[Rumour] Are we Doing a Thing? Zadorov Wants Out Edition

[PhillipBlunt]

Just now, Screw said:

I argue Garland will bring an asset.  The Canucks will not need to pay to get rid of him.
 

Further,   I would reserve trading 1st picks for opportunity to add players like Miller or Hronek.  Zadarov, while good, is not the calibre of payer the Canucks should shed 1st round picks for.

Sensible. Very sensible. 

[Rekker]

6 minutes ago, Screw said:

I argue Garland will bring an asset

He'd be gone already if he was worth anything in return. 

[Rekker]

9 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Sensible. Very sensible. 

While I agree those are the types of players to-go after. We have no cap to do so. Hence Gar has to go, either part of a deal, or separate. 

[Screw]

2 minutes ago, Rekker said:

He'd be gone already if he was worth anything in return. 

I disagree.  I think the team is not rushing to sell for pennies on the dollar is a more accurate take.

We will see when it shakes out.

For now Garland is playing quality minutes which makes it more comfortable to be patient.

[Rekker]

7 minutes ago, Screw said:

I disagree.  I think the team is not rushing to sell for pennies on the dollar is a more accurate take.

We will see when it shakes out.

For now Garland is playing quality minutes which makes it more comfortable to be patient.

Foudy was more noticeable last night as a cheap, waiver pickup

 

[DeNiro]

4 minutes ago, Rekker said:

Foudy was more noticeable last night as a cheap, waiver pickup

 

True. I noticed him fall down on a penalty shot. 

[stawns]

6 minutes ago, Rekker said:

Foudy was more noticeable last night as a cheap, waiver pickup

 

completely disagree, Garland was excellent last night

[Rekker]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

True. I noticed him fall down on a penalty shot. 

Lol, he did get off on a breakaway though, he's super fast.

Just now, stawns said:

completely disagree, Garland was excellent last night

Two million per year noticeable, sure.

[PeteyBOI]

On 10/31/2023 at 12:14 PM, Honkin Hronek said:

 
Dhaliwal related it to the Seahawks making a roster trade to reward the players. 

we are looking to trade garland and/or Beau I guess. i think if garland goes we can replace his minutes with bluegers pretty easy...

 

is it possible to trade for Faulk? Parayako?Weegar? Pulock?Chychrun?Tanev?Larsson?

[stawns]

4 minutes ago, Rekker said:

Lol, he did get off on a breakaway though, he's super fast.

Two million per year noticeable, sure.

 

CG was all over the ice last night, I loved his game

[JayDangles]

3 minutes ago, Dankmemes187 said:

we are looking to trade garland and/or Beau I guess. i think if garland goes we can replace his minutes with bluegers pretty easy...

 

is it possible to trade for Faulk? Parayako?Weegar? Pulock?Chychrun?Tanev?Larsson?

Not unless you want to give up a lot more than Garland or Beau. We're talking high picks or prospects that we don't want to give up. 

We are winning right now. Stay the course and wait for the right move to present itself. Being patient is finally an option we have.

[aGENT]

2 hours ago, Rekker said:

Man, if we can somehow get Zadarov from the Flames for Garland. Would you do it if we through in our first?

 

Not for our first (and I really like us targeting Z). But they have roughly equal player value...maybe a ~mid pick and B prospect due to Garland's term and some division rival tax, but not a first. I'd save that for a guy like Pesce level or another "Hronek" type trade, should one develop.

 

1 hour ago, The Duke said:

 

Yeah Tocchet loves Garland.  And the pundits threw water on the idea that he “wants out” seems like it’s a management-driven thing and he’s hoping to have a bit of input on where he lands.
 

I understand management wanting some flexibility cap-wise with Petey and Hronek needing new deals and trying to replace Myers with a legit 2nd pair RD - that’s where I see wanting to move Garland from management’s perspective. (Plus we have some wing depth Bains, Lekkerimaki and Pods if he heals up.)

 

On other topics: I don’t see the need for Zadorov this year.  Maybe next season to replace Cole as a longer term option.

