An entertaining and imaginative exercise. I think you're shorting yourself in the Edmonton, Vancouver, Buffalo and Dallas trades but you're getting the better of Toronto and Columbus. Thanks!

Chicago says thank you

A lot of these trades are lopsided.

I think that Chicago trade can be arranged.

yeah that is to be expected - hard to find exact matches for similar players

McDavid > MacKinnon but not by all that much
Rantanen > Marner but again not by all that much
Landeskog > Huberdeau, possible major bias here as I love what our skipper brings
Jost will be > Puljujarvi imho, IF Jost breaks out properly
Barrie > Ristolainen though only if Barrie plays better D like he did in the playoffs, again not much in it
Johnson > Seabrook though only because Seabrook is on the way down and EJ is still in peak years, at his peak Seabrook was better
Makar will be > Hughes imho
Cole > Muzzin
Girard > Dunn
Grubauer > Markstrom
Zadorov > Oleksiak or certainly will be
Anderson > Compher but not much in it, would love to see Anderson on the Avs as well as Compher.
Kerfoot > Wennberg
Soderberg <> Anisimov too close to call, maybe Soderberg has the edge with the higher total points in a season
Calvert > Bennett purely on the impact of each in the play offs
Fast > Nieto
Thompson > Greer
Roslovic > Kamenev but we haven't seen enough of Kamenev to know much yet
Necas <> Kaut too early to call
Fleury should be > Graves but I like what I've seen from Graves so far so who knows
Giroux probably still > Panarin, but with Giroux getting older it may change. Panarin is too mercurial for my liking and Giroux always seems to be involved. Giroux also appears more 'clutch', though I'll give it to anyone who says otherwise as that's down to appearances as much as anything else for me
Koskinen > Francouz only on experience in the NHL, Francouz could be a dynamite signing if he turns out to be the success he has been pretty much anywhere else

Purely my personal opinions, as much from what I've seen of them as anything else, and with arguably a healthy Avalanche of bias!

Fair point but.....
---McDavid > MacKinnon --> no uncertainty
McDavid is on a league of his own. Best player of the league since day 1. Aside from Draisaitl and RNH, he doesn't have good teammates. MacKinnon's development reminds me of Lafleur's. Both are late bloomers and it took 2-3 seasons for them to become one of the top players in the NHL.

---Huberdeau > Landeskog
Huberdeau had 92P in 92GP which it's a higher PPG than Landeskog and his linemate aren't as good as the one Landy had. (Barkov + Dadonov < MacKinnon + Rantanen) Also, the Panthers didn't make the playoffs.

---Dunn > Girard
Better stats

---Jost = Puljujarvi
Both are still unproven.

---Girard = Dunn (Thus far)

---Muzzin > Cole

---Makar > Hughes --> no uncertainty
Makar is already better than Hughes.

---Necas > Kaut
Necas is one of the top NHL affiliated prospects.

McDavid better than MacKinnon but not by much means McDavid is better than MacKinnon
Huberdeau is better than Landeskog, maybe, but Landy is better at what he does imho and I did say that's with an Avalanche of bias
Dunn is better than Girard and then Girard = Dunn is a contradiction
Jost and Pulujarvi both are unproven is why I said I said I think Jost WILL BE better than Puljujarvi but that is just an opinion
Muzzin is better than Cole, maybe, but it's really comparing apples and oranges. Cole is certainly better defensively, Muzzin is much more of a points scorer, and due to personal preference I want a D man to play D first
Makar better than Hughes, I think he will be in the long run and just because he showed flashes in the play offs doesn't mean that Hughes can't break out, so too early to tell
Necas and Kaut, similar story in reverse, too early to tell