Jump to content

Conor Garland | #8 | RW/LW


-AJ-

Recommended Posts

On 10/13/2023 at 12:36 PM, Bob Long said:

 

sad part is he had me fooled at first. I mistook a simple approach for him knowing what he was doing. 

Don't think it was all your fault that you were fooled.

 

Those early interviews always had Trevor Linden in attendance and when the questioning got JB flustered TL would take over.

 

In the very early days there were people on CDC questioning Benning's ability to run a team but these people were bludgeoned into silence for the most part (with a few scattered exceptions). Watching who was posting in the early days.... to me it became apparent that there were a couple of Astro-Turfers that were very active in defence of all matters pertaining to Jim Benning. As these were paid posters, they had the time, expertise and resources to put up a lot of arguments and were eventually successful in swaying the majority of opinions.  All the other fan sites (other than CDC) that I read back then were openly critical of JB, right from the start and they remained critics until JB was fired.

 

My take at the time and I still believe that is what happened on CDC. So I don't think it was your fault that you were fooled, you were manipulated along with many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Artemus said:

Don't think it was all your fault that you were fooled.

 

Those early interviews always had Trevor Linden in attendance and when the questioning got JB flustered TL would take over.

 

In the very early days there were people on CDC questioning Benning's ability to run a team but these people were bludgeoned into silence for the most part (with a few scattered exceptions). Watching who was posting in the early days.... to me it became apparent that there were a couple of Astro-Turfers that were very active in defence of all matters pertaining to Jim Benning. As these were paid posters, they had the time, expertise and resources to put up a lot of arguments and were eventually successful in swaying the majority of opinions.  All the other fan sites (other than CDC) that I read back then were openly critical of JB, right from the start and they remained critics until JB was fired.

 

My take at the time and I still believe that is what happened on CDC. So I don't think it was your fault that you were fooled, you were manipulated along with many others.

 

I do think Linden picking him bought a few years of me thinking we had a good gm. 

 

Ah well. We have some good players from that time and a much better front office.... At least I think so.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/13/2023 at 2:30 PM, Kootenay Gold said:

I think Jim Benning shares that blame with assistant GM John Weisbroad.

 

Yes, I agree.

 

When watching these two at work.....I would often think of that old song  "SEND IN THE CLOWNS".

The clowns in this case were  "Jimbo" and "Weisbo".

  • ThereItIs 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

Fabbro or Schenn (yes Schenn) from Nashville

Dillon from Winnipeg

Peeke or Gudbranson from Columbus. 

 

Honestly, Schenn is drastically better than Juulsen. Would probably end up being a team upgrade.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhillipBlunt said:

These aren't necessarily my choices, but based on the freidman report, these are the likely players with term from the most often referenced interested teams mentioned regarding Garland.

Thanks for the info, I really hope the Canucks have no interest EG, once was more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Justin Barron would be great, but I doubt Montreal will move him.  Right now he's playing 20 mins

a game due to injuries.  He's a young, big bodies player who is on the verge of a break-out year.

 

Peeke would be a good pickup as well.

 

I don't care much for the other 2 trades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
1 hour ago, Rip The Mesh said:

Conor Garland's value is increasing in this young season. Do the Canucks still want to move him to ease the cap situation?

Are other teams now calling?  It's getting complicated as we get deeper into the season. Popular with team-mates as well.

 

Trading away Garland seems like a terrible idea as he has really been one of the more consistently good players over the last few weeks. Get rid of Garland you absolutely lose the engine that's kept that bottom six humming and actually allows you to roll four lines.

  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

IMO trading Garland really sinks your bottom six offense.

 

Don't move him unless the return immediately improves this team in a significant way. If not, hold onto him. Somebody in the top six will get injured, and we will need Garland to step into that void.

 

 

He was excellent last night. That's the Garland who showed up first year in Vancouver. Darting in and out of traffic, hard to contain and hard to predict.

 

When he plays like that, he allows us to play our third line more and give more rest to our top 6 guys, especially when doing a series of 3 games in 4 nights like we're doing now!

  • Like 1
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite having a questionable salary, I've always been a Garland supporter. I knew his play that first year was indicative of what he was capable of. Not sure if he lost confidence or what, but he just wasn't the same player for quite some time. Glad to see him get back to what he's capable of.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CRAZY_4_NAZZY said:

IMO trading Garland really sinks your bottom six offense.

 

Don't move him unless the return immediately improves this team in a significant way. If not, hold onto him. Somebody in the top six will get injured, and we will need Garland to step into that void.

 

 

That's because our blueline is held together by band-aids.  We need another top 4 D (in case of injuries) far more than a bottom six forward imho.   Also depends on cap involved.

 

Obviously any deal that involves Garland that doesn't address that, I would strongly disagree with.  Sure we're not going to be offered a #3 but maybe a #4.

Edited by NewbieCanuckFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, NewbieCanuckFan said:

That's because our blueline is held together by band-aids.  We need another top 4 D (in case of injuries) far more than a bottom six forward imho.   Also depends on cap involved.

 

Obviously any deal that involves Garland that doesn't address that, I would strongly disagree with.  Sure we're not going to be offered a #3 but maybe a #4.

Strong team play tends to mute talk of player movement. My take is that Alvin is in a much stronger position to explore moves. I admire Garland's drive and willingness to engage. If his scoring was more consistent I would be happier. IMO he does make his line mates better. As you point out it is always about team need and who comes back. Studs is waived and Hogs is waiting in the press box. It might come down to a choice between Garland and Hogs. If that is the case I keep Hogs and move Garland. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...