 

Friedman has been a nice pickup but with Myers and Soucy playing well on the 3rd pair - that’s where I think we can improve. A new RD partner for Cole would go a long way easing some of Hronek’s ice time.

 

Cole and Zadorov can both play right. And yes, its not that Garland is a bad player...our roster would simply be better spending his cap on a D and we have Hoglander to roughly replace him.

 

34 minutes ago, Screw said:

I argue Garland will bring an asset.  The Canucks will not need to pay to get rid of him.
 

Further,   I would reserve trading 1st picks for opportunity to add players like Miller or Hronek.  Zadarov, while good, is not the calibre of payer the Canucks should shed 1st round picks for.

This.

 

27 minutes ago, Rekker said:

He'd be gone already if he was worth anything in return. 

 

Nein.

 

22 minutes ago, Screw said:

I disagree.  I think the team is not rushing to sell for pennies on the dollar is a more accurate take.

We will see when it shakes out.

For now Garland is playing quality minutes which makes it more comfortable to be patient.

 

This again. We're in no rush to sell low on him. The team is winning, the D core steady. Allvin is simply biding his time until trade returns improve/costs go down. The earliest we maybe "have" to do something is mid Dec if we want to sign Bear. Until then, Allvin can wait for injuries, slumps, disappointing records etc for better offers. 

[Rekker]

10 minutes ago, stawns said:

 

CG was all over the ice last night, I loved his game

Meh, Brandon Reid was all over the ice when he played for us as well. Just not a fan of Gars game. He seems tough to play with, I don't even see him as a great forechecker. 

[Rekker]

6 minutes ago, aGENT said:

This again. We're in no rush to sell low on him. The team is winning, the D core steady. Allvin is simply biding his time until trade returns improve/costs go down. The earliest we maybe "have" to do something is mid Dec if we want to sign Bear. Until then, Allvin can wait for injuries, slumps, disappointing records etc for better offers. 

I'm just not buying that. I think if there was a way to rid the team of Garlands contact, that didn't cost, he'd be gone by now. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Rekker

[Pears]

42 minutes ago, Rekker said:

He'd be gone already if he was worth anything in return. 

You don't think someone capable of putting up 40+ points at 5 on 5 is worth anything? I can almost guarantee the reason he hasn't been moved yet is his $4.9m cap hit, teams not having the cap space to add him and our unwillingness to retain salary. 

[Huggy Bear]

1 hour ago, Rick_theRyper said:

Tanev for Garland 1.5 retained, 2nd, Woo?

It seems realistic, and I could part with Woo and (yet another 2nd). 
 

The retention is a dealbreaker for me personally. I’d rather add another middling prospect if they’d take Garland ‘full freight” 

 

Klimovich

Woo

Garland 

2024 4th (NJD)

 

That’s probably the most I could stomach to have Tanev as a rental for our playoff push this year. 

Otherwise, I’ll take Bear for free and protect our futures / cap space

[Rekker]

6 minutes ago, Pears said:

You don't think someone capable of putting up 40+ points at 5 on 5 is worth anything? I can almost guarantee the reason he hasn't been moved yet is his $4.9m cap hit, teams not having the cap space to add him and our unwillingness to retain salary. 

I do believe it's a combination of issues. Mostly, in my opinion, are teams waiting for the Canucks to flinch. If we keep winning, it will help alleviate that. Doesn't help that Garland is on pace for 18 points this year. You would hope a GM can see a better fit for Gar on their team and thus more points. But back to my first point, no one needs to trade for Garland, thus the wait and who flinches first. We need to shed cap. Next year we could have 9 million tied up in a small, 25 point winger and OEL. Gross.

[aGENT]

8 minutes ago, Rekker said:

I'm just not buying that. I think if there was a way to rid the team of Garlands contact, that didn't cost, he'd be gone by now. 

I didn't say it wouldn't cost. Like I said, we'd have to add something for Garland's term. You don't think other teams are thinking the same thing? "If you want to move Garland, and clear some cap, pay up." They have/had leverage.

