HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk
Trade Rumors and Free Agent Talk Trade rumors, transactions, and free agent talk. Rumors must contain the word RUMOR in post title. Proposals must contain the word PROPOSAL in post title.

Garrison to Isles

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-22-2013, 03:35 PM
  #1
islanderfan64
Registered User
 
islanderfan64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 48
vCash: 500
Garrison to Isles

VAN gets: de Haan, 2nd

NYI gets: Garrison

islanderfan64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 03:35 PM
  #2
Vokouna Maattata
Save us, Beau!
 
Vokouna Maattata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 7,868
vCash: 500
That's not even close to enough. He won't be moved. I would post what I think would be fair, but he is the least likely Canuck to be moved, so it would be a waste of time

Vokouna Maattata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 03:43 PM
  #3
deckercky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,630
vCash: 500
I wouldn't say the least likely, but it's just not happening. When a player goes home, signing at a discount with a NTC, it's a pretty safe bet they won't wave to go to another city. Further, when said player comes in and fully lives up to expectations, the team has no reason to trade him.

Garrison will have a bigger role with the team next year in all likelihood.

deckercky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 03:43 PM
  #4
Canadian Canuck
Jake Virtanen
 
Canadian Canuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,706
vCash: 768
Hahahaha De Haan and 2nd?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahhiahahahahahahahahahahah aha!!!!!!!

Probably: Frans Neilson and Andrew Macdonald

But NO way Garisson is moved unless an overpayment!

Canadian Canuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 03:58 PM
  #5
veedubn1
Registered User
 
veedubn1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,625
vCash: 500
According to certain Vancouver fans every single one of the Canucks' top 4 d-men is HOF/ALLSTAR worthy so you'll have to start off with your top prospect and a first if you want any of them.

veedubn1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:03 PM
  #6
Flair Hay
Registered User
 
Flair Hay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,043
vCash: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubn1 View Post
According to certain Vancouver fans every single one of the Canucks' top 4 d-men is HOF/ALLSTAR worthy so you'll have to start off with your top prospect and a first if you want any of them.
It's kind of true. Thing is...Hamhuis NTC. Edler NTC. Garrison NTC. Bieksa NTC. That's the real reason they're not going anywhere. Even if Vancouver asks for the moon from someone and gets it, they still need the players to agree to any trade as well.

Flair Hay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:03 PM
  #7
Reign Nateo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,411
vCash: 500
^ Pretty sure there were fair deals proposed for Edler and Bieksa all summer. It's just Hamhuis and Garrison that Canucks fans scoff at moving, and for good reason. And that doesn't even take into consideration that most of them have NTC.

Garrison is a BC boy that took a discount to play in Vancouver and exceeded expectations once he was settled in. An important peice that would be hard to pry away.

Reign Nateo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:05 PM
  #8
Superlative Soup
Registered User
 
Superlative Soup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Regina, Sask
Country: Canada
Posts: 151
vCash: 907
Good to know you thought of both teams with this proposal

Superlative Soup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:16 PM
  #9
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,618
vCash: 50
Canucks have limited to no depth on defense. Canuck defense has not been shot-blocking, but Tortorella has featured this in his scheme before. Canuck attempts to block shots in the playoffs have led to injuries. With a solid top six consisting of four guys and two rookies, any injury is going to be problematic.

As an aside, Canucks might be seeking defensemen through trade. The free agent pool looks depleted to me. Rumored interest in unsigned players has come to nothing.

JuniorNelson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:17 PM
  #10
isles31
Poster Excellont
 
isles31's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: LI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,004
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanucks1 View Post
Hahahaha De Haan and 2nd?


Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahhiahahahahahahahahahahah aha!!!!!!!

