A. Rentals don't usually get a first unless an extension is already in place, or their a Duchene or Stone type, and B, I don't think people on here realise how the expansion draft works, you can't just tell Seattle: here take our bad contract or you don't get a player, WPG would probably have to give at least a second on top of whoever SEA would take bc but only do they have to make it worth SEA taking JJ, they also have to make it worth them not taking Roslovic or whoever wouldn't be protected so WPG is giving up at least a first and second for a rental Schultz, and taking on a years worth of 2mil in dead cap... The other trades make sense though, I like them

I based the Schultz trade via Shattenkirk. Schultz is not only a better player, but would clearly be a huge prize.
With no extension Shattenkirk got.
Zach Sanford, Brad Malone, a 2017 first-round draft pick and a conditional second-round draft pick in 2019.

I don't think the Schultz trade is too far off here. I actually fully expect WPG to resign him, so extension or not is no big issue here.

The Hornqvist trade based on the Rick Nash trade. Boston gave up.
Ryan Spooner
Matt Beleskey
Ryan Lindgren
2018 1st round pick
2019 7th round pick

The penguins take back Backes, no matter how you look at it. 2 years of backes, would be like the last 2 years on Hornqvist, it's just delaying it. They get the last good remaining years out of Hornqvist on a team that knows how to treat vets. For a late round 1st, it's a good deal. There isn't going to be much on the TDL market, especially at RW. It saves them cap space next year and gives them a better player than Backes was ever going to be. If they are lucky Hornqvist hits LTIR on the end of the contract.

I think the prices are pretty fair.

Put down the crack pipe, no one is giving the Pens a 1st for Schultz and Johnson.

I said I like the Hornqvist trade lol, but look at what rentals got last year, Zucc, 2nd+3rd, MoJo, 2nd+4th, Nyquist, 2nd + 3rd, Hayes got a first and Lemieux, but the majority of those trades got a second+, the other team isn't giving up the value of a first and second minimum for a guy who has comparable skill level to those guys listed (obv different positions) and I'd even take Nyquist over Schultz based purely of skill

defense is always in demand. Notice none of the guys you listed there plays defense. Not one. It's at a premium it always has been. Especially someone who can run a power play.

As for the Hornqvist trade, it's not just a 1st for Hornqvist, it's the cost of moving backes as well.
If you were talking straight up Hornqvist would return you a 2nd or so. You have to look at the whole deal. Backes is a pure cap dump. Hornqvist is not. He's a guy helping to win a cup.
On top of it, that pick is probably going to be a late round 1st.

I stand by it. The value is there.
Think what would it take you to move Backes to another team right now, nothing in return. Probably a 1st right? 6 million x 2 years.
So as much as you think the value is off here, it's not. In the end they get a player that can still give you something you need, and you dump a guy who is a total cap dump.

Why do you keep mentioning the Hornqvist trade, I said I like it and agree with you about it etc

Nash was a first overall pick, the biggest star on his teams for years, and a many time all star with 800 career points. Teams overbid to get a chance to add him because he was still a huge physical presence who could dominate top line guys and score goals almost at will. https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/n/nashri01.html

Hornqvist has played half his career with Crosby, and has 448points at the same age Nash retired. https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/h/hornqpa01.html

Your comp is irrelevant. I could break down how good Shattenkirk was when the Caps traded for him, but life is short.

eta: I don't even want to argue the trade value. It's not half bad. But the comps make it look silly. Shattenkirk led all defensemen in power play points over a three year span before Washington traded a 1st, a recent 2nd with almost no experience, and a prospect to get him. They expected him to replace Green and Carlson. Then when that didn't work they signed Niskanen to replace Carlson, coming off a year when Niskanen had filled in for an injured Letang and helped Pittsburgh win the division. Carlson just kept getting better and the other guys' value dropped. That doesn't mean they came in as nobodies. Could Schultz break out like Niskanen if he gets big ice time? Probably, yeah. When Letang is out, he fills in really well. He's good. Someone could pay a bunch for him. But Shattenkirk was on a different level of offense.

