I think there is too much range in the asset value of Marner right now for anybody to guess. That's why it's all over the map in the various Marner trade threads. We simply can't peg anything "realistic" without knowing what Marner's intentions are. Since he has a full NMC and is currently playing on a good team in his home town, I guess if we want to go down the most realistic path, then... he's simply not going to be available, period.What does a realistic package look like for Marner? A one where we don’t mortgage the whole future.
Saros, Fabbro and Tomasino.What does a realistic package look like for Marner? A one where we don’t mortgage the whole future.
Is this the new Erat, Suter and a first from all those years ago?Saros, Fabbro and Tomasino.
Hm, I don't read that as any kind of disagreement at all, however. Unless you are saying you'd trade Saros even if he would agree to a hugely team-friendly extension with us. But otherwise it's about the same as what I would do. Tomasino and our 1st are peanuts to me.Ports, I could not disagree with you more on the price for Marner. I’m setting price at Saros, Tomasino, and if there is 3 mil retention, then a 1st
Hm, I don't read that as any kind of disagreement at all, however. Unless you are saying you'd trade Saros even if he would agree to a hugely team-friendly extension with us. But otherwise it's about the same as what I would do. Tomasino and our 1st are peanuts to me.
Trading Nyquist AND Evangelista for Marner seems contadictrory. Evangelista’s already a 40-point player for us with super-limited ice-time and obviously still growing. He might be a 60-70p player one day.If Saros isn't the main part for Marner, I'd imagine they would want a mixture of futures and current players unless they're completely certain they can get Guentzel they'd be losing a significant amount of offense.
Nyquist/Evangelista to recoupe some offense
Then a mixture of futures
I meant one or the other. Nyquist is also on the verge of retirement being 35 next season so moving him would be more of a resetting for the future. Trading out a 35 year old coming off a career year that we could probably get a 1st+ for right now for a 27 year old who typically gets near 100 pts. I expect marners production to drop some but even dropped it would probably be more than Nyquist's career year production.Trading Nyquist AND Evangelista for Marner seems contadictrory. Evangelista’s already a 40-point player for us with super-limited ice-time and obviously still growing. He might be a 60-70p player one day.
Also, Marner’s never going to hit 100 for us and in the West. He’s more of a PPG player in Nsh. So, trading Nyquist (40p) + Evangelista (40p) doesn’t sound like a deal where we are getting the needed offensive pop.
I don't see Trotz doing that swap, they like Evangelista, they haven't been impressed with Tomasino.I meant one or the other. Nyquist is also on the verge of retirement being 35 next season so moving him would be more of a resetting for the future. Trading out a 35 year old coming off a career year that we could probably get a 1st+ for right now for a 27 year old who typically gets near 100 pts. I expect marners production to drop some but even dropped it would probably be more than Nyquist's career year production.
Evangelista would be if they preferred someone young with potential instead of the more proven asset. In which case, I think we keep tomasino and slide him into Evangelista's current spot until Kemmell is NHL ready. Tomasino's production rates are as good or better than Evangelista. It is just the other aspects of his game that are more questionable.
Why would we care about retention for a guy 1 year from UFA...unless you're talking about him signing an extension with Toronto and then being traded at $3M retention. There is no way one year of $3M retained on Marner is worth a 1st in addition to already giving up Saros and Tomasino.Ports, I could not disagree with you more on the price for Marner. I’m setting price at Saros, Tomasino, and if there is 3 mil retention, then a 1st
Gus and Luke are better production/$$ than Marner. Even though it's two lesser pieces for one I agree this would be a silly trade base.Trading Nyquist AND Evangelista for Marner seems contadictrory. Evangelista’s already a 40-point player for us with super-limited ice-time and obviously still growing. He might be a 60-70p player one day.
Also, Marner’s never going to hit 100 for us and in the West. He’s more of a PPG player in Nsh. So, trading Nyquist (40p) + Evangelista (40p) doesn’t sound like a deal where we are getting the needed offensive pop.
I don't think there's a Marner deal to be made unless there's an extension in place (for a rental at that price, I'd offer very, very little). In a world where Marner will take a $9m/7year deal with our lower taxes, I'd give up quite a bit for him. If he's stuck on $13m/year, we shouldn't be giving up any major pieces (Saros/Evang/1sts/etc) for him.Gus and Luke are better production/$$ than Marner. Even though it's two lesser pieces for one I agree this would be a silly trade base.
I just looked it up. Ontario millionaires is 55.62% that is a hell of a pay raiseI don't think there's a Marner deal to be made unless there's an extension in place (for a rental at that price, I'd offer very, very little). In a world where Marner will take a $9m/7year deal with our lower taxes, I'd give up quite a bit for him. If he's stuck on $13m/year, we shouldn't be giving up any major pieces (Saros/Evang/1sts/etc) for him.