Probably: Frans Neilson and Andrew Macdonald

But NO way Garisson is moved unless an overpayment!
Garrison is a nice defenseman, but to move Macdonald who makes a fraction of what he makes and Nielsen who signed his own team friendly extension, is ridiculous overpayment. Garrison isnt a top pait dman. hes a 3/4 which is what ideally macdonald is, although he has played top pair minutes. your proposal is a laughable as the OP.

isles31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:18 PM
  #11
Riseonfire
R+L=J
 
Riseonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,502
vCash: 500
I had a feeling this would be a poor proposal before clicking. Unless VAN wants to enter a rebuild, Garrison is going nowhere.

The Islanders are still around 2 years away from being able to make trades like this. We're going to have a lot of change in our D and we need to see where the chips fall before shipping anyone out.

Riseonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:18 PM
  #12
Rypien37
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 26
vCash: 500
Garrison will not be moved..
If he is moved your wwaaaaayy off..

Rypien37 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:22 PM
  #13
Nuckles
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ ( ͡ ᴥ͡)
 
Nuckles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Potato
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,988
vCash: 50
I really doubt Garrison would waive his NTC, and the Canucks have zero interest in this.

__________________

Richer's Ghost made my avatar
Nuckles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:24 PM
  #14
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,092
vCash: 772
Garrison get underrated IMO because people seem to think he is an offensive defenseman. He's not he's a great defensive defenseman with a booming shot from the point. He'll get goals due to his booming shot.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:26 PM
  #15
Bankerguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 647
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Garrison is a nice defenseman, but to move Macdonald who makes a fraction of what he makes and Nielsen who signed his own team friendly extension, is ridiculous overpayment. Garrison isnt a top pait dman. hes a 3/4 which is what ideally macdonald is, although he has played top pair minutes. your proposal is a laughable as the OP.
Hold on here.... lets look at these things without bias

Garrison - second pairing no.3 dman. Very good mobility, scored like 8 goals last year (on pace for 14 over a full season), and scored 17 goals the year before that. Plays solid defense, has good size, a rocket from the point. Signed to a fair contract.

The original proposal IS laughable without a doubt.

The counter proposal is a little lopsided in favor of Vancouver but it is NOT as laughable as the original proposal.
Nielsen is one of my fav 3rd line centers in the league, brings a lot to the table and on a great contract. Macdonald hasn't proven much... he's got the potential to be a second pairing guy but as of now he is not that caliber of a player. to say "oh he's only being paid a fraction of what Garrison makes so therefore this is a rip off" makes absolutely 0 sense...it is a foolish comment. Andrew Alberts makes a fraction of what Garrison makes... ..AND THERES A REASON FOR THAT..... Macdonald makes less because he isn't as good. End of story.

The counter proposal is a Vancouver pick going to the Isles away from being fair value. (not a 1st.)

I wish HF wouldnt let homers post on here...

Bankerguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:26 PM
  #16
HooliganX2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,092
vCash: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by isles31 View Post
Garrison is a nice defenseman, but to move Macdonald who makes a fraction of what he makes and Nielsen who signed his own team friendly extension, is ridiculous overpayment. Garrison isnt a top pait dman. hes a 3/4 which is what ideally macdonald is, although he has played top pair minutes. your proposal is a laughable as the OP.
Garrison is a 2/3 guy depending on partners. You are underrating him some. His defensive ability makes him fine on a top pairing.

HooliganX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:28 PM
  #17
sirwilliam
Registered User
 
sirwilliam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
I do like Calvin de Haan, but the value doesn't add up.

Garrison is really solid. Plus he was brought in to replace Salo's cannon, and we don't have anyone else who fills that role.

There are other pieces I'd consider, (Okposo), but I believe Isles fans wouldn't be so keen.

sirwilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:29 PM
  #18
Bankerguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 647
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Garrison get underrated IMO because people seem to think he is an offensive defenseman. He's not he's a great defensive defenseman with a booming shot from the point. He'll get goals due to his booming shot.

I agree. Garrison IS NOT an offensive Dman. He's not even really a two-way Dman. He's a very mobile defensive Dman.
He doesnt have a GREAT transition game. Average transition game, thats why he gets so few asssits.

