Canucks decline, only things in this package are the two 1sts and 2nd, and you won’t be getting two great top 6 forwards for that

Vancouver doesn’t do that

You’re really going to call garland a great top six forward?

I don’t think this package gets accepted either, because its too much fluff. That said, i think two firsts, a second, and a higher end prospect (plus a cap dump) would be a really good return for the two players. Two firsts, a second, Lohrei, and Moore is a good return i think.

I agree. Garland is a good player but not a stellar top 6 forward. I placed him on the first obviously beacause the line needs a RW but he could easily fall to a 3rd line guy.

two first a second, Lohrei and Moore would be a great return for those guys.

Vancouver fans love to overvalue there players, but I guess us Boston fans do to lol

garland is absolutely a stellar top 6 forward lol. by every metric

that's enough for miller alone maybe

studnicka, senyshyn are meh

lauko is ok but nothing special and doesnt fit a need

debrusk is a reclamation project and if he doesnt bounce back is borderline overpaid. probably worth a mid round pick at most rn

moore's contract sucks

pass

Miller alone is not going to cost 2 1st, a 2nd and two prospects. That is just silly

A player like Jack Eichel didnt even cost 2 1st.... he was a 1st a 2nd and a player

Stellar is a ridiculous assessment. He’s good. Solid. He’s tied for 148th in points this season. Are we calling that stellar? Do we need to give you the definition of the word stellar? Is Kyle okposo stellar? Is Corey perry? Is Charlie Coyle?

Miller alone? Alright, who’s the last player two get two firsts and a second? Forget the prospects.

Exactly. I think the 1st and 2nd for him is fair, paired with a prospect. And a 1st and a lower tier prospect/ player (like debrusk) would be fair for Garland. Equaling that package. Not sure how this guy thinks Miller will get 2 1st, a second and a top prospect lmfao

Picks are great, but if Vancouver's best forward and another very good top 6 forward don't rate your best prospect, what will?? In the short term this just makes Vancouver a very bad team...with some draft picks.

That might be the best case scenario.

This is pretty bad for Vancouver. They'd be looking to shed cap space and taking on DeBrusk/Moore defeats that purpose.

Studnicka is a quality prospects with middle 6 upside

Lauko I'm a fan of but he's probably a bottom 6 winger

Senyshyn as little to no value

The picks are picks, no need to talk about those

Its not exactly an exciting package for a pair of Top 6 forwards that are under contract past this season.

Its 2022 and youre judging a player on points🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️
However even if you did want to use points were you aware that garland has been scoring points at a great rate at 5v5.
5v5 points per 60
Garland: 2.32
Panarin: 2.28
Mcdavid: 2.24
Kuznetsov: 1.99
Crosby: 1.86
Kane: 1.50
So yeah id say thats pretty stellar

No I’m not judging players on points. But when the term stellar is thrown around, I’m expecting better than being in the top 150.

It’s like that crappy argument when someone says a player isn’t a first liner because they don’t score, and some fan of that team inevitably comes back with, “oh, you just judge based off points?” Of course not. But there’s a certain expectation of offense with certain roles, or adjectives, like stellar.

Never said he wasn’t good. Never said he wasn’t really good. But stellar? Cmon.

ah yes, points. the best way to analyze how good a player is. mhm.

the player was alex tuch

a 1st line calibre forward in vegas who's now a ppg with buffalo

and the eichel deal was krebs tuch 1st, btw

Hes a stellar top 6 player 100%. Hes got awesome analytics and awesome 5v5 production. The only thing that he doesnt do great is PP points. I dont think that that makes him not a stellar top 6 F.

From everything Rutherford says I can't imagine the return in any Miller/Garland/Boeser trade will be primarily picks. On multiple occasions he has mentioned prospects AND picks as the return because he sees this team being competitive again in two years. That leads me to believe (and I may be wrong) that he is looking for prospects that are well on their development path or of such a quality that their NHL timeline is sooner than later. Rutherford is also smart enough to realize that if he makes a mistake here the reaction in this market (and it's often an irrational market) will be extremely negative. I think he either gets what he's looking for or he just walks away and holds on to his trade pieces. That's probably 50/50 at this point when it comes to Miller anyway.

So, like an NHL ready center perhaps?

Cool. I think you’re missing out on the definition of stellar first and foremost. So we’re going off 5 on 5 scoring per 60? I don’t really care about the analytics at all, so lets go with the 5 on 5 scoring.
Is Mason Marchment stellar? How about REM Pitlick, is Adam Ruzicka? How about Victor Rask? Andreas Johnson? Are there 87 stellar top six forwards in the NHL?

Are all the coaches of these guys idiots? Should Alex Kerfoot be given more 5 on 5 ice than Auston Matthews because he has a 5 v 5 points per 60 rate?

Or is it more likely that all the coaches in the NHL aren’t morons, and these guys have a higher 5 on 5 scoring rate because they get way softer matchups, because they aren’t stellar?

Thank you for illustrating the exact point i referenced to another poster.

When the term stellar is thrown about in reference to top six forwards, yes, offense is needed

Why dont you look at their analytics ****? Every metric says that garland is a stellar top 6 F. None of that is true for any one of the other players you mentioned. You said you dont care for analytics we could go there too. Now i havent watched many games of rask or ruzicka or pitlick and im guessing you havent watched many of their games either but id be willing to bet that garland according to the eye test even is a hell of a lot better than them.

if you ignore analytics entirely its just a show of ignorance.