precisely why we are trading him for a center in this proposal

You guys are awesome keep it up

You seem lost

It's very hard to follow why players are somehow still valuable when being overpaid and under perform.

Explain how he's overpaid. Most people realize he is a good player but that the Canucks are in a bind so are low balling. You seem to think he's overpaid also. His output is right in line with what he is being paid as far as all the metrics I've seen and eye test.

Make your case if you can though.

He's a secondary small forward who is good at transition but average or below defensively. He doesn't fit on the PP and he doesn't kill penalties. He's overpaid for what he can accomplish.

This is who you are talking about. Well above average defensively. Plays 2nd PP and had 12PPP. Literally paid what he's worth last yr and far outperformed his pay the yr before. Draws a ton of penalties, agitates, plays hard. He has flaws too, I'm not under the impression he's an all star but how do you respond to these:

This really doesn't help your argument. He's above average but doesn't produce enough to warrant his 5 million price tag. He's also small, so come playoff time when everyone goons it up, he will be less effective.

Sure, I'd think a lot of people would produce less than normal if they were put on a line with Sheldon Dries and whatever random AHL callups the Canucks had this season. I also hope you realize that the Conn Smythe winner on the Stanley Cup champion is 5'9. Your argument doesnt work.

Is that literally what you got out of those infographics or are you just being obtuse?

Literally has a dollar value based on performance on two of the infographs. He outperformed it considerably last season and was marginally under this season. He was in the 89% for WAR.

Cap dumps are players that literally are replacement level yet are paid well above that. Garland is playing right at his contract. And far outperformed it last yr.

He plays in the dirty areas and he goes hard to the net. The playoffs will not be an issue for him. You are kind of outing yourself now.

You said he was bad defensively when all his metrics suggest otherwise. You said he can play pp when he had 12 pp points on the 2nd unit last yr. This is going very poorly for your opinion but again if you can refute the data please do. Otherwise you're talking nonsense.

I don't think you know what a cap dump is.

This excuse eh? If Garland was on a different team he would score 100 points. Please take him off my hands

He's not what you guys want him to be.

Very strong rebuttal. I think I just proved he's not what you want him to be and you're feeling a little embarrassed.

If you were honest you'd take a second to reassess your opinion based on this mountain of evidence. Or (much less likely considering where we are so far) you could rebut some of the points made. If you can't do either of those things you're doing a disservice to yourself.

I don't expect you to do either. But heres hoping.

I mean he produced very well last season with decent linemates.

What's embarrassing is that you guys traded a high end draft pick for OEL and Garland and have bought out 1 and can't trade the other because he makes too much money. And yet you guys are on here arguing about how good Garland is. Just cut your losses.

Yup 46 points is definitely worth 5 million a season.

The organization's decisions are embarrassing sure. How is that relevant. You would have been the one arguing for the OEL, Garland trade in the first place despite the mountain of evidence that showed it was a terrible idea to acquire OEL. Paying to get rid of Garland is just more of the same stupidity.

But again you have this strong opinion but you haven't been able to make any statistical points. And the ideas that you had that he is bad defensively, bad on the pp and not up to his contract were all categorical shown not to be true by all of the advanced data. And yet you disagree despite being shown evidence you are wrong. You are still undeterred. Like make an argument with data or stop talking.

The sooner you realize this type of behaviour will only continue to lead you astray the better. You literally can't say anything of substance regarding Garland's value. The doors still open for you to try.

52 points the season before with limited ice time. One of the top 5v5 scorers in the league, ranked one of the highest value contracts as well. Keep talking trash though. Miller must be elite since he is putting up a point per game

General rule of thumb is 10 points per million for fwds. That of course is broad strokes but again you are clueless.

I think you just have no idea what 5 mil should get you is your problem. It's all a feeling to you.