He does have a BOOMING shot from the point..and more importantly..his shot just seems to find a way through the legs, sticks, and bodies and gets on goal. Thats why he scores so many goals, but he isnt what you think of when you hear 'offensive dman'.

Bankerguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:29 PM
  #19
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by veedubn1 View Post
According to certain Vancouver fans every single one of the Canucks' top 4 d-men is HOF/ALLSTAR worthy so you'll have to start off with your top prospect and a first if you want any of them.
Yeah lets trade our top players for sub-par returns! Garrison was outstanding for us last year was just recently signed and has a NTC, why in gods name would we trade him?

__________________
Clear Eyes. Full Hearts. Can't Lose!
Horvat2Virtanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:30 PM
  #20
Horvat2Virtanen
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Horvat2Virtanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,141
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by HooliganX2 View Post
Garrison get underrated IMO because people seem to think he is an offensive defenseman. He's not he's a great defensive defenseman with a booming shot from the point. He'll get goals due to his booming shot.
Exactly.

Horvat2Virtanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:30 PM
  #21
Socratic Method Man
Weise's Lost Lunch
 
Socratic Method Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,660
vCash: 622
He has a NTC so he couldn't be traded even if Van wanted to.

Socratic Method Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:30 PM
  #22
sirwilliam
Registered User
 
sirwilliam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 198
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bankerguy View Post
I agree. Garrison IS NOT an offensive Dman. He's not even really a two-way Dman. He's a very mobile defensive Dman.
He doesnt have a GREAT transition game. Average transition game, thats why he gets so few asssits.

He does have a BOOMING shot from the point..and more importantly..his shot just seems to find a way through the legs, sticks, and bodies and gets on goal. Thats why he scores so many goals, but he isnt what you think of when you hear 'offensive dman'.
I think of him like Willie Mitchell light, but with a much better shot.

sirwilliam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:31 PM
  #23
Riseonfire
R+L=J
 
Riseonfire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bankerguy View Post
Hold on here.... lets look at these things without bias

Garrison - second pairing no.3 dman. Very good mobility, scored like 8 goals last year (on pace for 14 over a full season), and scored 17 goals the year before that. Plays solid defense, has good size, a rocket from the point. Signed to a fair contract.

The original proposal IS laughable without a doubt.

The counter proposal is a little lopsided in favor of Vancouver but it is NOT as laughable as the original proposal.
Nielsen is one of my fav 3rd line centers in the league, brings a lot to the table and on a great contract. Macdonald hasn't proven much... he's got the potential to be a second pairing guy but as of now he is not that caliber of a player. to say "oh he's only being paid a fraction of what Garrison makes so therefore this is a rip off" makes absolutely 0 sense...it is a foolish comment. Andrew Alberts makes a fraction of what Garrison makes... ..AND THERES A REASON FOR THAT..... Macdonald makes less because he isn't as good. End of story.

The counter proposal is a Vancouver pick going to the Isles away from being fair value. (not a 1st.)

I wish HF wouldnt let homers post on here...
WHAT?

Dude has been playing 1st pair minutes for the past 2 and a half years logging crazy minutes against the hardest division in hockey AND had the 3rd most blocked shots in the league behind Girardi and Zanon by 2 and 1 respectively. Macdonald makes less because when his 1st contract was up he WAS unproven and he wanted security. In a cap world, a top 4 Dman being paid that low is not something to overlook.

Riseonfire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:34 PM
  #24
Bankerguy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 647
vCash: 633
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirwilliam View Post
I think of him like Willie Mitchell light, but with a much better shot.
Yeah, i could see that... a BIT better of a transition game than Mitchell too...
Garrison is MORE of a two-way defenseman then mitchell but yes..you're pretty close with your description

Bankerguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-22-2013, 04:35 PM
  #25
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,622
vCash: 500
No.

Definitely not.

Negative.

Not happening.

StrictlyCommercial is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.