Hawks aren't gonna waste a retention slot on JJ for a measly 5th.....

COL target should be a 2C upgrade, not a winger. Already have Landeskog, Rantanen, Nichushkin and Lehkonen on the wing in the top 6

Sharks did it for Cogliano so not impossible

If O'Reilly & Horvat price are too high, Sean Monahan could do it

It is not impossible but it is HIGHLY unlikely.....just like it isnt impossible that the Aves trade Cale Makar 1-for-1 for patty Kane.

Please don't ever mention Monahan in the same group with the likes of Horvat and RoR again please. Thanks lol

Monahan is playing better than ROR this year tho
He's been very good, and I'm not saying that lightly
He's a legit top 6 forward

All depends on what a team is doing with the three slots. If you otherwise wouldn't use one then sure, get whatever you can. But I have to imagine with Kane, Teows, Domi and Athanasiou the Hawks can make better use of all three slots.

I came here to say the same for the Ducks. A 4th in 2024 isn't going to get it done.

Oh right Hawks are probably not retaining for JJ that's my bad

Lol you trying to argue that because Monahan has 5 more points than RoR through 14 games this season means Monahan is all of a sudden a better player? Lol

Olofsson has more goals than Matthew's does so far this season, what does that mean?

Drouin has the same amount of points Slafkovsky does this season. Does that mean they are equal?

RoR has more than double Monahans point production over the past 2 seasons while still being a high end defensive player too. Stop kidding yourself

If you say all of that enough times, you could potentially convince someone that it's true!

The Blues are not giving Tarasenko to the Avs, especially for that weak offer.

Ok, I know you Blues fans hate our team, but why would you not do a trade (assuming mutual benefit)? If you're out of a playoff spot, or looking very weak going in, why not do a trade (assuming that the Avs give the best offer)? If the Avs were out, I wouldn't mind trading pending UFAs to you guys, Vegas, Calgary, etc. Is there any actual reason NOT to trade a rental to a rival when one team is not going to be a threat one year?

Also this has nothing to do with the actual trade proposed here, I've just seen you be very against trading with Colorado, in general.

Well mostly cause it’s a pathetic offer really. I’d ask for Bowen Byram first.

The Blues do not trade impact players to rivals. They have not done so in like 20 years. It's just something they do not do. And this offer is weak anyway.

Read the bottom line, I agree.

Why not? If a return is mutually beneficial (which you think this one is not and I won't argue with you about that), why wouldn't you? It seems like poor asset management to let somewhat arbitrary rivalries stand in the way of business. Obviously this doesn't mean you have to trade O'Reilly to the Avs, but what's wrong with trading him (or any other important UFA) to a rival team if they offer a good deal?

(e.g. say we offered Olausson, Behrens, the 2023 1st and 2025 2nd for O'Reilly at 50% vs. Boston offering Lysell, their 2023 1st and 2023 2nd, would you not be more inclined to look into the Avs offer?)

My point being: I don't deny that's what the Blues have done, but I don't think it makes sense for them to continue this when there is no detriment. Colorado goes on another deep run and/or goes B2B while St. Louis loads up on prospects + picks and still has the chance to bring back O'Reilly as a UFA.

No Lysell makes bostons offer ten times better

The Blues do not help rivals, let alone handing them their captain. And let's be real, Colorado doesn't have the prospects and higher picks to compete with other teams who might be interested if he goes on the market, which likely ain't happening anyway. Your idea for an offer is more quantity than quality. To send a star player to a rival, it would need to be absolute fleecing (like Federko to Detroit).

You talk a lot about my example and none about my logic. Why would you NOT do a deal with a rival? Just saying you don't isn't an explanation, just a statement. Even if you dislike my example offer, if a rival team has the best offer and the Blues are out of a playoff spot, why wouldn't you look into that offer. Can you explain why it makes sense as opposed to just stating it hasn't happened?

Lysell isn't THAT good + Behrens is criminally underrated. Come on, man!

Oh dear heavens. The Blues do not help rivals win. I'm not sure what is confusing. And Colorado can't compete with most other teams in terms of prospects/draft position, so the chances they could table the best offer are slim to none anyway.

If you’re going to complain about my point, then let me put this directly. WHY NOT? Why are you against the idea of a mutually beneficial exchange with a rival, putting aside Colorado for a second? Literally what do you have to lose if a rival offers the best offer for one of your rentals and you’re out of a playoff spot? Seriously, what? Are really thinking about this from a emotional “he my rival!” standpoint? This is a business. You make business decisions, rivalries shouldn’t affect business decisions when both teams have needs that the other team can meet. That’s called being blinded by irrationality.

My point isn’t that it hasn’t happened, it’s that the idea of “if we can’t win we won’t let them” is stupid.

It's just sound workings, man - you don't boost your closest rivals in a trade unless it's a slam dunk fleece (see Bernie Federko to Detroit). You don't want to help them win. You don't want that guy you traded to go contribute to your rival winning a Cup and you certainly don't want that player to come back and haunt you mercilessly for years while wearing a rival jersey (which dear lord, has happened more times than Blues fans will care to talk about, although a few instances like Doug Gilmour weren't after direct trades). The last thing the Blues want is to, say, trade Tarasenko to Colorado and then watch him help them win a Cup, if not also re-sign there and torment us in our nightmares. This is not particular to the Blues, by the way. Lots of teams won't make anything more than minor trades with hated rivals. The Blackhawks have nothing to gain this season by keeping Kane around, but you can bet your last dollar they ain't handing him over to the Blues for fair value. It's just a bad idea unless you know you have a total fleece. The fans will revolt, the players will be like "WTF, man?!?" and it is just better to avoid the risk of compounding misery (another thing the Blues and their fans have had quite enough of, thank you).

Ok, I think I finally got my message across and I appreciate you writing a thought-out response. Lol.

Anyhow, I guess for me it’s just that I look at trading and hockey ops as a pure business. The way I see it, I’d rather take the risk of letting my opponent win the cup if it means that I get some sweet rewards back (I like to think of the David Savard trade- I doubt Columbus fans are very fond of Tampa). I mean, I think this is just a mindset thing. Granted, what you’re saying mostly does happen in the NHL, but I suppose it’s that I just want that to change since I’m all about practicality over spite. Would seeing Landeskog win a cup in Minnesota (random example I made up) sting? Yeah, but I just try to look at the overt results I get from it.

Anyhow I won’t take up anymore of your time, have a good day, amigo ✌️