A reasonable conversation, but that is almost impossible to come by on here.

I have given you reasons on why the Canucks don't need Kerfoot.

Kerfoot is NOT Garland.Garland would skate through a brick wall for his team mates (thats an expression) would Kerfoot Not really right? different players.

You have mentioned several players who are "better" than Kerfoot, none of which are. The Canucks got rid of a terrible GM and their new one signed a 3rd liner for over 4 million. It's not a good era to be a Canucks fan unfortunately

Yes Kerfoot would. He's a greasy player who does whatever his team asks of him. The difference between Garland and Kerfoot is literally only the teams they play for. And Kerfoot is a better penalty killer and can play centre. They are the same size, age and score about the same amount of points last season. Oh yeah and Kerfoot makes almost 1.5 million less money.

I just don't get how Canuck fans will praise Garland (who they also want to move for a top pair RD), praise their GM who gave Mikheyev 4+ million and then trash Kerfoot. All of that despite the fact, Kerfoot is the same as Garland and is definitely better than Mikheyev

We shall see.

Again, the Canucks do not need to upgrade on wing. That is the last position we should be adding to....

Having a bunch of middle 6 and bottom 6 wingers isn't a wise plan.

Middle six winger that can grow into top 6. Clearly you don't follow the Canucks. Our forwards are the least of our concerns.