I feel like Garland will only be traded is a big overpay occurs. Out of our 3 main trade chips: Miller, Boeser, and Garland, Garland will be the cheapest, and has guaranteed term making him more team friendly for Vancouver.

Canucks should pass on that offer. I get using Toffoli as a comparable, but I think Bergevin got a pretty bad return on that trade.

Bergevin was long gone by the time Toffoli was traded to the Flames.

And I thought Montreal did well.

Hmm, guess my timeline of events is off. Regardless, I still think they could’ve done better considering Toffoli’s contract.

If that's all you want to spend, fine. But don't expect the Canucks to actually agree to that.

Imo the comparison in terms of on ice value may be quite similar, but there is 2 distinct differences:

Garland is 3 years younger than toffoli

Canucks are not in rebuild mode

Because of those factors, Canucks will probably only trade Garland if they get an impact player back (rhd maybe..) or an overpay of a collection of assets (1st + b tier asset). Otherwise, they will just keep him

I never said they should.

@sensonfire would the sens be interested in a trade revolving around garland and Zub?

Depends on the ingredients.

Some ppl think hes worth the 7th overall, i cant see that. But id be okay with Thomson and a 2nd round pick

never said you did

kk

The Toffoli trade seems like an arbitrary comparison. First and foremost Montreal was in "selling" mode on him and the Canucks are in a completely different place. The Canucks do not intend to move any of their players unless the return meets their needs. They are listening to "buyers" and if you aren't in that group, keep walking. All that being said, Garland meets a need (position, contract and style of play) for Ottawa and they have the pieces that will entice Vancouver (young RD). There is a trade to be made, but only if it makes sense for both teams. JBD? or Thomson? and a couple of picks (2nds?) probably gets it done.