 

Clearly we're waiting until the "payment" comes down/return up... via injuries, slumps etc. The longer we can wait, the more our leverage improves. Teams will have injuries, cap (and roster holes) will open up. If it's next summer, the cap rises and more contracts expire, more teams have interest. All things that improve our trade leverage. And with the team winning, Allvin can afford to wait.

 

If we wanted to "pay up", yes a trade would have been done by now. Patience...  

[Rekker]

1 hour ago, Rick_theRyper said:

Tanev for Garland 1.5 retained, 2nd, Woo?

Love Tanev, but he's injured to often. Pass. Give me Zad instead. We need a Dman to handle the big players in front of the net and boards. Hughes, Hron, Zad, in the top four is enticing. Also, the Russian factor on this team, where we are trending, I bet Zad signs a reasonable contract. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by Rekker

[Rekker]

1 minute ago, aGENT said:

I didn't say it wouldn't cost. Like I said, we'd have to add something for Garland's term. You don't think other teams are thinking the same thing? "If you want to move Garland, and clear some cap, pay up." They have/had leverage.

 

Clearly we're waiting until the "payment" comes down/return up... via injuries, slumps etc. The longer we can wait, the more our leverage improves. Teams will have injuries, cap (and roster holes) will open up. If it's next summer, the cap rises and more contracts expire, more teams have interest. All things that improve our trade leverage. And with the team winning, Allvin can afford to wait.

 

If we wanted to "pay up", yes a trade would have been done by now. Patience...  

Totally agree with this A. If we keep on keeping on, something will open up. Even if it's this summer. I agree, the more we keep winning, other teams leverage on us decreases. 

[tas]

I like zadorov, but I like tanman more. I'm undoubtedly biased, but so would be the guys in the room. tanny feels like a reward. 

 

it's not quite the same, but I can still remember when trevor made his return. shorty, introducing the game: "tonight, Trevor Linden returns to GM place, and he'll play for the home team. the team with which he belongs." I may or may not be struggling not to cry right now thinking about it. 

 

imagine how buoyed guys like huggy, jt, thatcher, etc would be, considering how deflated that group was when they got torn apart after the bubble. 

 

not to mention the versatility tanev would bring. spread out the talent on d by pairing him with hughes and letting hronek anchor the second pair, or load up that top unit like it currently is and have tanev anchor a shutdown second pair with cole.

 

bring him back. 

[PhillipBlunt]

14 minutes ago, Rekker said:

Love Tanev, but he's injured to often. Pass. Give me Zad instead. We need a Dman to handle the big players in front of the net and boards. Hughes, Hron, Zad, in the top four is enticing. Also, the Russian factor on this team, where we are trending, I bet Zad signs a reasonable contract. 

Soucy, Cole, Myers are doing this presently. 

[aGENT]

5 minutes ago, tas said:

I like zadorov, but I like tanman more. I'm undoubtedly biased, but so would be the guys in the room. tanny feels like a reward. 

 

it's not quite the same, but I can still remember when trevor made his return. shorty, introducing the game: "tonight, Trevor Linden returns to GM place, and he'll play for the home team. the team with which he belongs." I may or may not be struggling not to cry right now thinking about it. 

 

imagine how buoyed guys like huggy, jt, thatcher, etc would be, considering how deflated that group was when they got torn apart after the bubble. 

 

not to mention the versatility tanev would bring. spread out the talent on d by pairing him with hughes and letting hronek anchor the second pair, or load up that top unit like it currently is and have tanev anchor a shutdown second pair with cole.

 

bring him back. 

 

 

Alright, you've convinced me, Garland, Myers, prospect and 24 4th and 25 2nd for Zadorov and Tanev

[Rekker]

11 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Soucy, Cole, Myers are doing this presently. 

Cole is the best physical presence. Zad as at another level though. 

[Rick_theRyper]

1 hour ago, Lemon Face said:

If you giving a pick,you want young good player with terms.Old is not future.

I agree just Tanev would still be our best defensive defensemen. But it is a lateral movement just trading a guy who wants out for positional need. Maybe they add a young prospect back our way too