Who’s the last goalie that returned two 1st round picks? Hint-goalies don’t return that sort of value

Would be close Carolina needs one to get dep in playoffs

Not sure the Islanders could do this considering they have no cap space. I like the trade though, they can use another D-Man to add somemore depth.

Ah, yes, the zombie "Gibson Fallacy." Who's the last goalie worth more than a third that was traded at all? You can't tell anything by what didn't happen. Who's the last defenseman traded for three first-round picks? Does that mean that Victor Hedman isn't worth three first-round picks?

Arizona doesn't need another LD behind OEL and Chychrun. They have no experienced RDs signed for 2021-2022. That's where they're looking for help.

I like the Oilers trade

As a Islanders fan I like getting Demers but Arizona would need to take on salary or retain money to make it work. For taking salary would you take Thomas Hickey’s contract?

Not close

On the hedman point, with his injury history at his age and cap hit when cap space is at a premium, YES.

On the goalie point, Goalies have never commanded this kind of return. EVER. Bean right now is one of the best analytical D men in the NHL (albiet a limited sample size). Carolina being an organisation run by Eric Tulsky's analytical group will not be moving him for something like this. He's been nothing short of incredible. Bean and a 3rd? Maybe, Bean and a 2nd for some retention? Okay, understandable. Bean and a 1st? Yeah, no.

Isles would be more interested in Hjalmarsson than Demers IMO.

I find it fascinating that your response begins with an objection to the proposed trade on a general principle (which I vehemently dispute), but then immediately morphs into an objection based upon an analysis of the internal elements of the specific trade (the validity of which I totally accept). It looks to me like you do not believe the theory I challenge as much as you think.

The fallacy in the blanket, mindless yardstick of “no player in X class of players has ever been traded for Y, so therefore Player Z isn’t worth Y” should be obvious. You, and all other rational observers, wouldn’t apply that to forwards or defensemen. Yet it continues to have a zombie-like life-after-death existence when applied to goalies.

Let’s change goaltenders. Instead of Darcy Kuemper, substitute Andrei Vassilevskiy or Connor Hellebuyck in the proposed trade. NOW would you reject the proposed exchange on the ground that “Goalies have never commanded this kind of return. EVER.”? Of course you wouldn’t; that would be moronic. I know you, and you’re far from a moron.

The reason why the theory that “goalies have never commanded this kind of return” is obvious: goalies in the top tiers of their trade (pun intended) don’t get traded, period, so we have no comparables by which to even suggest a proper trade value. To put it another way, it’s foolish to argue what the trade value of top-flight goalies should be by pointing to trades of far less accomplished tenders.

Consider the list of goalies traded since 2010. (Exclude goalies traded for other goalies, of course.) Do you really want to argue that because Jack Campbell or Jake Allen or Keith Kincaid or Devan Dubnyk got traded for a third-round pick or worse, those deals should apply to, let alone govern, what a top-flight goalie should command on the open market? Of course not.

Suppose I could show you that no Finnish top-6 forward has ever been traded for more than two first-round draft picks. Are you going to defend the idea that Sebastian Aho isn’t worth more than two first-round draft picks, based upon that general “principle” of perceived wisdom? Of course not.

Let’s also suppose that Bill Guerin is pleasantly surprised that his new team is in contention for the playoffs, and that he believes that the right #1 center will put them over the top. So he trades both of his 2021 first-rounders and his 2022 first-rounder for Mika Zibanejad. Are you going to argue that this exchange means that Connor McDavid’s trade value isn’t any higher, because no #1 center has “ever commanded this kind of return”? Of course not.

Trade value is determined by the specific qualities of each player and each element, not some one-size-fits-all, anti-intellectual, false rubric.

Finally, your contention that Carolina wouldn’t trade Bean and a first for Kuemper because of their metric theories is entirely valid, as I acknowledged above. I have no dispute with that.

Goaltenders are not like forwards or defenseman. Goaltenders can be fantastic in one place and absolutely awful elsewhere, when under the same coach, system and everything. I point you to Robin Lehner. In Buffalo, he was rather eh. In Ottawa he was eh. In Brooklyn, he found himself in a defensive system that suited him and Griess, and I mean the year after when he went to Chicago, he was great there. Yet, in Vegas he's been... less than spectacular. I know injuries have played a role, but there's not the same aura around him in Vegas there was elsewhere.

In the case of Vasy, I largely believe that his defense helps a lot with the workload he has, and that on a team with a weakened defense, he would not be regarded in the caliber he is currently. Hellebuyck has had 2 good years, but he's like a pendulum going up and down. So, yes they're weird.

Specifically, in the case of Darcy Kuemper, I raise the question of why he wasn't this good with Minnesota. Or with the Kings. In Arizona, they play a system that greatly aids their goaltenders, and it's shown with the emergence of all 3 of Hill, Raanta, and Kuemper. It's nothing against the players, I believe they are all great at their jobs. However, the reason goaltenders have never commanded this kind of a return is because you do not know what you're getting. It's ALWAYS a mystery box, and when you risk losing a 1st round pick and an incredibly good defenseman for a mystery box, the risk of failure outweighs the risk of reward.

Very few goalies in NHL history have been able to go around the league and win consistently on different teams. That's why I just do not see this risk being worth it.