Canucks an easy no

Canucks say absolutely not and counter Garland and say a 4th. Friedman has been great for the Canucks and has great underlying numbers, which he has had for years. Garland isn't worth spending real assets to move. We don't need to.

Flames accept. We can bury Daccord and call up Wolf, and get a 2nd for Vladar who hasn't been the best this(or last) season, if 1 move could get a gm fired, Seattle GM would probably get fired for that

I read it as a 2nd and 6th for some reason. 2 2nds? For a below average goalie? Conroy would be praised amoung Flames fans for that

Friedman is not the second coming of Chris Tanev, he can’t keep this up for the whole season and moving on from Garland to add Shultz is worth it in my eyes as Vancouver needs better defence to make the playoffs and resign Petey long term

I understand that. But he's on a league min contract and looks solid and he has a record to back up him looking solid. I'm saying I assign real value to him and I'm not giving up as a throw-in piece. It's the second that makes it an instant no. Shultz is a fine player on a reasonable contract. If you traded him 50% at the deadline you probably get a 3rd. So how is he getting a 2nd, a 3rd a reasonable roster player (idk call it somewhere from a 5th to a 7th) and Garland when you're not even retaining? If you think Garland is negative value on his contract by a 2nd plus plus then I guess you do, but then why do you want him? I certainly would have no interest in valuing him at that kind of negative value and I don't see the Canucks doing that either. They don't need to trade him.

No you are breaking down my trade wrong, with pieces being traded for each other when it’s the package of players for package of players
Also the draft picks are for Garland and his 3 years with no cap retention as well as for Shultz and the Kraken would want Friedman in return as he is not a throw away

My point is Shultz alone isn't even worth a third. That type of player goes for 3rd at the deadline 50% retained. So even if just say he's worth 3rd you can cancel out Shultz and the third like a math equation and you're suggesting it would take Friedman, a 2nd to trade Garland for nothing. That's way off.

I’m not breaking the trade down like then when I make my deals, you are so that doesn’t matter to me or the other teams it’s the sum of the trade for the sum of trade.
No need to break it down into smaller pieces because to eat that much cap space and years is normally taking a lot of draft capital

I believe you when you say you aren't breaking it down lol. That's why I'm doing it for you so you can see how it is unreasonable.

Canucks decline. I'd consider something around Garland for Schultz straight up, but not adding all those extra pieces. Way too much to give up for Schultz, I'd expect a much better defenceman coming back if we're giving up all those pieces.

not sure why SEA wants to do the AZ trade, soderstrom doesnt look NHL ready

Ah yes, a quick fix that involves six trades and overhauling a third of the roster. Here are my thoughts on each trade proposal:

The framework of the Vancouver trade could make sense on some level, if the Kraken want to give Ryker Evans a shot/acquire Garland to help provide short term cover for Burakovsky and Tanev's injuries and the Canucks want to improve the defense/clear long term cap. However that might be a bit much for Vancouver to be giving up. Perhaps removing Friedman or one of the draft picks would help balance it out.

The trade with the Coyotes makes zero sense for either team. Seattle's contention window is just opening, so they'd rather have the better current defenseman in Borgen, while a rebuilding Arizona squad can afford to be patient with Söderström.

I think the Maple Leafs trade is another one where both teams would decline. Seattle's build is more focused on a window of contention, i.e this year and the next several years, while Toronto faces more urgency to win now. With that in mind, I believe the Leafs would keep the better but pending UFA Nylander, while Seattle hangs onto their cost-controlled pieces.

I don't see a Laughton to Seattle (or anywhere else) trade materializing. He's a decent player who would help backfill the Kraken's forward depth given recent injuries, but the Flyers' asking price is too high for what he is, so I don't see a deal being struck.

The Kraken don't consider that goalie swap with Calgary for a second. Daccord has been FAR better than Vladar thus far, and is cheaper. Seattle has zero business throwing away two second round picks to downgrade at goalie.

I also don't see Seattle considering the Chicago trade. Eberle's better than Johnson.

More centre depth for Kraken as they don’t have anyone above a 2C at best and their 4C is like AHL/quad A centre

These values are all over the shop.

Both leaf’s and kraken decline that trade

Flyers decline