Giving up three top-9 forwards and top-4 D is a little too much for "giving as little assets"

I don't get why Columbus would trade Savard, Tortorella loves him so that doesn't make much sense and Kerfoot's value is not on par with Savard's he is a 3C Savard is a top 4 defenseman doesn't match. Also why would you trade Kerfoot, then sign Haula to replace him costing you more money. Doesn't that defeat the purpose? The defense still sucks (Even with Savard), and the forward group keeps thinning out every year.

Wait. Giving up a top 9 defenseman (when we already have the ohls leading goal scorer) is giving up to much. Dermott is not a top 4 d man. Kerfoot hasn't been great this year. Envall ever since he signed that contract has been bad

CBJ declines. Engvall isn't being traded. Haula has injury issues the past two years and is going to be 30. He's played 60 some games the last 2 years combined. Why would anyone give him a big contract. I'd be hesitant about that.

Why would Columbus decline. Engvall has sucked ever since signing that contract.

Because Kerfoot doesn't solve any issues for CBJ. He's a 3C at best. That doesn't help CBJ. Why would they give up a top 4 defenseman for a 3C at best when they have guys who can fill that role.
If CBJ ever brings in a C it's a guy who is a legitimate 2C.

Why is Dermott not a top 4 defenseman? He is a lot younger than people seem to realize and is improving. I'd rather have an RFA Dermott than a pending UFA Savard.

Savard is not all that much better than Dermott today, and I'm fairly confident Dermott will be better within 18 months when Dermott will be 24 or almost 25 and Savard will be 31....

Haula isnt very good