Would Calgary want Leddy at all?

Why would Ottawa want out of a pending UFA for two worse pending UFA's?

They want out of a pending RFA who expressed interest to be moved.

STL should avoid Debrincat. Too much money without any security that the backend and goaltending will allow them to compete since two of the highest paid players would be one dimensional wingers.

Hanifin I like as a target. That’s a bit rich of a price point.

I can’t see blues doing either of these moves

DeBrincat is RFA now.

But yeah, I'm not making that deal

When it comes to the Blues ponying up a lot of assets for a defenseman, the question I have to ask myself is "is that defenseman obviously better than any of the guys we have right now"? I think obviously the Blues' defense+Hanifin-Leddy is overall stronger, but at the end of the day I feel like Hanifin is more or less in the same tier of defenseman as Parayko or Faulk- guys who are good in certain situations but have obvious flaws in their game, that are probably the second best defenseman on the top pair (or not on the top pair at all) on a typical contending team.

And while I'm not necessarily convinced that it's impossible to contend with a defense solely comprised of that tier of player, I'm pretty convinced you can't do it if they're all making 6.5 million dollars which is what they're all going to be doing if the Blues want to keep Hanifin beyond next year. Do we want FOUR of those guys making that kind of money?

This is simply my opinion. But i don't think a top 4 of Parayko, Hanifin, Faulk and Leddy is a bad thing whatsoever. I think it fits a more suitable situation of not having to hammer Parayko in the defensive zone all game because the rest of our d pairings don't have two defenseman who are capable of playing in the d zone. I would venture to guess something similar to that would be more of a 50 and 50 split versus a 36 for Parayko and 58 for Faulk because you can feel confident putting Faulk and Leddy out there that they aren't going to be caved in every time. A lot of it comes down to usage too. The root issue at hand here is that those aren't the 4 defenseman that are in that tier. We have a 5th defenseman being paid a large sum of money on top of those guys forcing that usage to be more difficult for the other two pairs.

Overall am i confident that a defense with those 4 as a top 4 can contend? No, but I sure as hell am alot more confident doing that then having a pairing that's stationed to go out there every defense zone draw because you are terrified of what happens if you put someone else out there. Now is it worth spending a boatload to test it, that i'm not too sure of unfortunately. Our defense is certainly our biggest flaw, but we have some other flaws as well. Kyrou's mismanagement of the puck, Binnington not really having a great season in quite some time, a rookie backup goalie, a lack of a true top line. those 4 are certainly something that can be overcome, but it's really all for nothing if we keep continually giving up backdoor tap ins because we can only trust one pair, and in all reality it wasn't a pair that was extremely great as is.

Well, going by this proposal it would be Hanifin-Parayko-Faulk-Krug, but I take your general point. But the thing with me is salary. It seems like they can't move Krug, are reluctant to move Parayko and are unwilling to move Faulk. So you add Hanifin in and you get a year out of him at a decent salary but then you immediately have to hand him an extension for his late twenties and early thirties. And to me I just don't see how that's much different from what we have been doing- acquiring UFA defenseman at the near peak of their value and then paying them the most they'll ever make.

Obviously the team has other issues too, but if suddenly you're making a bloated defense core already more bloated by adding another guy maxing out his value, you're really handcuffing your ability to address those other issues. A defense with four defenders making 6.5 million each would be more expensive than Tampa's top four, Vegas' top four, Colorado's top four, and Boston's top four. And all of those guys have some pretty pricey defenseman on their rosters. So the Blues are paying a ton, and getting arguably a less quality defense than those other contending teams- who also have expensive defenders.

It might work for one year while Hanifin is cheap (like you said though, far from a sure thing) but I'm just not really sure what the contention window looks like with Hanifin presumably locked in next year. I would prefer they target someone younger and cheaper with less of a track record, because for me the risk isn't all that much different in the short term and much less worrisome in the long term. I'd almost rather just run the same group out and burn a year than try to add another decent but pricey defender to try to will a mediocre d group back to contention status. That's been their approach since 2020, and it hasn't been working.

That makes a lot of sense too to be honest. And i'd agree, you go that route you have to explore almost any option to remove Krug's contract, which sucks, he's rather productive. The question is what area do you gamble in to try and find that young guy that fills the role a bit better. The obvious answer is certainly Miller. It will be pricey, but you are extending the window a lot more if that's a realistic avenue.

I just don't know if I see Doug standing completely pat here. I could certainly live with it if he did. I would think if you burn another year off of Krug, and the team bounces back a bit you could probably retain a decent chunk and at least go a different avenue to help balance out the top 4.