Klimovich is a sweet piece in a Tanev deal, I just don't think Garland would be of any interest, he and Dube had nearly identical production last season, Dube is an RFA and half the price. Just feels like the Flames have too many guys like Garland already.

I think Garland brings a totally different aspects to the Flames whcih they desperately need. Rewatch the last 30 seconds of yesterday’s Canucks Preds game and just watch Garland.

Klimovich and a 4th don't even cover the cost of Garland without retention. CGY could get much better asset(s) for Tanev.

Garland pursued the puck well and denied a zone entry in the dying seconds of a game where he had 0's on the stat line, 0 high danger chances, 1 shot in 10 minutes of ice time at 5 on 5. Eerily similar to what Dillon Dube does for less money.

Not gonna get you tanev

Garland at worst has zero value. Not a negative asset. I'd argue next summer if he just plays the way he has his whole canuck career he'll have positive value with what is then considered a low cap hit and only 2 yrs left.

I don't think Calgary needs any more middle 6 forwards(We have 9 middle 6 forwards, 10 if you count injured Pelletier). If/when CGY trades Tanev it will likely be for picks and prospects.

Changing the mix upfront could be intriguing though, something along the lines of Mangiapane + Coleman for Garland + Boeser could be a trade that works out for both teams. Maybe having a team add a pick to balance the trade.

It blows my mind that some Canucks fans still try and argue that Garland doesn't have negative value... and I'm a Canucks fan! It's been confirmed by multiple sources that the organization has been trying to trade/give him away for well over a year and there have been zero takers. I have nothing against the player but without retention he absolutely has negative value, it's not even a question at this point.
Canuck fans were saying the exact thing last season that your saying now, "Wait until the offseason and he will have value", well he didn't. Even with the cap going up it won't change the value much for a decent middle six player that lacks size and plays the least valuable position in hockey, that money is going to the elite players like EP40.

The difference is the last yr the cap didn't go up. This yr it goes up almost as much as Garlands whole salary. And there is a yr less on the deal. You can't acknowledge all that and just say well itll go to the stars. That's partly true but there will be trickle down.

But with regards to value if you aren't taking any money back then it's unlikely anyone would give you assets for him. But we aren't looking for that. We are looking to get a dman back. If we are trading him for 5 mil in salary back or 3 mil or whatever then things change. It's a bit too nuanced for most knee jerk fans unfortunately. In the end though if his value is negative we simply keep him. He is a decent player. I don't think anyone would be upset about that.

From the updates I have heard on multiple Vancouver sports radio stations over the last year was that the Canucks originally tried to trade Garland for value, then were willing to give him away and are now willing to retain a significant amount (1/3) if they can get an asset in return.

I agree with you they should just keep him. I don't think more dead money on the books or trading young assets in order to bring a bottom pair D in makes much sense to me when he is a decent middle six option.

l like Garland- he hustles and his analytics were very good iirc, his numbers wouldve been better if he ever got much PP time, or played with Petey or Miller on a regular basis (and its a big drop off after that). But ...the canucks have a few smaller players and few large physical players, he isnt what they need- especially with the emergence of Kuzmenko. His contract is too rich for his production now...but if he got top 6 minutes and PP time...it would look like a fair contract.

Yes but it all comes down to the asset in these reported rumours. If it's a player who makes 3 million but is worth a lot more retaining is an option.