Quoting: Windjammer
That's true, but when you're offering a quantity for quality package every piece in the quantity package needs to be a desirable piece for the other team.
In a vacuum, yes. History would disagree though, or at the very least suggest that teams value players/prospects far differently than fans and writers do.
A few examples:
- the Panarin trade to CBJ
- Turris to NSH (when he was still good)
- Duchene to OTT
- Stone to VGK
- Seguin to DAL
- O'Reilly to STL
- Karlsson to SJS
- Hall to ARI
Most trades involving star players do three things for the team trading the star away:
1) Bringing back solid but not spectacular roster players to fill holes
2) Gaining salary flexibility
3) Adding future value
Laine is ridiculously good but GMs have repeatedly shown a willingness to part with star players in exchange for salary flexibility, veteran players who can fill holes and balance out their roster, and future assets. An example (and not a serious trade proposal) would be something like Murray + Anderson + Bemstrom + a mid-tier prospect (i.e. Hjorth) + 21OA for Laine. Is Laine going to provide more value than that? Probably. But look at that list above – all of those guys (save for Turris) provided more on-ice value than what their GMs got for them.