Reasonable thought process. I would imagine we could get more out of a Bozak trade considering the Datsyuk contract coming back. Bozak should be able to land a 2nd (or at worst, 3rd) on his own. Wedgewood deal makes sense to me. I think there will be a lot of goalies available and not a whole lot of buyers in the next 1-2 years...leafs aren't giving up much here and NJ getting some cost effective players. Not sure they'd feel compelled to make the deal but I think the valuation is accurate.

I thought a Lupul for Wisniewski deal made sense too but someone pointed out to me that Wisniewski's actual salary is lower than his cap hit which may make him more attractive to keep for Columbus depending on their cap strategy.

Bozak for Datsyuk should get us a 2nd and our 3rd back for helping them get Datsyuk contract if not a 2nd tier prospect as well. Lupul might be traded but it will be to a team probably not in cap hell right now not a bad offer though if they can get Columbus to do it.

Likely? You mean unlikely. DET doesn't want Bozak long-term. They would rather each Datsyuk for 1 year. TML would also get a 2nd alone for Bozak so it doesn't make sense for them to take Datsyuk.

The NJ probably won't happen. TOR gives up nothing to get an OK goalie prospect. NJ likely will just keep wedgewood instead of giving up a 3rd and taking on 3 fringe players.

CAR says no.

LOL Do you ever agree with anyone on here?

Bozak is NOT a long term solution...2years is not exactly "long term"

Corrado is still a projectible, serviceable D. Holland is a decent 3rd/4th line scorer and NJ already has Blackwood as the heir apparent to Schneider. This is not a bad deal. Regardless of your apparent disdain for any trades not first thought up by you.

Any reason CAR says no? Or is it just you wanting to furiously type the word "no" and beat your record for the amount of "cap friendly" trades you say no to?

Completely agree with your logic Tornyale I think they are some quality trades. Very accurate NJ trade too, I like it

Thanks, I was legitimately trying to make real life trades. Not just pipe dream stuff. I really believe TO won't do a whole ton as far as big trades go. I modeled this after what we did last off season.

Also love your comebacks lmfao

HAHA Seriously he says NO to EVERY trade I've seen him comment on. EVERY TIME!

Because he's right. (On this AGM for example) Its the reason why GM's have such a hard time making moves in real life and can't just swap trades freely as the fans think they can. GM's give them the same response. NO thanks.

The 2 bottom trades aren't as possible as you think. Holland, Bibeau and Corrado for Wedgewood and a 3rd is lateral at best. What does NJ really gain from doing this? Adding 3 very serviceable depth guys they could easily add in free agents if they wanted to and not lose a 3rd rounder. What incentive is there for NJ to give up a 3rd rounder? Nothing The value of your players that your giving them is worth less than the "Idea/hope" that the 3rd rounder turns into a potential diamond in the rough. They are not building a cup contender with the additions those guys anyway so the trade, although not outlandish by any means really doesn't do much for either team hence its lateral at best. Which generally GM's don't do.

The Carolina trade is what is. A nice thought but in reality it's a "no" also. Lupul's value is at an all time low right now due to injuries and he has an expensive contract that extends to after this year. Wiz, although has a high cap hit too, has nearly half of that only in salary meaning he costs a lot cheaper than his cap shows and only has this year remaining. Which is the perfect scenario for a team that doesn't spend up to the cap. Carolina only moves up 1 draft ranking which isn't even in the worthy rounds either. Is the chance lupul stays healthy for the remainder of his contract and finds his former 50-60 pt self really that plausible? For what the risk Carolina takes on, NO.

Detroit might be willing to make the Bozak trade. So i just don't know this one. I just have a hunch Datsyuk will retire a Wing no matter what. Detroit will just suck it up this one year and then he'll be off the books.

I take pride in being as unbiased as possible (at the very least with non Habs players being a fan of Montreal's) and i'm telling you, as bland as the trades are in terms that wow factor, they are unlikely as leafs1967 mentioned because they don't actually provide anything substantial to the receiving party. If I'm the GM of NJ and Car, I'd politely decline both trades.

You have to factor in the spirit of this website and the "Armchair GM" feature. Of all the teams created and all the trades proposed, it's likely that there are a total of ZERO that will end up being 100% accurate. It's easy to just look at every created team and say NO NO NO. It's also BORING if everyone just made a team with no imagination.

If there's a trade proposal that's way out of line in terms of value going each way, then sure, tell the guy he's off base...but the best you can really ask for is that someone puts some thought into a deal and is in the ballpark in terms of assets being exchanged. Who really cares if 'team A' doesn't need a Centre...or if a draft pick should be a 2nd instead of a 3rd. YES...in reality, very few deals go down because of the amount of leg work, approvals up the food chain required, cap space, etc...

No one on here is a GM. I certainly am not. My line of work occasionally has me talking with some players or GM's (in non hockey matters)...and I know a couple scouts who share their own rumors they hear with me...but I have no idea what players or GMs are really thinking. It's fun to come on here and hack around with ideas.

