Calgary trade is horrible

Very unrealistic trades for Carlson and tkachuk

Try Krug, DeBrusk, Heinen for Tkachuk

These are all terrible for the other teams.

Zona is not trading picks for bottom pair d men. They will do just the opposite actually.

Wash trade is bad value for Carlson. Not enough for him. Not to mention they are cup contenders and will likelty be buyers. Granted Carlson is a FA at seasons end but unless they are improving the team this year they aren’t moving him for prospects without some corresponding move.

Calgary is even worse. I’ll use my 50/50 scale. With 50/50 being an even trade that is 90/10 and that is generous. Even if you took the first round pick out it’s still a bad trade for Calgary. Not to mention they are deep at D already. Wouldn’t make sense for them even if it was fair.

I don't understand what would motivate Washington to do that trade. The Calgary trade would make more sense if you flipped the picks.

Calgary trade doesn't make any sense, even with the pick flipped. The Flames have no use for Krug, as their defense is already pretty set. if you want a guy like Tkachuk, you're moving a younger bigger upside piece +

Calgary could actually use Krug as a 3rd pair Offensive guy, I think he'd be great for them as Kulak doesn't provide offense, but I think they'd be also wanting to dump Stone and get a forward back in the deal. Maybe like Tkachuk + Stone for Bjork + Krug + pick or something to that along those lines.

I didn't suggest that just by flipping the picks things would be set, I merely just said it would make more sense that way as if the original poster got them backwards to begin with. Tkachuk > Krug in terms of value so the picks were backwards.

Now we open a whole new can of worms. You destroy the left side for the Bruins in a hypothetical deal like Krug + Bjork + picks FOR Tkachuk + Stone. Stone is under contract until 2020, and if this is how he's going to be, I don't want to take that on with Beleskey already wasting away at 3.8M. Stone is a RHD, far from a need with the Bruins. This deal doesn't interest me at all.

Also, acquiring Tkachuk, here are your RFA's in 2 years:

Tkachuk, Heinen, Carlo, McAvoy, and I feel there's some players in the minors that aren't shown (JFK for example).

Again, I never said it made sense. Especially for us. I said if you flipped the pick it makes "more sense" but that doesn't actually insinuate that it ends up making sense at all.

You said they "The flames have no use for Krug" I think that is a foolish thing to say because Krug was a very good player as the #5th when he got to focus primarily on scoring. He had the same amount of offensive production in 13-14 at 17:30 as he did in 14-15 at 19:30 atoi. He'd be very useful for them if he was available for Stone and lets say 2x 2nd round picks. I understand what you're saying but you're not understanding what I actually said.

Trading Tkachuk to get Krug doesn't make sense, but it makes more sense for them if they also get a 1st. They still shouldn't do it, as we shouldn't either. Both teams would basically be cutting off an arm to add a 3rd leg so the overall premise of this trade isn't good, but if you're going to put picks into the equation then the better pick should be going to Calgary because Tkachuk is the more valuable player.

It's not foolish since they don't have a need for him. They get plenty of offense from Hamilton, Giordano, and Brodie already. Adding Krug to a 3rd pairing would be a luxury, just like it would be a luxury for the Bruins to go out and acquire a defenseman that bumps Krug to the 3rd pair.

Having "no use" and "no need" are two separate things. Not being able to use someone is not the same as just simply not needing someone. I'm practically positive at this point that you've made your living in life by use of your brawn.... not use of your brain and the fact you can't tell the 2 statements apart is comical. I will fully suggest that the Flames could indeed use Krug as it would make them better. They clearly don't need him given their top 4, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't jump at the opportunity to acquire him if he was free.

lol, you're going to argue over semantics of "term usage"?

I'm not looking to argue over this anymore. On the mock itself, the trades are horrendous and unrealistic (either for the Bruins, opposing team, or both).

That's okay you can give up. The truth is that Krug's useful to Calgary and you even switched to calling him a Luxury, which would mean that even you know he'd be useful.

I agree the trades are bad, but that doesn't mean you should attach a negative connotation to one of the few established players we have on our team without a NMC. I personally project to making a lot of trades of Krug in the offseason if Grzelcyk keeps pointing upwards. I don't want other fanbases to think that there are limiting circumstances in which he would be useful. I do realize that nothing we do on here will likely translate to the real world, but it's just better to keep positive about players on the team you root for until they have proven that a view of the opposite nature is necessary.

If you said Vatrano was not useful to another team because he's not a real top 9 player and this was his "make or break" season I wouldn't end up saying anything back.

When you said that Krug to Calgary would be a luxury I would agree, but you didn't say that until after.

There's no giving up. There's just no point continuing this conversation. It's not going to go anywhere productive.