We don't need you to take his full contract. We will gladly retain and ship him elsewhere (if possible) if you want to be stingy

So Lindholm goes for significantly less than Bo Horvat despite being a far better player?

Not close.

I personally disagree, I would rather them take is full contract for little return and then be able to retain a ton on like Provy or even TK to get HAULS on them with retention and it will allow us to take on more bad deals. I would actually prefer this deal than getting a 2nd or 3rd with like $2M retained on Hayes

That's an idea but I don't see us getting more than above for either whether there is retention or not. It's risk vs reward and the risk of additional assets does not meet the reward for other teams imo. Retaining on them would just be doing the other team a favour

I'd take this, I'm a fan of Boqvist and the Canucks could definitely do with some RD

Maybe but it could mean the difference of getting two 1sts instead of one or an extra prospect for TK or maybe an extra 2nd on Provy while not helping a division rival in retaining for Hayes

I just don't see it. They have a max value and their contracts aren't bad enough to increase that value by retaining.

Garland is useless to CBJ, they decline due to him playing a position not in need and already in a surplus.

Need a late first for boqvist. Garland has no value to the jackets so they decline

Columbus is now in cap hell with these trades. Lindholm new contract kicks in, Texier, Chinakhov, KJ and Marchenko all need their first big boy contracts and looks like we are 3 mil in the hole before we even begin to sign the kids. Not only that our defense is still extremely weak by league standards.