I love your use of the term “shedding” in the STL deal when STL is taking on the longer and more expensive contract

If we are being completely honest Schmidt is a far better player than Scandella and they would get him for essentially over half retained for 3 of the 4 years. So the use of the term "shed" meaning they are able to move off the Scandella contract which they are openly interested in doing

This is a true statement.

Seattle - bad for the canucks as they are adding an unnecessary sweetener
Blues - Scandella is bad contract for an average dman - at least schmidt is a better dman
Buffalo 1 - Adding any picks to any trade that involve getting a sub 30 year old back is a bad asset move
Buffalo 2 - trading 3 pieces of draft/prospect future for a player that lacks determination and character is also bad asset management

Addressing Seattle- There is no guarantee that Seattle takes Holtby, they could just snag lind or gadjovich. The Canucks need that cap relief and Seattle taking him would be a huge relief and would save them from buyout

Addressing St. Louis- I believe the Nate Schmidt contract is a burden for teams and the canucks would need to fill that hole with a body. Even though the Canucks get back a worse d man, at least they get someone who can play and is a relief in terms of cap space

Addressing Buffalo- I have not heard anything about Reinhart having character issues and being unmotivated. I can only go off of what i know and what i know is he is a very good top 6 calibre winger/centre who is a great player and provides flexibility throughout the lineup whether he is playing down the middle or on the wing.

the canucks dont need the cap relief as they can retain salary on Holtby and make it a positive value trade rather then a negative value
schmidt is not burdensome, in fact it is being reported [non canuck reporters] there is a market for Schmidt and there were numerous GM upset that vegas didnt give them a chance to trade for him
There is numerous you tube clips of reinharts career where he has given up on plays and the other team has scored, during end of game pressers, he acknowledges he did.

I get where you are coming from, but i disagree. I think it would just be a much better move to move off Holtby's contract completely rather than retain, even if it costs a pick to do so. I dont think there would be much interest league wide for Holtby as he is just not very good anymore and on an expensive deal.

As for Schmidt i do think he would have some interest around the league, but that contract is very expensive and the term would be worrisome. I know i would be very cautious to acquire a guy who just had a down season for 4 years at almost 6 mil per and i would suspect other gm's around the league would be very cautious as well.

As for Reinhart, i just cant base analysis off of youtube clips. The fact remains he has been a very good top 6 player for years and actually has a really good analytical profile in terms of his 2 way game.

simple fact is as a rebuilding franchise with weak prospects, cant afford to trade picks or prospects just make the playoffs.
true cup contending teams trade 1sts and prospects to win the cup, horribly managed teams trade 1sts and prospects to hide mistakes and "try" to make the playoffs.

The Holtby contract isn't as easy to move as it is $5.7M of real money vs $4.3M in cap. I believe that a sweetener would have to be part of it, IF <-- and only IF, the Canucks decided to move him. They really don't need to. This is not the season for them to go hard on free agents. If you can make a good hockey deal that involves dumping one of Eriksson, Beagle or Roussel, then do it. Otherwise, don't sacrifice any future potential for this season. Develop some of the young guns instead!

You are exactly right. Im not saying this is what i would personally do, but Jim Benning and ownership are set on making the playoffs and i think these would be moves that could help for this season and moving forward