We won't know whether Demko is fully fit before the trade deadline, and we wouldn't trade Quick at the end of the final year of his contract in any event.

Petersen and not Quick. The pick condition needs to be performance based on Demko. A certain number of games played with a minimum SV% for example.

I guess Canucks fans can't understand our gm doesn't want him and take a no

Zero chance that happens.

1) The Wild can't afford Boeser.

2) The Wild definitely aren't giving up a quality RHD defensive prospect for him.

3) THE WILD CANNOT AFFORD BOESER!!!

Multiple reports that Minny has been calling on Boeser, I'm just following the smoke hoping there's fire. Y'all are losing 7.75m in Dumba and Reaves next season and Greenway is a dump at 3m making Boeser more affordable plus report is Canucks are willing to retain if the price is right.

We're also gaining 6.2M in the Boldy extension and have Addison and Gustavsson. Just because they called and asked doesn't mean it's realistic. We heard the same lines about Minnesota being interested in Miller and Horvat, and look how that turned out.

The Wild have $9.5M to sign 7-8 players this upcoming offseason. There is absolutely zero chance they take on a $6.65M contract the next 2 years. Even with Greenway gone that's still only $12.5M to start with, which would leave $5.85M for 7-8 players post Boeser acquisition.

Unless Boeser comes fully retained, and probably then some on top of it. It's not happening.

Boeser (50% retained) for Dumba and some mediocre prospect (Warren, Nesterenko, Simon Johansson, Hentges, Josh Pillar).

Take it or leave it. Vancouver gets to clear half of Boeser's cap space, they get the inside track on signing Dumba long term, and they get a prospect for their troubles. Nothing else works.

Eh, I feel like it could. Provided a 3rd team (rebuilding, IE Arizona), were brought in to further retain on Boeser. And were paid for the trouble.

But aside from that. I agree.

With a limited number of retention spots, no third team is going to come in and commit to retaining for two more years unless they're overcompensated for it.

On a true rental, maybe, but even then, how many times has that happened recently? Once? It's not nearly as common as you'd think if you just read the proposals on this website.

I'm aware of that.

Just stating it's a possibility or something that would have to happen in order for it to work. Even if it's extremely unlikely.