I don't think Boston would trade DeBrusk for Montour, Maybe Hall but not Montour.

The Bruins add a (bad) RD when they need a LD and they lose him in 4 months... Why is Boston doing this?



Not trading a middle-six player on a good bridge deal for a rental.

Pens pass, don't need a 17th forward.

Boston declines. You want Debrusk start talking Reinhart, Eichel, Olofason, or Dahlin. Nothing else would be of interest. Not taking spare parts or rentals for him.

Montour plays left. Does it really matter if he is right-handed?



They are on the market for a center and that is what Sheahan is. You get him for a 6th... that's cheap



I will place your hyperbole aside and just say that DeBrusk has been bad this season. Boston gets a solid defenseman who can resign with them. As I said in the post picks could be involved.

Was not hyperbole. If Boston trades Debrusk it will be in a package for an upgrade. Not a downgrade or a rental or picks. Want to trade Olofsson for Tinordi? Makes as much sense.

Montour is not worth more than a 3rd.

"solid defenseman" It's not Jake McCabe and he's the only "solid" defenseman in Buffalo. I know Montour plays left but I don't if he plays well on the left side.
DeBrusk has struggled but again, if the Bruins trade him, who plays in the middle-six instead of him? We need scoring. Also, we get Montour and Rieder for 4 months, we lose them after that and DeBrusk is gone? We end up with nothing. I don't know how you can think this trade makes sense for Boston...