Milan Lucic isn’t going anywhere, the Contrarian argues. 

Sports Illustrated printed an article by Allan Muir called "Why the Bruins should trade Milan Lucic; weekend games to watch; more" this past Friday.

Muir's reasons for the Lucic speculation are:

1. "The Bruins aren't big anymore and they certainly aren't bad. They are surprisingly vanilla, a group that is miles removed from the nasty snarl that defined Boston's 2011 Stanley Cup champions and 2013 Cup finalists."

• "They're an inconsistent bunch that lacks speed (they rank 30^th in penalties-drawn by a mile), scoring touch (2.47 goals per game, down .70 from last season) and most disturbingly, an identity."
• "These days [there's] more east-west in Lucic's game than the north-south that makes him so effective."
• "His net drive is sporadic."
• "Goals (just one in his past eight games) are scarce."
• "[He's] become easier than ever to goad into bad penalties or distracted play."

He also refers to comments made by Jeremy Rutherford of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Rutherford indicates, "There has been plenty of speculation involving the Blues and Bruins and believe there is definitely something being discussed. Doug Armstrong had a credential waiting for him last night in Minnesota, where the Bruins were playing. He was not there (he's with the Blues in LA), but the fact that he was credentialized leads you to believe he had intentions of being there" and "I've mentioned previously that I am hearing the names of one or two top-six forwards being dealt by the Blues. I would not be surprised if one or more of [T.J. Oshie, Alexander Steen and Patrik Berglund] are involved. As far as what the Blues could get in return, I keep hearing Milan Lucic's name as a possibly being moved out of Boston."

In his own article Muir continues on that train of thought, "There have been whispers of the Bruins and Blues circling each other for weeks now, but the initial scuttlebutt suggested something smaller was in the works – maybe a deal for the rights to malcontent center (and former Bruin) Vladimir Sobotka, who is currently plying his trade in the faltering KHL. But as the two teams struggle to meet preseason expectation, it's thought that the pot has gotten a little richer and could well include a swap of top-six wingers."

Let us examine the various points.

A) Whether or not the Bruins are vanilla this year is not in doubt. They are after all on the outside looking in at a wildcard spot that the Florida Panthers currently hold. That nasty snarl that people often talk about isn't going to come from Oshie, Steen or Berglund and that same image is what fuels Lucic's poor decision making that has been going on for a while "Milan Lucic doesn't apologize for handshake antics, inspires terrific T-shirt" – from thn.com. 

B) Adding one or more of Oshie, Steen or Berglund will improve team speed and possibly their goal scoring but this is the same team that decided to give up Tyler Seguin (and his league leading 23 goals) for Loui Eriksson, Joe Morrow, Reilly Smith and Matt Fraser. The goal scoring is supposed to spread amongst the whole team. Lucic's is not scoring at his best pace but neither is he at his worst. 

C) If there is a more east-west element instead of a north-south aspect to his game is it due to the game that Claude Julien wants to play or is it something that Lucic has changed on his own? If it's the later then a good benching can get him to correct his ways. If it's the former, is it because of the injuries, specifically David Krejci's, which the Bruins have endured this season? Lucic's best seasons have been when Krejci does very well.

D) His shots per game are down as compared to the last four seasons. His scoring average not his best but also not his worst.

E) His penalty minutes are a touch higher than what he was earning from 2009 to 2013. Of note, his 1.138 penalty minutes per game last year did not help the Bruins defeat the Montreal Canadiens.

(F) As for the Blues/Bruins comments made by both Muir and Rutherford I counter with some by Elliotte Friedman in his latest "30 Thoughts: Possible trade fits for Oilers" sportsnet.ca column.

Friedman does confirm that the two teams have been talking to each other but also notes that there are long term cap issues for both teams. In point #3 of his article he writes, "But, you wonder if adding either [Berglund or Oshie] fits the Bruins, because of the term commitment. For example, a near-cap match is Loui Eriksson. If you're St. Louis, you'd probably do either one for him, because he has only one year remaining. But does it make sense for Boston? I can see why the answer would be no." Also worth noting that Oshie has a no-trade clause that is triggered on July 1^st.

In point #28, he touches upon the troubles in the KHL, "Another more relevant example might be Vladimir Sobotka… The centre owes St. Louis one year before he can be an unrestrictive free agent in the NHL, and there is a belief he will return to play it out. He's a good player, and Armstrong had some trade conversations (believed to include Edmonton, Montreal and Tampa) but teams were scared off because his future was uncertain."

My last point relates to pressure points. From the Sports Illustrated article, "But as the two teams struggle to meet preseason expectations…" I ask is St. Louis is struggling?

They are second in their conference (one point behind the Chicago Blackhawks) and third in their conference (Anaheim Ducks are ahead by five points with the Blues having two games in hand).

This doesn't seem like they are struggling to me and in fact that might be the reason why a trade hasn't been made. Sure there might be long term issues for the Blues but they have the luxury to deal with them by the trade deadline or possibly after winning a Stanley Cup. 

The Bruins are not in similar shape but they got Zdeno Chara and, more importantly for Lucic, Krejci back from injury.

As Muir indicates in his very first paragraph, "If there's one player in the NHL who was born to be a Boston Bruin, it's Milan Lucic."

That is why they won't trade Milan away.