Pettersson value is far above Garland at this point. Top 4 D with less term over an 'overpaid' winger costs much more than this.

Canucks pass on both trades.We are looking for a more defensive 3rd line center.Garland for a late pick or we keep him.IMHO.

Not close on Pettersson.

I figured a 2nd rather than a pair of 3rds would be somewhere in the ballpark, but Vancouver doesn't have one until 2025. Maybe some retention on Garland could even things out. I don't think there's a huge gap in value here, but only if Dubas thinks Garland can get some top-6/PP time.

lol ok



any term is a huge difference. the extra year is massive as we have seen this weekend. Teams are desperate for clean books going forward. garland already was out for the bidding and had no takers.

I'd swap Granlund for Garland. I've heard this a bit, Granlund can be a defensive 3C, would even retain like 500k on Granlund

Yes.. winger for winger makes more sense and the canucks save a year of term whereas pens are ALL IN next 3 years.

I don't think Granlund has much value for the Canucks, Pens would have to add more than they would be comfortable with IMO. I think he could still produce in a sheltered offensive role, but he wouldn't be a good fit for 3C in Vancouver.

You cant nitpick whom is a good fit at 3C, Granlund isnt even my idea in this thread but i agree with it because its not the real issue here. I think the priority for the Canucks is cap flexibility not finding a temp solution in the 3 hole. No trade fixes every issue in the org which a lot ppl here have a hard time understanding otherwise that other Nucks fan in here wouldnt reject every trade which he laughably does time in and time out. Its a piece of the puzzle. Its generally said as taking a loss now for a win later on.

Agreed on most of your points, a lot of people are very short sighted and don't look 2, 3, 4 moves down the road. This trade doesn't immediately solve our main issues? Bad trade.

That said, flexibility is still one of the goals for the Canucks going into free agency, but it's far less critical now after the OEL buyout. Prior to that, I could see giving up Garland for peanuts. Pens may not be a great fit now that the Canucks aren't over the barrel and no longer need to dump a winger for nothing.

Granlund is past his expiration date,were looking for a younger face off p.k. type of center.Again just my opinion.

No takers those are not facts they are just rumours.We can just keep him.Cotrary to popular belief we are not giving away players or assets.IMHO.

could argue they're both past their expiration date. I actually think Toc could service a guy like Granlund, put shooters on his wings and he can distribute the puck to them. Less term than Garland too. Canucks aren't a contender next year.

Granlund is not the right type of player>he is suspect defensivly not great at face offs and not the p.k. player were needing.He is also over paid at this point in his career.We had and still have players that dont play to their contract.I cant see a fit.

Were not looking for an offensive fprward were looking for a defensive specialist l,checker,good on face offs ,good on p.k.Hes a good player just not a fit.IMHO.