Most on here need to stop taking the easy route by slamming trades and lighten up a bit. Maybe focus more on the player being acquired and whether you like the fit vs potential cost....and accept the fact that your opinion may be wrong...but it's still okay to have and share that opinion

Thanks for the well thought out perspective Juice. They are far and few on this site.

With that said, what "spirit" remotely adheres to this rationale? The spirit of false GM'ing? are we supposed to say "Good for you buddy, i'm super happy for your return!" even though based off actual NHL trade analysis, they don't make sense? If people want to drink the purple koolaid and sing "kumbaya", than by all means.

The whole point of a comments section is to give feedback, good or bad, whether you like it or not. Its an opinion and everyone has one. Don't like it? Tough. Don't agree with it? Explain why. Don't like the rigorous defending of your thought process on your trades? Don't post your ideas to the internet. Take it lightly? That is the most boring thing i could do. For me, this is the closest thing i can get to being an actual NHL GM and i will act here as i would if i were actually there. Imagination? A 8 year old can make NHL16 style trades that are interesting. Want to know what's interesting? A well thought out, imaginative, realistic trade.

I love nothing more than a well thought out and realistic trade idea and I gladly hand out positive comments when i see one but i take pleasure debating the merits of a trade proposal/signing/etc, because it leads to a higher communal understanding about what can be though of as the "basics" in cap management/player evaluation, etc for fans. It doesn't take a real NHL GM to understand the broader evaluation of assets on a large scale such as is with the salary cap. The minute it starts to get technical with insurances and liabilities, etc, than yes but it terms of statistical analysis and visual base references, which fans are now privy to, (Stat sites and watching any game they want online) a lot of fans are quite knowledgeable and for the most part would be able to think up the same trade idea any NHL GM would.

Case and point, Jones for Johansen. I heard this proposal months before the trade happened on here from a poster i can't for the life of me remember at the moment and was thoroughly impressed in the way that trade made sense for both teams on a value, cap and positional need level. When the trade finally happened, I took great enjoyment in the fact that someone on here thought of this potentially before a real GM might of.

Anyhow i digress,

Unfortunately, "no" is not an insult and shouldn't be taken as one. Its a simple gesture of approval for which generally is the sole purpose a person wants to have feedback in the first place. While i agree there are some who dole out "inst-no's" for somewhat plausible trades, for the amount of trades proposed on this site in which there is no point to "focus more on the player being acquired and whether you like the fit vs potential cost" i don't see why anyone would want to do anything other than say NO. Its the responsibility of the poster to defend their thought process and you know what, maybe reverse a person's original idea. I have, many times backed off and applauded that person when given a solid rebuttal to my criticism. That led to my higher understanding of what real value gets associated with certain players, picks, etc.

TLDR; I respectfully disagree with your rationale.

On a side note, care to divulge any cool stories from your convos with agents, players, etc??

Haha. I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. You're one of the few with a great knowledge base. It allows you to criticize with sound facts and insight. My point was more for those on here that act like they know what a GM or Player wants. Lots of posters on here make statements as if they are facts, when they're really just opinions. Ie. Where stamkos wants to play or what strategy a GM will use given the expansion draft. It's laughable but that's the Internet. Everyone has a voice and is an expert.

As for personal stories, one of my favs what shooting the poop with Mike gillis just after the draft in the off season he got fired from Vancouver (when they fired torts and brought in Miller). Scouts are fun to talk to as they always seem to have conspiracy theories with what's going on.

lol Thanks for the ego boost, i guess!

Regarding the stories, LMAO those wacky scouts, the NHL's version of Alien conspirators apparently. Got any examples you remember by any chance? Super curious!

Most recent is how zona canned Maloney because he wasn't on board with ownership to trade for Matthews. That one not so crazy. Heard a weird one with Toronto already guaranteed to get a 2nd franchise and Rogers/Bell splitting to own a franchise each.

Toronto fans are normally TROLLS. Don't single out the one Leaf fan living in reality like hes fukin cancer. ALL YOUR TEAM IS CRAP AND ALL THEY KNOW IS HOW TO LOSE. It's gonna take more years of what Mike Babcock said "pain" for your team to stop sucking.

Hmm i have a hard time believing that as you say it. No person on this planet is opposed to trading for Matthews. They would only be depending on the return necessary for it. Maloney was fired in early April before anyone knew who was picking first. there couldn't of been any real discussions on the return necessary until the draft order was revealed...... seems a little easy of an answer and i feel there was alot more to it than that.

The Bell/Rogers scenario makes perfect sense to me. Frankly it makes no sense not to have 2 teams in T.O. I can't believe it hasn't happened already. It's literally the most logical choice in terms of bottom dollar the NHL can hope for in the foreseeable future. Las Vegas and Quebec city will at best be able to break even on a yearly basis with a slight edge to Quebec city since the fan base rabid and the political factor makes up for other inefficiencies.

Who are you yelling at?

Says the Bruins fan on a TML thread! LOL