another winger with risk that we don't need.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wing said:

I guess you're right that it does work cap wise, but we're moving Garland for help on defense, not add another winger with risk that we don't need.

This is a problem I see with a lot of proposals: we do not need to get back a D for Garland and/or Beauvillier.

We can improve the D in other ways; we just have to unload these 2 little wingers who have proven themselves ineffective.

Let's not corral ourselves saying we need this or that; maybe we get one big bastard winger for the 2 smurfs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2023 at 4:36 AM, Goal_thecup said:

This is a problem I see with a lot of proposals: we do not need to get back a D for Garland and/or Beauvillier.

We can improve the D in other ways; we just have to unload these 2 little wingers who have proven themselves ineffective.

Let's not corral ourselves saying we need this or that; maybe we get one big bastard winger for the 2 smurfs.

He would be an upgrade to the top 6 for sure. 

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...