Just go ahead and try to come up with one reason why either boston or minnesota would ever consider that. It’s unjustifiably bad for those two teams.

This might not be popular but I would say yes to the Gallagher trade, however and this is big, I wouldn’t retain so much for so many years.

If I was a Habs fan, I easily would do this. Gallagher is the heart of the team but Yamamoto and Broberg fits the timeline of the Habs rebuild. Gallagher does not

….so you wouldn’t say yes to the Gallagher trade?

Boston would do that because it is a massive overpayment, Minnesota does because it is a decent offer and they are gonna need to trade someone to ease their upcoming cap hell

I wouldn't give up a single on of those assets one for one for Gallagher, he is just way to old

Oh? Let’s jump into that for a second.

Puljujarvi stinks out loud. If you look at the bruins roster, taking on his cap hit is a negative.
That other dude…look, I’m not going to pretend I’ve seen him play a ton, but a 24 year old AHL d man? Ya, no interest.

So it’s a 1st in two years to the bruins for their 26 year old first line winger who’s playing a full 200 foot game on a 29 goal, 61 point pace on a real good contract with term.
So no.

Now, in terms of fit - the boston bruins are top of the NHL right now. Why exactly are they trading a guy from their first line for futures and bad players?

Both these trades are F- bad. Minnesota offer is decent? Retaining on their captain for 5 years to take on a bunch of junk and a couple picks. No chance.

I was going to say that Edmonton might give you Yamamoto for Gallagher with 50% retention, but then @oilersguy convinced me otherwise.

I would counter to reduce retention. Take on an extra contract with shorter term to alleviate the retention

Then the return would be lower

Or you can go that route as well.

Umn no Minnesota isn't trading their captain for these bad proposal. Spurgeon isn't waiving. So Not a chance