Yeah a forward is needed after losing Kane. Need one back if we lose Hertl as well
It be Barron + OO. You can keep your 23 1st
Makes sense. I think the value is fair.
Yeah a forward is needed after losing Kane. Need one back if we lose Hertl as well
It be Barron + OO. You can keep your 23 1st
as a Leafs fan, Hertl would be a killer addition. Run him with Matthews and Marner
Based on? Giroux brings veteran leadership and has a pretty good playoff pedigree. Even if it is more than Giroux, it should not be anything substantial unless he comes with an extension
Even still. Mark Stone was traded with an extension in place a couple years ago and his return was pretty similar.
I would say Brannstrom at the time was an A-tier prospect rather than a B tier. But they also didn't get a 1st rounder, they got a 2nd instead.
Ultimately I think the Taylor Hall trade is a good example here. Not the Buffalo/Boston deal but the New Jersey/Anaheim trade.
That deal was essentially a 1st + B prospect(Bahl) + Conditional pick(3rd that could have ended up as high as another 1st IIRC) for Hall. With a couple throw in pieces from each side that carried pretty little value.
So IMO you're looking at deals like:
1st + Robertson from Toronto. 1st + Barron from Colorado. 1st + O'Rourke from Minnesota. 1st + Drury from Carolina
Those sort of packages. Perhaps with later picks or lesser prospects on either side to balance things out.
Dvorak got a 1st and a second, Nick Folingo got a 1st as a rental. Not noticing market changes is a much more asinine take.Hertl is not going to get a better return than Pavelski or Giroux. Thinking you are getting a top prospect on top of a 1st for a rental is asinine.
Brannstrom was a top 5 prospect in the world….Stone isn't a bad comparable for Hertl, I agree. I'd like to think Hertl probably has more value than Stone did at the time because he puts up more points and plays a more valuable position. But, it's debatable. I'd say Brannstrom was valued at roughly a mid first at the time, so 1st, 2nd, filler. I'd like to think hertl (signed) would be 1st, 1st, filler value, but of course, I'm biased.
No he definitely was notBrannstrom was a top 5 prospect in the world….
Dvorak wasn't a rental, thats not even remotely similar. Foligno got a 1st and a 4th as a long time captain and team leader (double retained). Hertl will get a 1st for sure, and probably a solid prospect but definitely not a top prospectDvorak got a 1st and a second, Nick Folingo got a 1st as a rental. Not noticing market changes is a much more asinine take.
Dvorak got a 1st and a second, Nick Folingo got a 1st as a rental. Not noticing market changes is a much more asinine take.
Stoner Brock isn't going anywhere. 25-25 with decent faceoff skills. Plus, he's got a bunch of term at decent price for a 2nd line center. I'd be really surprised if he was moved, like shit my pants surprised.
Yeah because one is a fantastic 1c and one is a third liner.Comparing Dvorak to Hertl is certainly the most asinine take
He should get more then Giroux.
Question being the M-NTC.
We’ve seen these in the past sort of tank values because the player refuses to go to the ‘unsexy’ locations.
Like, Minny, Calgary, St Louis and Toronto back up the Brinks, but Hertl is just like, nope, nope, nope, nope; meanwhile NYR is like… ‘Here’s a first and our 7th org prospect, enjoy,’ and Hertl’s like, ‘seems good on my end.’
Prices in the NHL tend to get driven by demand, and there’s no question that the demand should be high, but he sort of holds the cards in terms of locations he’d accept.
I could definitely get behind those names. I think MIN/COL are the ones that make the most sense in terms of assets and need.I think the ask for Hertl should be 1st + good prospect such as an O'Rourke/Barron/Olausson/whatever (if you dont like those names idc theyre examples).
Dvorak is not a comparable. He was a few years younger and signed for 4 more years when he was traded, at a cap hit under 5M. Hertl is months away from free agency where he should get paid a long term deal north of 7M.