You can chalk this up to the category of “never fu*king happening”.

We should only move down from 11 to Chicago if we get 19+ while they take Myers (and potentially one of Boeser/Garland). The only way I’d do it without getting 19 back is if OEL is going the other way

Why trade Hoglander for a soon to be 31 year old bottom pairing dman?

CHI declines.

Hoglander not much of an asset. Even a just decent dman is fine for an asset dying on the vine.

In all honesty, that Chicago trade is the opposite of what they should be trying to do right now. We know they have the stud in their core now, they should be looking for a supporting cast (all those second round picks) rather than another shiny prospect (#11). Taking on the Myers contract makes it so much worse for them as well.

Really? I’d rather not have so many prospects trying to push through to the big club at the same time. A core of Bedard, Reichel, Nazar, Korchinski, #11 (Sandin-Pellika or Willander?) and #19. Plus Jones and next years’ top pick is a heck of a lot of total players already.

I'm obviously not saying that the #11 pick would hurt the Blackhawks but having those second rounders is just more valuable for me. I kinda see your point with having multiple prospects trying to make the roster at once, but I don't think an abundance of good prospects is a bad thing. If you draft multiple different positions, rather than just a ton of forwards for example, that problem kinda gets negated.

Sharks accept

Hawks might consider a package for all four of their '23 2nd round picks, but including the Hawks and Canucks '24 2nd's instead makes it far too rich for Hawks to accept, especially w/ $14m in cap heading Hawks way as well. Pearson probably needs to be removed from the deal as well

This logic doesn’t stand up in my experience. I get it. But you look at the Kings rebuild for example. They have honestly way too many prospects. It feels like a lock that a player like Fogemo for example would make the NHL as a top sixer if he were in a less stocked system.

You don’t want to gift positions and trading from a position of abundance does sound great, but with the quality of this year’s top 15, the timing of cap implications 3+ years out, the ability to onboard around 3 rookies maximum per season, etc. I would overpay to get to #11 if I were Chicago.

Pearson just a LTIR plug so he’s easy for Chicago to take, not pay because of insurance, and help reach the cap floor. He’s an asset to Chicago by being injured and insured. You want him.

I think you are saying if all four second rounders were ‘23 instead of two in ‘23 and two in ‘24 you would like the deal more? I get that. I think Van will target some ‘24 picks as currency to get more players via trade.

Actually, Hawks are not targeting any IR or LTIR guys. They won't have any issue reaching the cap floor. They need guys who can actually play. So Hawks would not look at Pearson as an asset.

Correct. Hawks would not include any '24 2nds. Maybe the Canucks '24 2nd instead of the Ottawa '23 2nd if Canucks wanted a '24 pick in the deal. Hawks '24 2nd would definitely be off the table. So:

Canucks get #35, #51, #55, either #44 or Van '24 2nd (whichever Van wants) and Blackwell

Hawks get #11, Garland, Myers

I like it for both teams

I like that you brought up the Kings rebuild, can't disagree with you there. The point I was trying to send is that if I'm Chicago, I wouldn't go out of my way to get another high-end first. Second round picks might not always be NHL caliber players, but I still feel like the value just isn't worth it for Chicago.