The issue is that
1) if by some miracle, both stay on the team, they are very similar in strengths. We more than likely wont be getting the most out of one.
I don't think it's very accurate to say we can't make use of two elite centers. Again, how do all the other cup winners do it?
2) Eichel comes, Mika walks. So, if all goes well with Eichels health, Mika would be moved. In that scenario, we are in the same exact spot we were prior to acquiring Eichel... but down assets and cap space. It's a high cost lateral move, ie. doesn't make sense
It's not lateral. You are 4 years younger and have 4 more years of contract under your control.
Securing a center who is going to be still in his prime when Kakko and Laf are in theirs is the utmost importance. Zibanejad will age out. Replacing Eichel with Zibanejad - if they decide they can't keep both - resets that clock.
The window is important. You are opening the window wider. That is important and that is why you make the trade. You also can recoup some of what you paid by dealing Zibanejad at the deadline.
Now, you don't throw away all your best pieces obviously.
But as I've said and as apparently has gained some traction among some whispers here lately, if it's Buch (redundant), Strome (redundant), Jones (redundant), and 15OA, that trade doesn't hurt so much.
If it's Nils/Kravtsov, Chytil, Buch, Georgiev and a first, then that's a clear no thanks from us.
Oh and to be clear - this is all under the premise that a trade is possible once doctors sign off. I am not advocating doing this blind.