It’s a no from me dawg. Good luck though

You won't get both Miller and Garland with that package

Canucks pass easily

You guys are getting ridiculous

Keep Debrusk and Van keeps Garland. Haula can fill the 3C in Van and Wagner is irrelevant. Canucks have no use for him. So JT for Carlo Haula and the 1st. Also, the rest of the cap goes to Bergeron lol

2 cap dumps an top 9 winger and 4th dman doesn't get you 2 top 6 players which one of them had 99 points and was 12th in points this year

Do you think garland is some high value asset? Its a top six winger who is 25, with term, and a top four d with 5 years of term who is also 25. Rentals don’t get that. Garland certainly doesn’t get that.

Calling Erik haula a cap dump is also flat out ridiculous. Since the time he got slotted as the 2C in boston, he had 32 even strength points in 48 games. Would have been good for second on the canucks over that period. 2 mill and change is a cap dump for that kind of production? Weird. We must follow different leagues.

Wagner stinks though. One of your six assertions was correct at least.

Garland for Carlo straight up is fair value so the rest of the trade is Debrusk Haula and Wagner and a 1st next year for Miller, that offer gets beat by 30 different teams

1. No it isn’t.
2. I’d like to hear why you think haula is a cap dump with that kind of production. Its an interesting theory, so there must be something behind it.

I mean, you’re not getting Vancouvers best player for a collection of middle-line-up guys. I like debrusk and Carlo and haula very much but, quite simply, they are middle 6/middle pair players. Canucks have to get a high end piece back if they trade miller

They can get a high end future back. If you think they’re getting a high end roster piece, i would refer you to all other rental trades in the past 20 years.

Yup could be a high end future. I’d be good with that. I doubt Boston is parting with Lysell though which would be the piece required if they want Miller

Well what we have here is two top six players, and a top four d man….really went the other way.

I think it’s quite generous to call haula and debrusk top 6 forwards tbh

Well, that’s what they were. Once both were put in the top six, here’s what they produced at 5 on 5:

Haula - 48 games, 32 EV points, 16 EV goals.
Debrusk - 31 EV points, 20 EV goals.

For reference, the only guy that exceeded that on the canucks was Miller.

Yeah, and miller had 50 even strength points. So he is clearly several tiers above haula who is a middle 6 forward.

Also, Garland had 48 EV points, so miller is not the only one who outperformed them. Pettersson had 31 as well, which is his worst even strength point production of his career. So Pettersson at his worst is comparable to debrusk at his best. Ditto haula.

You really have to massage the numbers to convince me debrusk or haula would be top 3 forwards in the Canucks.

Debrusk I would say is better than haula, and even though he obviously struggles with consistency issues. Some times it looks like debrusk is a top line player who can score 30 goals, sometimes he plays like a 3rd liner. It’s very possible, if not likely, that he plays at a 3rd/2nd line level in Vancouver if Van were to trade for him.

End of the day, neither are high end. Neither of them finished in the top 100 for 5v5 scoring. Neither of them are useful power play pieces. Neither of them were consistently used as 1st line players.

It does not make sense for vancouver to move on from miller for a collection of middle of the line up players. It’s a great way for vancouver to find themselves to be a repeat bubble team every year and never take a full step.

You missed a lot of what i said here.
First, I’ll emphasize “once they were put in the top six,” and “48 games.”

It was over a period of time, in which, one player on the canucks had more EV points. It was miller, who had 39. Garland had 28. So ya, when they were top six guys…they were top six guys.

Notice, i did not say they were first line studs that can put up 99 points. I just said they were top six guys…because that is literally what they were.

LOL. My argument is they are not high end pieces, they are middle 6 players. You are trying to justify they are top 6 based on both of their best 48 game even strength stretches of their careers! Laughable! Even if they are bonafied top 6 players, it still does not make them high end pieces which is the whole point!

I’m trying to justify them being top six based on how they performed when they were top six. If only we had other instances of these guys being top six. Oh wait, we do -
Haula - 29 goals, 55 points
Debrusk - 27 goals, 42 points, 68 games.

The argument is that when they play top six, they’re good top six players. Is that complicated or something?

Right, so when someone counters your assumptions with facts, that’s the best response you can come up with? Says a lot about you, or your capabilities, bud.

Thought so.

You still hung up on this?