As a Bruins fan, no thanks to the Hornqvist trade. Although he would help the team now , we'd probably be in a similar position two years from now with with Hornqvist, that we're in now with Backes. From a fan perspective, no thanks. From a front office perspective, I'd rather eat the last 2 years of Backes, Possibly buy him out next summer, or move him at the deadline to a selling team who's tanking next year and would be willing to take his cap on. He also has to waive if the team isn't on his list.

You've spent the last year dragging the Johnson contract through the landfill and you want to trade for David backes? How does your brain work?

Teams weren't trading for Nash in their prime and they knew it. Everyone knew he was at the end of his career and the production dropped off.
He got a 1st because a late round 1st really doesn't hold the great value you think it does and there was NO help at RW. Sounds like a familiar scenario.

It's clearly kicking the can down the road. I have no argument there, I basically stated that. But Boston is in the same mess as the penguins. There isn't much road left right?
2 years in Bergeron is 36. This team does not contend without him as they don't have a 1C anywhere to be found other than him.
Does it matter at that point?

It's clearly a gamble. All trades are. But I think if you are going to go for it, you go for it. With limited help at RW at the deadline and a need there it makes sense if Hornqvist is having a decent year.
Given if Hornqvist totally sucks this year, there is no way this trade ever takes place.
If you get 2 years out of it and a few playoff runs, as opposed to 2 years or backes that brings nothing, it works out well.

Honestly to some extent the penguins might not want to do this. The only reason I do it is it helps speed a full rebuild. Because it's pretty clear that's coming for the penguins if they aren't in the hunt this year.
They probably use the Boston first to dump Backes at the end of the year. Something Boston might have to do anyway. So it comes down to this. Would you rather move him to get help this year, or pay a 1st to move him and get cap space. While the later might sound more appealing, there is a reality that every year the team gets older and the window gets that much smaller. You have to maximize your opportunity. I'm pretty sure we can agree that a healthy Hornqvist having a good season improves the teams chances.

If he helps them win a cup, no matter what the rest of the contract is, it's a win.

There are other players that Boston can go after at the deadline, should they be in a situation where they need a rental. Giving up a first for Hornqvist's term makes no sense whatsoever (Even to dump the Backes deal) when there are other forwards on the market they can trade for that will cost less than a 1st. What you're arguing makes sense in theory, why not take the player who can help you win the cup? But, as you said, the Bruins have very little prospect depth at center, and their window closes once Bergeron can't play to his dominant level anymore. Studnicka's ceiling right now looks to be about a good 2nd line center, Frederic 2nd or 3rd line center, Oskar Steen 3rd. Other than that, not much hope. Sweeney won't deal the first with a possibility that the player he chooses could turn into a stud that will be an impactful NHL player by the time the new core (Pastrnak, DeBrusk, Heinen, Bjork, McAvoy, Carlo, Grzelcyk, Vaakanainen) are in their true prime, and the old core (Bergeron, Marchand, Krejci, Chara) has slowly faded out

I'm going to be honest, I don't think you really looked at this.
Vesey is probably the best right winger on an end of deal situation. He will probably be resigned though so I doubt they trade him.
Then you have Jesper Fast, who isn't nearly as good.
Hornqvist is probably going to knock in 20 goals a year if not more. He's a solid talent and he does help a team win.

This was the half the point in the whole conversation. There is limited good talent at deadline. A trend that honestly will get worse in the NHL as players get younger and teams stop signing aging vets to short term deals. Most players are locked up now long term or teams not trading RFA because they have control.

So unless a player on a long term deal becomes available, odds are low, there isn't much to choose from there on RW.
Go though the 2020-21 UFA yourself, you will see this. On top of it you have to clear space to get that player.
It would cost Boston a 1st in itself to move Backes.
It's a solid value of a trade. It cost boston little. No offense but your odds of getting a game breaking player picking 25+ are slim. Teams have to go for it while they can. That's why teams make TDL deals.
I'm not even sure the penguins would do this. But if they aren't in, they might as well.