I absolutely would not have ever supported that trade. A buddy of mine is a canucks fan and I gave it to him hard about that gem. Garland isn't a difference maker, he's a depth piece. With the right linemates and usage he sometimes is not bad, but if I am paying someone 5 million, he better do a lot more than what Garland does. If he doesn't have high end talent on his line he just doesn't produce. Giving a guy 5 million to need better players is bad money spent. Garland is not worth 5 million and he's not going to get you anything in return. Moving him for Pageau makes some sense but you'll end up being mad that you are spending 5 million for an aging 3rd liner. But at least he can kill penalties and play center.

52 points is not a point a game. Miller is good but you are paying him for his best years and his contract will look worse each year. But here we are again, building statues for what Garland did 2 seasons ago now while glossing over the fact that he hasn't been all that useful. He gets scored on as much as he contributes offence and he doesn't do much else beyond some secondary offence. Isn't a good penalty killer, is small, doesn't do anything on the powerplay. If he made 3-3.5, then yeah he's definitely a guy who you want to keep, but at 5? Nah, you can do a lot better with the money.

This is purely self justification. Look friend, we all know the Canucks want to move on from Garland. And you framing it as just a cost saving measure is disingenuous. If he was so valuable and so good, then you wouldn't be wanting to move him. You all fully know that money can and should be spent better. Other GM's see it the same way which is why insiders have said, Garland will not bring back anything at full price. It will require retention or a sweetener. Taking on an equally dubious contract may be a not bad idea. This proposal above isn't the worst plan. I think Pageau is going to lose his effectiveness over the next 3 years but at least he can kill penalties and play center. This is all pretty easy to follow.

If Garland is so good, he would be part of your future. He isn't, you all agree, and are trying to do the good old used car salesman routine to inflate his value.

"Slaps hood" Garland's only previous owner was James Bond!

The knock on him is he doesn't play well with particular players. He just kinda is what he is. You're about 0 for 6 on your evaluation. What should play driving 50 point players, middle 6 wingers be paid?

Pageau will be 32 when the the contract ends. Don't think we'll be worried about him ageing. But as I said before if Garland were a center we wouldn't be having this convo, we'd happily be keeping him. We happen to have a hole at 3c and a glut of wingers. Not expecting a lot for Garland just not to have to pay to get rid of him. That would be stupid. And I also think he'll do just fine as a middle 6 winger wherever he ends up.

Is he a play driving forward? Because by your own admission and what all Canucks fans on here say, is he produces when he has good linemates but when he's with 3rd liners he just doesn't produce. It's his linemates fault. This is the sort of logic on this site that I find truly hilarious.

Garland is not to blame for any of his faults or lack of production, but it's also not his linemates, or the coach (well until it is). Somehow no one is ever to blame and everyone on the canucks is awesome but it's the other guys fault, who? The other guys, but not those guys. Everything is somehow no one's and everyone's fault all at the same time. Makes is easy to argue that any individual player is awesome when nothing is ever their fault until you point to a different player and it's the same for them eh? Confusing? Absolutely, but this is caofriendly, self justification and bias bull**** equals reality to most of the people on here. Doesn't take a very clever person to see through this nonsense

The Canucks needed to move money out because they were at the cap. Other teams knew this. It's a game of chicken. This made every asset we had diminish in value (hypothetically). Now that we have bought out OEL we have some space. Garland is just one of the many players who I'd be willing to move to reallocate resources. That includes Beauvillier, Boeser, Kuzmenko and more. This is a numbers game rather than a player issue. Being willing to trade someone is not an indictment that they're a terrible player. In fact I think he'll do just fine wherever he goes if he is traded.

The guy who reported that was Seravelli. He's literally known as a provocateur. No one else reported it. And to the degree that that was the ask the obvious answer from the Canucks was hell no. Hence why we didn't trade him. I wonder why we didn't just pay to trade him if he is so bad. Weird.

If I'm doing the used car salesman thing, youre doing the used car buying thing. "oh so this doesn't have the seat warmers and power windows" no sir this is not a luxury car that why its so cheap.