Considering I don't think any of these teams accept these deals, yes I think it would be very bad.

dzingel a cane now also

For the 1000 time on here, Boeser is not eligible to sign an offer sheet.

Two 2nds, Zadina, Veleno (Detroit's best offensive prospects) and the worst contract in the league. Draisaitl is good but not that good.

50 goals = not that good lol, what does "THAT GOOD" produce

There isn't a player in the league THAT GOOD!

First one player can't win you a cup it can't even get you in to the playoffs. If it could Edmonton would have 4 straight cups and Connor would have a fist full of rings.

Second look back at some older trades where one player goes for a bunch of assets it never works well for the team getting the one player.

Without the Lindros trade does Colorado have any cups?

LA got Gretzky and Edmonton got a cup in 1989-90. It took 21yrs for LA to get a cup.

You literally still have Bertuzzi, Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Nielsen. You could even switch Veleno for Rasmussen or Svechnikov and id still do that

Look up the rules of offer sheets before posting them. An entry level RFA has to have played 3 full seasons to be offer sheet eligible, Boeser has only played 2. Therefore that OS is invalid

You would still make the trade and I wouldn't. You will probably find more people who would agree with your point of view over mine. This like all trades it's all subjective. Detroit is still rebuilding and it is too early to start trading assets for one veteran player. That is how teams end up in the never ending rebuild. Like Buffalo, NJ, Florida and Edmonton. Then you have Lucic's contract 4yrs left @ $6M per and he had 20 points. He has NMC he can't even be placed waivers and sent to the AHL with out his ok, that also means he has to be protected in the expansion draft. I think if Edmonton can move him (not to Detroit) they will notice immediate change in performance. I think Lucic is a cancer.
If you change Veleno for Rasmussen and Zadina for Svechnikov like you said above I'd think about making the trade then.

This type statement drives me crazy "You literally still have Bertuzzi, Larkin, Mantha, Athanasiou, Nielsen." So since Detroit has a couple of good young players we should give some to you?
Another example:
Not too long ago around the TDL I saw a mock trade for a older 3rd or 4th line player and it had Detroit giving up a 2nd for that player. I said Detroit passes and his argument was you have 3 2nd rd picks.

Detroit needs quality defensemen and since you have a few. Why not give Detroit Nurse and Bouchard?

Since I'm on the topic the other statement that drives me crazy is when trade is purposed to your team and you say no because the value is off.
Then that person says "You have to give up good players to get good players." While I do agree with that but not when the person who purposed the trade is saying it.