Canucks pass

The teams not named Toronto pass.

Canucks (slightly)
Leafs
Leafs

For sure Chicago wins that trade, they absolutely fleeced the Leafs.

canucks?
we aren't giving up podz and garland for a winger we don't need

And also another LHD that we don’t need at all

Toronto wins every deal lol

Leafs win all of them easily

Hawks win for most height gained in a trade.

Canucks decline easily. Would rather have years of Podkolzin and his development than 2 years of Nylander

Value wise, Nucks win imo. Garland’s value rn is probably comparable to that of a Bjorkstrand type, aka low (****ed up market rn but that’s just how it is. Same reason the Leafs will get Jack **** for Alex Kerfoot). Sandin holds more value than a Garland rn, and Willy holds more value than a Podkolzin obviously. DiPietro doesn’t make up for the difference. Once again, in a better market for the Nucks they could definitely have more value here but it’s not realistic in such a nasty offseason towards players who make big money and aren’t bonafide star players

Garland was 27th in NHL in even strength points. The situations also aren’t comparable. Columbus had to trade someone Vancouver didn’t. It’s like saying the Garland value is the same as DeBrincat because they’re both forwards

How does Sandin hold more value than Garland?

I'm with @Isles5513 -- all teams pass.

The Chicago deal only looks close because that second is shown as going to the Black Hawks but it would go to the team retaining $2,625,000. So I doubt that Chicago would trade a franchise icon for a first and two prospects. The other two deals aren't close at all.

Surely you jest with the Jets trade?

Second post you’ve commented on about this. Again, this is about league value. Garland due to his contract and situation has low trade value. Is it dumb? Yes. I’m not saying Vancouver should trade him. I’m a huge Garland fan. But, based off how values have been going as of late, Garland isn’t worth that much rn, again dumb but that’s how it is

And for the second time, you've failed to address the actual issue in your response. The question isn't whether Garland's trade value is low -- it isn't, but that's for another discussion -- but whether it's lower than Sandin's. To imagine for even a second that the value of a top-flight winger on a very team-friendly contract with four years' term who has recorded exactly 2 points every three games over the entirety of the past three seasons -- two of them with an execrable Arizona team -- is lower than the value of an unproven defenseman with little more than one season's games in the NHL who is apparently problematic is just absurd.

the true winner of these trades is me, for i get to read the delightful comments

but every team that's not based in Ontario passes easily:

-I'd rather have 4 years of Garland and 5(I think? RFA rules occasionally break my brain) of Podkolzin than 2 years of Nylander and Sandin - who, while a good player, would pretty much be LD3 by default the next few years on a team with Quinn Hughes & OEL.

-Chicago passes here because they get better offers elsewhere. As pointed out above, one of those picks is going to a 3rd to to retain Kane down to $2.625M, so the Hawks get back Knies (decent young prospect), Douglas (nothing), a likely late 1st, and either a 2nd or a 3rd depending how cheap they can get that retention done. All any other team in the Kane race has to do is offer a second okay prospect and they'll beat this trade - and I'm sure someone will.

-Winnipeg passes because not only are you asking them to take back $4.687M of Matt Murray, you're then asking them to fully retain 2x$3M on Connor Hellebuyck. Or, in other words, you're asking them to dedicate nearly $8M over the next two years to their starting goaltender position while downgrading from Hellebuyck to Murray. Let's just assume that one of those three prospects is equivalent to the 2nd rounder you'd have to kick in for that much retention normally, and to be generous, we'll use Alex Steeves to stand in for that. So you're offering the Jets the two Nicks and a 2024 1st for Hellebuyck and the Murray cap dump. Jets easily pass.

Again, this is the market. Oliver Bjorkstrand is a very close comparable to Garland in terms of the player, contract, and even the team situation. Not to mention Vancouver has stated before they want some change in the lockerroom.
Garland’s value best case isn’t much more than Bjorkstrand. Sandin is a young NHL defenceman who Carrie’s value similar to a Romanov. He was a 1st round pick and is considered a future top 4 d man. That is worth a lot more than what Bjorkstrand fetched in a trade

Vancouver Chicago and Winnipeg in a vacuum.

I disagree with your assertion that an unproven kid who "is considered a future top 4 d man" commands a higher value than a proven top 6 RW with four years' term on a team-friendly contract. I don't think it's anywhere near close.

Sandin's trade value isn't any higher than the second-round draft pick Toronto would get if he signed an offer sheet for the figure he's rumored to be holding out for. You can keep reiterating your conviction that Bjorkstrand is a comparable for Garland or point out that Las Vegas had to pay to get rid of Max Pacioretty but that doesn't make Vancouver's position in voluntarily trading Garland comparable to Columbus' or Las Vegs' absolute need to shed significant cap. Vancouver isn't going to give you Garland for Sandin any more than Los Angeles is going to give you Trevor Moore for him.

The biggest issue I have with this is saying that CBJ & Vancouver's situations are comparable. CBJ, in my eyes, panicked a little by moving Bjorkstrand so quickly - the 10% cushion every team is allowed sticks around until Opening Night, so trading him for pennies on the dollar backfired on them in an unfortunate way when Alex Texier went on LTIR. Vancouver is only $2.7M over the cap, which gives them a lot more options than CBJ had as well (ie, anyone from the Dickinson/Poolman/Pearson tier can be dumped on Robidas Island to create enough space). There's less of a pressing need to make it happen for them.

And again, Sandin definitely has top 4 potential, but he's an LHD for a team that has Quinn Hughes and OEL on the depth chart. Vancouver is going to value him less than other teams will because of the depth they already have there - Sandin would be locked in at LD3 for -at least- the next couple seasons. Would you trade key assets to sign a third pair D that you then have to pay at least $2M? Especially if you had comparable, if lesser, players on cheaper contracts ready to give you 80% of Sandin's production at LD3 for 40% of the cost(looking at you, Jack Rathbone).

Canucks put Ferland's 3.5 mil on LTIR and we are set.

You fail to acknowledge the completely different circumstances. Bjorkstrand was forced out given the recent UFA signings, Columbus panicked and dumped him for nothing. The Canucks have no reason to trade Garland. We are not over the cap with him on the team. Another thing you failed to acknowledge is the fact that Vancouver has ZERO need for an LHD like Sandin. We have Hughes, OEL, Rathbone, and Dermott on our NHL roster. Sandin would be redundant. We are not trading our best young player Podkolzin for 2 years of Nylander, while also adding Garland on top of it.

As @Juiceman intimates in the comment immediately below yours, I believe that CapFriendly has made a mistake in calculating the actual cap hits to reach this figure. If you add up all the amounts that aggregate the sum "$81,601,667" next to the designation "Roster and Buried Cap Hit," I think that you'll see that this INCLUDES Ferland's $3.5 million despite the fact that he's shown on the LTIR list.