Not a fan of comparables generally speaking. Especially when it’s UFA’s.

6/6.5m max
7/6m

New mngt wants cap control. Bo will see that & understand it imo. The contract structure will be the key.
- Nighthawk

This is one of your funnier posts.

No one want's VAN's problem contracts, the players who might be tradeable are overvalued.
- VanHockeyGuy

I hear yah. Trades are not easy in tight cap. As for value it’s all about fit and need. It works both ways I guess. Like a Canucks need could add value to a trade.

Interesting article. Does that equate to a Garland as the target or is Pearson plus the deal…?
- Quinn's Quest

Just a thing from "pro hockey rumours" website.

It doesn't really specify what forward they would be swapping either for. I have liked the idea of adding Dillon because he is BC born, big, physical and I remember him playing left and right side at times in Washington. Not sure if he is legit top 4 anymore but I would say he's better than Van's projected bottom pairing guys.

Might work if they slide OEL or Hughes to the right side and he can play with Myers on the 2nd pairing.

I hear yah. Trades are not easy in tight cap. As for value it’s all about fit and need. It works both ways I guess. Like a Canucks need could add value to a trade.
- Quinn's Quest

The Canucks can't take on Dillon's $3,900,000, and why would they want to?

Just a thing from "pro hockey rumours" website.

It doesn't really specify what forward they would be swapping either for. I have liked the idea of adding Dillon because he is BC born, big, physical and I remember him playing left and right side at times in Washington. Not sure if he is legit top 4 anymore but I would say he's better than Van's projected bottom pairing guys.

Might work if they slide OEL or Hughes to the right side and he can play with Myers on the 2nd pairing.
- manvanfan

The Canucks can't take on Dillon's $3,900,000, and why would they want to?
- VanHockeyGuy

They can if they trade Garland for him

- VanHockeyGuy

I can only assume you are laughing because you don't understand.

Clearly too much for you to grasp.

I went and found this for you.

They can if they trade Garland for him
- NorthNuck

Honestly, I didn't think someone needed to spell it out. Good on you though for helping out the boomer.

I hear yah. Trades are not easy in tight cap. As for value it’s all about fit and need. It works both ways I guess. Like a Canucks need could add value to a trade.
- Quinn's Quest

Pump and dump.

Honestly, I didn't think someone needed to spell it out. Good on you though for helping out the boomer.
- manvanfan

They can if they trade Garland for him
- NorthNuck

Gross

No one want's VAN's problem contracts, the players who might be tradeable are overvalued.
- VanHockeyGuy

So it's MTAs then.

Pump and dump.
- Marwood

What?

The Canucks can't take on Dillon's $3,900,000, and why would they want to?
- VanHockeyGuy

You don’t see a Canuck forward or package of like cap the Jets could accept?

Just a thing from "pro hockey rumours" website.

It doesn't really specify what forward they would be swapping either for. I have liked the idea of adding Dillon because he is BC born, big, physical and I remember him playing left and right side at times in Washington. Not sure if he is legit top 4 anymore but I would say he's better than Van's projected bottom pairing guys.

Might work if they slide OEL or Hughes to the right side and he can play with Myers on the 2nd pairing.
- manvanfan

That sounds good if they can make the trade. Dillon is definitely an upgrade. Would work better over Dermott with Myers in top 4. Plus allow Rathbone to ease into line up.

You don’t see a Canuck forward or package of like cap the Jets could accept?
- Quinn's Quest

They're on record for wanting a "young" D that can grow with the core, not another expensive approaching 32 year old like Danny Dekeyser. So no.

What?
- Quinn's Quest

You can’t dump until you pump

That sounds good if they can make the trade. Dillon is definitely an upgrade. Would work better over Dermott with Myers in top 4. Plus allow Rathbone to ease into line up.
- Quinn's Quest

Contract aside Myers > Dillon

They're on record for wanting a "young" D that can grow with the core, not another expensive approaching 32 year old like Danny Dekeyser. So no.
- VanHockeyGuy

Yes though you’d have to trade Petey to get a top core D it seems.

So maybe a reclamation or kid not ready but surplus on team needing to cut roster.

Yes though you’d have to trade Petey to get a top core D it seems.

So maybe a reclamation or kid not ready but surplus on team needing to cut roster.
- Quinn's Quest

Flip pick.

Contract aside Myers > Dillon
- CanuckDon

Yes agree. Dillon is just better then Dermott.

Yes agree. Dillon is just better then Dermott.
- Quinn's Quest

And you want to trade Garland for him?

Yes agree. Dillon is just better then Dermott.
- Quinn's Quest

Perhaps, but he earns too much. If they want Pearson then sure. But they won’t want Pearson

Perhaps, but he earns too much. If they want Pearson then sure. But they won’t want Pearson
- CanuckDon

I don't think anyone does.

They can if they trade Garland for him
- NorthNuck

No one with a (frank)ing brain in their head would do that trade. Jesus.