I could see this potentially happening, especially with the news of Hall being out for the remainder of the season and Perry away from the team. Chicago may be looking to add another veteran forward.

Also works out better for the Canucks compared to other options like Tanev because of Murphy’s age and contract

I concur, Snowhawk. Getting another 1st round pick out of the deal would be a nice touch, too.

Seems decent value wise. I’d like it if the pick were top 16 protected though.

I think the Hawks would still agree to that, at least top 10 protected.

This is a bad deal. A 1st is way to much, maybe a 2nd.

Look at what's coming back for a 1st as the principle piece in a trade for NHL player in a trade:
Hronek - 1st, 2nd
Chychrun - 1st, 2nd, 2nd
McCabe (50% retained) Lafferty, 2x5th - 1st, 2nd

Hronek and Chychrun are WAY more valuable than Murphy. Yeah they paid 1-2 2nds more than you're asking but their difference in value is way larger. If you offered Murphy and 2x2nds for Chychrun or Murphy and a 2nd for Hronek you'd be laughed out of the building.

McCabe is also better than Murphy and for the same amount of time Murphy is being offered for, but 2.6m less per year. You'd need to pay a first just to get a team to retain 2m for 2.5 years lol.

We have 3 great comp trades D with term being traded in the season to show that your ask is insane and don't tell me the Canucks are paying the difference to get rid of Garland. Canucks aren't paying and don't need to get rid of Garland who is driving their 3rd line and Chicago actually wants him. I'm not suggesting Chicago should be paying to get him, but the Canucks are paying extra if they are swapping his cap space.

Hronek only had a year left on his salary. He will much more expensive. Murphy has 2 more after this season.

Aslo getting cap space from Garland without any retention.

So 1.5 seasons vs 2.5 sure. But also you know ends it as an RFA that you would actually want to sign. If you want to make it apples to apples instead of signing him you could qualify him and he can walk to free agency after 1 year, which would make 2.5 years vs 2.5, but of course you would never do that since the ability to sign him as an RFA is even more valuable than that extra year, isn't it?

So it's fair to say 1.5 years ending in RFA is maybe superior to 2.5 years? Also Murphy is 2.5 years heading into his 30's so not the same Hronek or Chychrun as that is, you know, worse.

Even if you think somehow the 1-year thing makes such a HUGE difference for Hronek, what's the point of bringing it up and ignoring the other two players? It's like if you point out one little thing that's inferior with the comps then the whole thing irrelevant. A 1st is a huge overpay for Murphy.

As to getting rid of Garland, that's the cost of trading anyone at the deadline, you've got to take cap back. The Canucks aren't looking to trade Garland because of contributing value and there's no reason to pay to trade him in the circumstances. Chicago actually wants him in these circumstances. Why are the Canucks paying anything of substance for including him in this trade?

What is your evidence that the Canucks have stopped trying to trade Garland after wanting to trade him for a while? I think there is enough evidence that trading Garland will cost the Canucks adding a sweetener, retaining salary and/or taking back a contract. He hasn't proved to be a consistent top 6 player on this team though he does drive bottom six play.

Let's say Murphy is worth a 2nd (though I think he's worth more), the Canucks would need to add to include Garland.

I'm not a fan of trading firsts, and not a fan of the retool strategy, but the organization is committed to this strategy. Given that strategy, this deal makes some sense.

https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxiVX7acEIaTMqCsWqxgzbbYRnNVFRudgZ?si=wT93iv5p_AlTJ-kt

https://twitter.com/donnieanddhali/status/1722324769859830143?s=46&t=7fabqgtgp69dNA1d51vxFw

Both say not really looking to trade and not looking to pay to get rid of him. Would maybe give away to a team.

Even if Murphy is a 2nd, which with his contract, I think that's what Chicago would be hoping for. In order to make that add up to even a low 1st trading, Garland needs to be costing us a 2nd since that's the min cost of a 1st.

To clarify, Murphy isn't worth much is because of his contract, which just isn't that efficient for what he is, kind of like Garland, ironically. For a frame reference, Zub signed for 4.6m, Cliffton for 3.33m. Honestly, if Murphy was a free agent next season and was insisting on a 2-year contract I don't see anyone paying him $4.4m

If you are trading Garland and have 4.4m to burn on RD, why not wait to free agency and target players like Carrier, Roy, Demelo or Tanev. I think the Canucks will be way better off both with the quality of the player AND contract if they do that.

You have a different opinion of Murphy than most. Waiting till free agency doesn’t take advantage of this season which is what they’re trying to do. Once again, not my plan, but there’s.