That Leafs deal is intriguing. I really like Walsh, but I am not sure if he is an upgrade on Timmins. The only thing I don't like about it is that..... Walsh is not waiver exempt. Robertson for Sharangovich..... this I like. Devils may as well if they see Holtz as ready (seems.to be a consensus that is yes.)

Sharks deal equally interesting, but I feel it may fall short, especially with retention. Couture is still producing, so that may require another young asset amd or pick.

I would flip Robertson to San Jose instead of Daws. We need goalie depth and Sharks have a bunch of young goalies in the mix.

Also, Walsh in for Nemec…Bratt on right side, Holtz on left side.

Sharks are not going to retain on Logan. Couture is committed to the rebuild and not spending a retention spot on him, particularly not 3 mil for that offer. Easy no. We have two retention spots and they will 100% be reserved for Labanc and Karlsson.

It’s acc a waste of a Rebuild when u have assets to flip and get more futures and u don’t do that. I’d be retaining on couture and Karlsson as much as I can and getting so much future assets for them. And then trade Hertl asap. This team needs to suck more to be better and pick up more assets

The sheer lack of understanding of the business side of hockey on CF is mindblowing. If the Sharks who already have a fast dwindling fanbase trade out two of their biggest assets (for total crap returns like this one, btw we already have NJs conditional 1st next year, you are going to see another massive decrease in ticket and merchandise sales.

You are looking at having zero veteran leadership to help Eklund, Bordeleau, Mukhamadullin, Bystedt develop some of these guys are ready now and they will be shouldering the load from year 1? That will crush their development path don’t be so shortsighted. The tradehappy ignorance on this site is absurd. Yeah we trade Couture and Karlsson you are forced to stick Future stars like Eklund and Bordeleau in the top six well before they are ready for that work load totally ruining their development. Dummmmbbb.

The users on this site have gotten dumber by the day my god lol. “TRADE EVERYONE NOW FOR MAX RETENTION” there is a reason you are not a hockey executive lol. Stick to fantasy boy.

Four teams recently have understood this. Rangers (still rushed the rebuild and may have ruined it), Sabres, Arizona, and the Hawks.

Yeah like why is it hard to understand? It’s a pretty simple thing. Could u imagine the haul they could get for Karlsson at 50% retention? Plus who cares about the retention , SJ will be a cap floor team for the next 4 years anyways so it won’t matter

The business side thing is a funny argument too because...the sharks are still gonna be giga ass. No one is going to pay to watch couture and hertl do cool **** in a 5-1 loss, yaknow?

regarding the vet thing? sure. you can and should put vets around eklund and the other prospects. But not when they can bring you back /additional rebuilding pillars/.

Go sign someone for too much money in UFA to play on youre top line for 2 years. Don't retain high-end trade chips just to shelter dudes who may or may not require sheltering.

In regards to the statement above what happens when Eklund, Bordeleau, Gushchin, Bystedt, Mukhamadullin are asked to shoulder the load in San Jose because Grier traded all the veterans away? This stymies development when there are no vets to show them the way.

What is the solution? You can’t just arbitrarily trade your leadership core and then expect 20 year olds to replace without hindering their game. So you trade these guys, whats your solution to this problem? You can’t present a “trade everyone now” dialog without thinking about now. Yes the future is brighter but what happens now. Think about that and prepare a statement before the trade everyone dialog makes you look like another hockey know-nothing.

The “trade everyone while they have value with max retention” mantra is so elementary. Like are you 7?