Author: Brian La Rose

With the trade deadline now less than a week away, the focus of the mailbag this weekend will be questions pertaining to trades and the upcoming deadline.  With so many deadline questions submitted, we’ll split this weekend’s mailbag in two.  Next week, the focus will primarily be on the non-deadline queries (with a couple of trade ones in there as well).

@kflorenz1: Assuming Kane decided to waive his no-trade and the ‘Hawks express an interest in retaking 50-75% of the cap hit, what does the package look like?? #1 and a prospect?? 2nd rounder, plus two prospects??

Based on Patrick Kane’s recent comments, if he opts to waive his no-move protection, it will only be for one team, maybe two max if someone comes in late that intrigues him.  At this point, I think pretty much everyone believes the list begins and ends with the Rangers.  That will make it extremely difficult for Chicago to get good value, let alone top value.  If it is just New York or bust, the Rangers can come in with a low-ball offer and basically say it’s that or nothing.

Let’s go Rangers-specific here with the package.  I don’t think their other first-rounder is in play but they have a second-rounder this year.  I think that would move.  There should be a prospect component after that but I’m not sure it’s toward the top end of their prospect pool.  I’ve seen some suggest Zachary Jones as a possibility and if it’s a forward, I like Adam Sykora, a player who likely isn’t a top-six piece in the NHL but has a good shot at making it in a lower role.  They’ll also have to flip a mid-round pick somewhere for the extra 25% of retention.  With a one-team bidding pool, I don’t expect the cost to be particularly high and it will be Chicago choosing to ‘do right’ by their long-time star to move him to his desired destination.

Gmm8811: Now that Armstrong has started the fire sale, I see a couple more moves that might make sense. Krug to Detroit…they have the cap space and prospects to make this work, plus maybe going back to his hometown might be the best for him. While I’m not ready to give up on Parayko just yet, send him home to Edmonton for Hyman. I know they all have NMC clauses, but as we’ve seen that’s not really an obstacle.

I can make a case for Krug to Detroit but there’s a reason that GM Steve Yzerman has refused to commit long-term contracts in free agency.  He doesn’t want to make that type of long-term commitment although he’s going to have to soon if he wants to re-sign Dylan Larkin.  If he doesn’t give one to a player on the open market, why would he turn around and trade for one, giving up assets to do so?  If there were two fewer years on the contract (meaning there were two years left instead of four), I think this could be an interesting option but with Krug signed at $6.5MM through 2025-26, I don’t think Detroit shows interest.

As for Colton Parayko to Edmonton, he’d certainly help their back end.  However, Zach Hyman is on pace for a 96-point season.  Is subtracting a player that seems likely to hit 40 goals and around 90 points if he stays healthy really a move that makes them a better team in the long run?  I don’t think it does.  If they move Parayko, the return is going to be underwhelming as that contract ($6.5MM through 2029-30) and concerns over his back means it would be more of a cap dump than trading for someone of value.

I also want to comment quickly on your NMC thought.  Just because we see some players waive their trade protection doesn’t mean it’s not an obstacle.  There are quite a few trades every year that get kiboshed due to a player invoking that protection.  We just don’t always hear about it.  And if someone has full protection, they can leverage that into a very small list that makes it difficult for the trading team to bring back full value (think back on this when the expected Kane trade is made official).  Sometimes, it doesn’t matter much but it can be an obstacle more often than you might think.

dodgerskingsfan: I thought the Kings were close on Chychrun. What other LHD are there that the Kings can acquire and who (if any) will be traded off the roster?

rpoabr: Add to this. – what’s a fair deal for the Kings to get Chychrun all things considered? Coyotes aren’t getting their ask based on no deal, so far, Kings should be able to offer a good package to get it done without sacrificing the future.

Let’s put these two together.  I’ll tackle the easy part first.  Sean Walker is probably the one who goes if they need someone strictly to try to match money.  Matt Roy would be the other but he has some standalone value so that one would be more of the team trading Los Angeles doesn’t want to take Walker back and the Kings turn around and move Roy in a separate deal to clear the salary.

As for other left-shot defenders possibly in play, Vladislav Gavrikov is back in play after the expected deal with Boston fell through.  Jake McCabe is signed as long as Jakob Chychrun at fairly similar money ($4MM for McCabe, $4.6MM for Chychrun) and he’d likely fit in on their second pairing.  Shayne Gostisbehere is a rental that can help a power play.  If Nashville decides to actually sell, I could see them poking around on Mattias Ekholm as well.  If Chychrun falls through (and I don’t think it’s at that point yet), there will be other options.

As for the second question, Arizona is looking for future assets.  If Los Angeles is offering a package that doesn’t sacrifice anything of their future, what’s in it for the Coyotes?  They’re well within their rights to ask for the package they’re believed to be looking for.  It’ll have to include their first-round pick this year, that’s pretty much a given.  I think there needs to be a young defenseman coming back so that’d be one of Jordan Spence or maybe Tobias Bjornfot.

The other piece is a little harder.  Assuming it’s another first-round element, I think the Coyotes would want a center.  They’d probably ask for Quinton Byfield but that should be a non-starter for the Kings.  Los Angeles probably counters with Alex Turcotte who is probably a non-starter for Arizona unless their scouts are really high on him.  With the belief that their focus is on entry-level players, how much do they like Rasmus Kupari?  I think this is where the hold-up is in a trade as the other secondary elements are there but finding that ‘A’ piece is where they’re struggling as swapping in a 2024 first-rounder probably doesn’t move the needle either.

SkidRowe: 1) Did the Bruins do enough?

2) Why did it cost as much for Orlov and Hathaway as the Rangers paid for Tarasenko and Mikkola and the Maple Leafs paid for O’Reilly and Acciari?

1) Considering Boston is already the top team in the league playing at a level rarely seen, they didn’t really have to do a whole lot necessarily.  That they were able to add an impact defenseman and a gritty depth winger that can kill penalties without subtracting anything of consequence is excellent for them.  Right now, they’re still the prohibitive Stanley Cup favorite so by that standpoint, yeah, they’ve done enough.  Of course, the true answer to that question will come in June.

2) With Tarasenko, the Rangers got the best rental winger on the market.  With O’Reilly, the Maple Leafs got the best rental center that might move.  In Orlov, the Bruins are getting the best rental defenseman that’s out there so when you have two preceding trades that set the precedent for the ‘top at that position’ type of swap, it made sense to me that this one was similarly structured.  It also should be noted that Boston, unlike the other two teams, was in a spot where they had to match money so there’s a bit of premium to be paid to do so to get Washington to take Smith’s deal on.  It’s a high price, no doubt, but I think it was a fair one based on what had already been established.

Read more