why would the bruins give up vaak when chara is 43 years old?

Boston deal: take out the third.

Detroit deal: zadina isn’t going anywhere, put Rasmussen or someone DET willing to part with.

Oilers deal: Zac Jones is imo my favorite prospect other than K’Andre Miller and Vitali Kravtsov so he’s not going anywhere.

Leafs deal is fine.

Edmontons not gonna give up yamamoto and they dont need two more defense prospects

Take out the third? Bruins say no as is.

All of you guys just decline any fair deal. Backes at $6M per ****ing year for this year and next is worth a 1st and a lesser piece. Vaaks is a nice piece but he’s not looked as good as before recently and you guys get Kreider to help out the obvious scoring woes

WHY ARE YOU INCLUDING BACKES TO BEGIN WITH... BRUINS DONT HAVE TO TRADE HIM.

It’s not worth a first and a lesser piece. The bruins are cap complaint. They don’t have to move him. People like to cite the Marleau deal, and it’s just not the same. The leafs HAD to move him or they cant sign marner. Bruins don’t have to move backes. They have him in the minors. He might retire after this year, he might go on LTIR. He might be in the minors. Unlike Marleau, Backes does not have no move protection. He’s off the roster. Now, Vaakainanen is not a “lesser,” piece. He’s worth far more than the bruins first. Somehow, I just don’t see Backes riding the bus in the AHL next year given his concussion issues. My guess is he gets a taste of that lifestyle, and goes on LTIR after he’s told that no team that’s in a position to make the playoffs will take him.

That’s not a fair deal. That’s the issue.

Krieder's a rental and a poor one at that. Rather keep Vaak, the first and bury DB for another season, and go get someone else for the 2ndRW-hole.
B's decline

The Zadina trade is interesting. Rangers turn down the rest pretty convincingly.