The more I look at it, the more I actually like it. I think Sillinger might need some AHL time, but by the end of the year I could see the C-depth being Fantilli, Jenner, Sillinger/Voronkov, Kuraly. That third line could be a real problem, and we've suddenly got some actual depth instead of just decent middle-6 options.

The contract should be fine, too. If Peeke moves out, there's still plenty of space for all the RFAs to re-sign next season, and it'll drop off the books before people like Jiricek and Mateychuk are due. It also drops the same year Gudbranson's goes, too.

Moving out two okay pieces that I don't think really fit CBJ for a really good fit? I like it. Chinakov and Jiricek would be forcing their way onto the NHL roster though, and you'd have to think Garland makes it almost impossible to find Chinakov a spot...

No reason to add garland. His cap hit will make it harder to sign their young talent. Would much rather have futures than garland who isn’t even much of an upgrade over roslovic

I think if Chinakov forces his way on, you just bump Texier down and he competes with Robinson, Foudy, and Olivier for 4th line time. His game is hardly out of place down there.

We have absolutely no need for Garland. this just causes our center depth to get even worse and prevent our young wingers from getting a spot in the top 9.

The absolute level of the upgrade on Roslovic is less the point than it is the style of play. In my experience watching him, Roslovic has never struck me as the balls-to-the-walls, attack the net-front type of player that I think fits better in that middle-6. If the goal is to compete this year (as the acquisitions of Babcock, Severson, and Provorov suggest it is), the I think a roster with Garland achieves that far better than one with Roslovic. Fair to disagree, though!

It's not really a matter of need, but preference. He's definitely a better middle- or bottom-6 fit than Roslovic, who's likely gone at the end (or midway though) this season anyway. Plus, this specific trade would clear the logjam at RD and open up space for Jiricek if he's ready. It's slightly more free cap space this season and slightly less the next two when the cap goes up anyway (basically the difference between Garland and Peeke), with an extra roster spot this season and still plenty of space to sign the 2024 RFAs. I don't think Ros is a fit here, especially since there's no room in the top-6, and I don't care for Peeke, so I'd prefer to have Garland. But like @SupremeBone is saying, there's no wrong answer and it's fine to disagree.

This doesnt clear our logjam at RD for Jiricek, since Boqvist would still be in his way. This just makes it so Peeke or Boqvist isnt a helathy scratch. I dont think Garland is much of an upgrade on Rosy, if at all. When you add in that Rosy is a center and our center depth is nonexistant, Rosy is much more valuable. Plus he only has 1 year left which gives us flexibility, that we would lose with Garland. The there is the issue of who will be come ready over the next 3 years: Chinakhov, Dumais, Foudy, Voronkov, etc.

Garland may help this year, but then we will be looking to offload him next offseason. The best case is that we can retain at the TDL or next offseason and get back more value than we gave up, but that hardly seems worth it.

Peeke+Roslovic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Garland.

Garland couldn't be moved for free, so Van bought out OEL. There's no situation where CBJ should be helping Vancouver's cap situation, and losing talented but flawed players in Peeke and Roslovic, while not hand-over-fist winning the trade. Additionally, there's no way you intentionally give up cap flexibility for, at best, a middle 6 winger. This would make it more difficult for us to look at a high end center, (Lindholm, Backlund, Necas and more could be available next offseason if you have the cap-space) and sign KJ and Marchenko to good deals.

I like Garland the player. He draws penalties and does a generally good job of driving positive possession results.

Jack Roslovic is maligned and had a down year, but there isn't a player on CBJ who carried the transition responsibilities as well as him. He generated zone-entries even with Gaudreau but did much more hard work to get it out of the zone. He doesn't have great hockey sense and that makes him waste a lot of the offense he creates. In a more structured offensive zone environment, Roslovic will improve. Still, his ability to take the top end of the defense off and create space for Laine cannot be underestimated.

Furthermore, I'd argue Garland is a worse fit with Babcock than Roslovic, despite his improved compete. Babcock has stated he wants a lefty and righty faceoff person on as many lines as possible so that they can take strong-side faceoffs. CBJ only currently has Roslovic, Danforth and, optimistically, Laine. Garland doesn't contribute in this case and takes a roster spot away from players that could, while getting paid $4 million for 3 years. That fact, combined with the depressed winger market, makes this not a deal worth pursuing.

That's a strong set of arguments that I'll take it into consideration with future AGMs. Not a CBJ so some of the nuances in understanding the team situation can be lost at times (specifically the notes about Roslovic's entry/exits, Babcock's R/L faceoff comments). Thanks for the input!

Canucks should definitely take that if it’s on the table. Fills two needs while helping ease the logjam on the wing.

The deal seems unworkable for CBJ fans but, out of curiosity, would you still do it if a pick or two was included going in return? Or if there was cap retained on Garland?

Retention on Garland would be a no go for me with the Canucks current cap situation. I’d personally rather sell a bit lower on Garland than get more value but have to retain.

I’d say Garland and Roslovic roughly cancel out value wise. I’d add a 3rd for Peeke and still be fine with the deal. Value wise a 2nd is probably closer, but with the current state of the Canucks prospect pool I’d be hesitant to give that up.

In my opinion, I think he is a good fit for Columbus.

Peeke doesn't really fill a need, he's not much better than Tyler Myers if at all, and that's coming from a Myers apologist who insists that he would look like a much more competent defenseman playing 15-17 minutes instead of 20 a night. Roslovic probably fits better into what Tocchet is building than Garland does, but make no mistake, Roslovic is not a high end 3C, he still lacks that killer instinct that you'd expect from an ideal 200 foot pivot