You will 100% lose Timmins or whoever else you try to send down on defense. You just can't do a 20 man roster unless you wanna lose people for nothing, gotta be 21.

It'll be Jarnkrok or Liligren for minor moves, or Brodie/Nylander/Marner for major moves.

I know, that’s why I hate the idea of a 20 man roster

If this was the case, why be so against a 20 man roster? Is carrying an extra couple skaters for the regular season really worth it if it means losing significant players? I personally don't think so. Losing a player like Brodie for nothing because we need a guy like Zach Bogosion to play in case a player has a short-term injury, would be incredibly detrimental to the team. We'd lose more games, and we'd certainly be worse come playoff time.

Because you're going to lose whoever you send down to the minors for free (in the case of this arm chair team, Timmins, and even the Lafferty trade is pretty poor for them), whereas you can absolutely expect to get NHL replacements for the guys listed in trades

In addition, if there are injuries, etc, you really screw yourself running a 20 man roster. Remember how NYR was running a 19 or 18 man roster last year because of injuries/trying to accrue extra cap for Kane? You can't expect your roster to do this for long periods of time. It was only 3 or 4 games NYR did it, but they were so bad during this time

Sens do the Lafferty trade

Sending Lafferty to the Marlies and signing some league minimum replacement(s) would save a few hundred thousand wouldn't it, you may lose him on waivers but there's still some okay players that are likely going to have to take league minimum if they want a job/contract, Idk but just an idea.

Where's Conor Timmins?

Edit: I'm guessing Timmins is sent to the Marlies here, thought he made a bit more then he did so would show as 'buried.

I understand what you're saying. Losing guys for free wouldn't be ideal, but it would be more ideal than having to downgrade from some of your best players in the organization. Jarnkrok is honestly the only one I can see realistically being traded. Lilly makes 0 sense. And in regards to the 'major moves', if your intention is to replace those players because you don't want to lose Lafferty/Timmins for free, then I don't know what else to say. Lafferty and Timmins would each go for a 4th round pick if they were moved. So you're pretty much losing them for free anyways. I'm having a hard time seeing what you're point is or how those moves would make this team better.

If we had to run a 18/19 man roster, it would never be for a long period of time because if that was the case, we would have LTIR money. Otherwise, I'd much rather play a few regular season games short than trade a player like Brodie. That might sound stupid, but I truly believe that over the entire 82 game-season, we would still end up with the same wins (at worst), than if we decided to trade that impact player for a lesser version, and have a healthy scratch replace an injured player for a few games.

It's not just about losing Lafferty or Timmins for free, but also about running a proper NHL roster. I think the fact that you never see a team run a 20 man roster for long periods of time would reflect how necessary it is to have a proper roster

There's also a good chance that someone like Lafferty or Timmins doesn't get claimed if they're sent down early in the season when everyone is finalizing a roster, or even mid-season when rosters are still in flux. Every year, there's players that get sent through waivers that fans are sure will get claimed, and they pass through. Even then, at least attempting that is better than losing them for, what, a 6th? There's no guarantee they get claimed, and chances are probably better that they pass through than you'd expect. The sky has not yet fallen!