canucks decline

Arizona and Vancouver pass.

There's zero chance of Jake Muzzin waiving for Arizona.

Is that Canucks trade a joke? Also, you can't seriously justify that Dubas would be willing to retain salary on Kerfoot

Am I close? I was under the impression that the Canucks want to move Pearson. Also Ik Holmberg means nothing to other fanbases but hes a decent prospect whose been playing well in Sweden.

Canucks want to move Pearson to open up more cap space, not exchange him for another middle six forward. They're not interested in making change just for the sake of change

The Canucks don't need middle six wingers or centres. Our forward group is a tight fit as is. Hoglander is worth a lot, Pearson is not a cap dump (close to .5 PPG making sub 4M, net positive contract). The Canucks do not need Kerfoot. We need a young RD, someone like Lundqvist (minus the price paid for him).

Kerfoot played top 6 well and expires at the end of the year, clearing Pearson's entire 3.25 off the books. I'm not using Kerf as a cap dump, he's the best player in this deal at present, I just really want Hoglander.

I've seen Hoglander for Sandin from both fanbases, I'm not proposing that but would you say Hoglander's value is higher than like, a first and a third?

In this scenario I've created 5.65 million in cap space for the Leafs. Kerfoot expires at years end meaning his retention is gone then as well. If the Leafs did go this route they would want to come as close to their cap ceiling as possible. IMO, Dubas would be willing to leverage that space as long as it doesn't jeopardize the Matthews contract, which this does not.

I think Hoglander's value is equal to Nils Lundqvist's. The Canucks were heavily linked with the Rangers for such a swap. But then Dallas came in at the last minute and offered more value (a 1st in a very high-value draft. Similar to 2003/2015)

If the Canucks were to move Hoglander, it would. be for a crazy high price, or a very solid young RD (under the age of 28 & signed to a +3 year deal; or, Under the age of 24 & team controlled RFA with a year or two at a lower cap hit)

Kerfoot isn't that much better than Pearson, nowhere near enough of an upgrade to warrant the Canucks sweetening the pot with Hoglander

Hoglander's value is higher than Lundkvists. Hoglander's NHL experience thus far outweighs the positional difference between the two players

I dunno. Teams that are trying to win now typically don't leverage their salary retention slots to move out middle class players. Assuming that Dubas would break that trend all of a sudden sounds like a stretch to me

I agree, but, being a former 1st round pick and an RD, Lundqvists value was inflated. Had Dallas not gotten involved - the deal would have been Hoglander for Lundqvist, 1f1

No it wouldn't have. It doesn't matter what both player's draft pedigree once was. Canucks wouldn't trade Jack Rathbone, who is a former 4th round pick, one for one for Lundkvist

Just for context the reason I chose Van to make a trade with is because Dubas and Rutherford have a good relationship and have traded in the past.

Who in your opinion has more trade value (contract included):

Garland or Hoglander?

Garland has much higher trade value than Hoglander, it's not even close

See, this is the major disconnect. I don't disagree with how highly you value Hoglander because I think hes a stud but IMO Kerf < Pearson and its not close.

Okay this is what I was expecting but then what does that mean? If Hoglander is worth a first+, is Garland at 5 mil worth 2 firsts++?

Like if I offered Willy Nylander straight up for either player what would you say?

Similar value. Hoglander has the upside, if a top 9 spot frees up for him (Pearson), he will develop well and be worth even more than his current worth. Garland is a true 2nd line player, and on a phenomenal deal - those deals usually get moved at a premium price. Cap strapped contenders would give up an arm and a leg to obtain a player with that contract & production

Oh yes, it is very close. One might even argue Pearson is a better player than Kerfoot

Garland is worth a 1st +, Hoglander is worth a 2nd +

Nylander for Garland and Hoglander I could see being a fair proposal

I agree that Garland's contract is fantastic, but its not cheap by dollar amount. If a team wanted to acquire him they absolutely would have to pay a lot but IDK if its astronomical. % Mil for Garland is cheap but 5 mill is still hard space to make, causing teams to second guess that trade and drive his value down. Id say the same about Nylander.

LOL I'm sure you knew what I meant but I meant to say Kerf is better, used the wrong <>

Okay this makes sense. For what its worth I would gladly give you a 2nd+ for Hoglander (depending on the + of course)