lol nope

That doesn’t get you Garland as a rental

Sabres decline

The only difference between Garland and Kerfoot is 5 points and ice time. I'll let you figure out who had more ice time.

The only difference between Garland and Kerfoot is 5 points and ice time. I'll let you figure out who had more ice time.

Send Holl anywhere, I just picked Sabres because they have tons of cap.

Gotta think VAN would want Liljegren as the main piece of a Garland deal

Ok

I feel like Garland has become overrated during his time in Vancouver

One had Dickinson as a center and basically zero quality PP time the other got to play with Matthews/Tavares. Garland produced 2.62 points per 60 at even strength, which puts him 28th in the NHL. Not to mention one only has a year left on his deal, I'll let you figure out who.

If Vatrano is signing that deal i think he's playing in Manhattan

Kerfoot played most of the season in the bottom six, therefore not with Matthews and Marner, and also with minimal time on the powerplay.

No, the difference between Garland and Kerfoot, which affects their respective trade values, is three seasons under contract.

Great keep him then. Zero reason for the Canucks to trade Garland for a guy with one year left

Kerfoot is a rental, Garland is signed long term to a team friendly contract. Kerfoot also plays with better linemates

Kerfoot is worth more than Garland.

Everyone on this site seems to think if a Leafs player gets above league min they have no value. Kerfoot had the fifth most points among players paid $3.5M and under (excluding entry level deals). He is super valuable and Dubas would be making a mistake trading him for Garland who has horrible analytics and is overpaid.

what are you talking about Garland has great analytics and is underpaid get your head out of your ass

I think us Leafs fans have to stop proposing trades with any Vancouver players. Not only are they not great trading partners, the pundits on here are plenty happy supremely over-valuing their players that missed the playoffs last year and will challenge for 4th in the Pacific but are somehow all worth 2 1st round picks.

To be frank, I LOVE Garland. I grew up with the guy and when I was in high school, we ran in similar circles. Kerfoot is better and is more valuable, and this trade wouldn't really make any sense for either team. Toronto needs to move dollars out and keep value deals (e.g., keeping a guy like Kerfoot) and Vancouver needs... well... to not have $13M tied up into 2 30+ year old defenseman that are less valuable as players than the Leafs bottom-4 defence and to replace those dudes with value contracts (another guy like Schenn, but more skilled). And to eventually figure out a way to replace Miller (although, I am sure the fans will somehow think they get 2 1sts for him and replacing him with a guy that costs a 7th).

What? No he hasn't

Dude, are you okay?

Nobody ever said Garland was worth two 1sts, doesn't mean Leafs fans aren't still undervaluing him *sigh*

No, but he's also not worth a single first (unless it's 25 or later, at which point, it's a second + something else).

If for some weird reason Allvin and Dubas want to make a deal with these two players, it's Garland for Kerfoot and a 3rd? - maybe a 2nd if a 4th/5th comes back as a pick swap, but it isn't much more than that.

Garland is absolutely worth a 1st +, saying otherwise is absolutely lunacy

What? He absolutely did not play in the bottom 6.

There are websites (leftwinglock, naturalstattrick) where you can look up who he played with, exact minutes with each player. His top 2, by far, are Tavares and Nylander which would make him, by his deployment, a top 6 winger. You're just incorrect on this one.

Kerfoot's point totals set career highs, very easily arguably by playing with two point per game players.