They shouldn't trade Rathbone.

Maybe not for this package but they should definitely trade Rathbone. He has value and has no spot on this team given Hughes and OEL are signed for the 5+ yrs and play the same offensive game as him. If he could be moved for a more defensive RD of equal prospect I would love. Or packaged for something bigger. I like the player but he has no where to play.

Steel is two years younger than Lammikko but has played in 147 games to Lammikko's 104 and has four times as many points. Rathbone is a good prospect but I don't think that we'd trade Steel for both of the Canucks. Grant for Rathbone is an idea, though.

I don't think Edmonton would want Stevens. Switch him for a 3rd rounder and you're golden.

Stevens is on a two-way deal, Lagesson on a one way. This trade saves Edmonton $600K in salary they've been stashing in the AHL...

Buddy, Grant is a negative value contract who was available on waivers earlier this year. You aren't getting **** for him. Him in the trade does *Anaheim* a favor. It's a young D getting squeezed out in Vancouver for a young F getting squeezed out in Anaheim.

Lammiko is a warm body throw-in. Take him or leaving.

You're the one who asked for Grant. We don't need to get rid of him. As to your amusing "negative value contract," he regularly plays fourth-line minutes for a team that's doing a lot better than yours. The young D who's getting squeezed out in Vancouver is still a prospect and doesn't compare to Steel, either in experience or value.

Lagesson can help your NHL team, Stephens never will. You have to add or it's not going to happen.

He passed through waivers. He's a negative value contract. That he's still taking a regular shift is meaningnless in that context.

But you don't really understand asset value so I guess we'll leave it here.

Yeah, with your wealth of experience and my lack of same, you understand talent much better than I do.