I don't understand why people think that a player agreeing to sign long term with his trade destination entitles the trading team (i.e. the team that doesn't want to qualify him) to a bigger trade return.

There's no way that LA is going to give up one of their top prospects and a 1st round pick for a guy that will undoubtedly be a UFA next summer if he's not traded, and possibly a UFA this summer if he's not qualified.

Is there room for Kakko with the wild? also Gallant has loved Kakko so far this year so I figure he will get a little more time before he's looked at as a trade piece especially with Kakko getting injured and missing a lot of time

Because his production is that of a top line winger and he’s only 25. So if the contract issue is resolved with a long term contract, what other issue is there to bring down his value?

Basically, yet he Wild need to trade Fiala for his lower cost replacement. If I read the Rangers right, they’d have a nigh impossible time signing Fiala right? He’s gonna be over 7 with term and maybe even as his arb award.

Yeah rangers can’t afford that even if they get rid of Kakko, Nemeth and Chytil for salaries and replace with ELC

Because the team acquiring him either gets him for one season and then he walks into UFA (same situation as a rental) or they get him for the entirety of his prime and are guaranteed a top line winger for 6-7 years. If you don’t understand the difference in value between those two circumstances I don’t know what to tell you.

I agree with your comment on people saying trade with extension. But in Fiala’s case I find it hard to see why a team would trade for him for one year. I could be wrong but it doesn’t make sense to me.

As for the Kings, why not move Turcs if it means bringing in a prime aged scorning wing? His skating would blend seemlessly with Byfield. The Kings are knocking on the door this year and even if they give up a Vilardi, Bjornfot, and a 1st (maybe more) for Chychrun, they could still manage to move Turcs for Fiala and have a good pipeline of quality forwards. Adding Fiala and Chychrun puts the Kings in Real contention for a cup. Couple that with the fact Turcs won’t make the NHL as a C until Kopitar’s deal is up at the soonest and I think it’s one of those deals that make sense for both teams.

If he came with that contract, I'd do this trade as a Devils fan. I like Shango, but selling high on him while he's on this sweetheart contract might make sense. And I don't think it's a coincidence that he (and Kuo) both struggled while Hughes was out with injury and has re-gained his form now that he's back.

I would assume Kakko would get 2nd line minutes with Matt Boldy and whoever centers them if this were to actually happen. Kakko is undoubtedly a top 6 talent, he just has yet unleash all of that talent. The idea of this trade is NYR gets a guaranteed top 6 winger in return for a very talented player who hasn’t performed to his fullest with some skepticism around whether or not he ever will.

Depends on Fiala's extension imo

Kuokkanen definitely gained his success from Hughes. 100%
Sharangovich is a good player but benefits from having Hughes as his C

Gonna say no cause Fiala is boutta be ridiculously expensive to resign and the Rangers are already gonna have cap issues. Plus I’m intrigued with what Kakko can do in a couple years. At 25, he very well could be better than Fiala. Im personally okay with taking that gamble.

I assume Fiala gets around 6.5-7 million with 6-7 years of term. I’d agree with you though, the idea behind the trade is if NYR wants a legit top 6 winger immediately to go after a cup now, instead of waiting on Kakko to see if he can become what he was thought to be when he was drafted.

I see where you’re coming from, but the salary cap is a thing that won’t go away.

But why should Minnesota get compensated for that? You're paying Minnesota for one year of Fiala's rights. Whether he agrees to an extension in advance or not is irrelevant to what Minnesota should get.

I would absolutely swap Turcotte for Fiala. I wouldn't trade Turcotte and a 1st for Fiala.

I agree. That’s too much

Turcs is the main piece. The first isn’t a terribly important piece but it would not surprise me if that as part of the deal.

I don’t think a team trades for a single year of a player when it makes sense to give him a bit of term. Again I agree with your premise, but the point of getting Fiala is to sign him to some term and teams know that. You get a year of RFA to reduce the cap hit a bit and another year of the players prime.

How does him agreeing to sign an extension in advance not up his value? What’s the difference between the Wild signing him to a long term contract and then trading him to LA vs letting LA work out a contract that is included in the trade agreement? If anything the team acquiring him should have to pay more for the simple fact that Minnesota would be allowing Fiala’s agent to talk with the acquiring teams GM to settle a contract on that specific GMs terms. If you were trading for an elite player would you rather take on his existing contract that likely won’t comply with your teams cap situation or would you rather have the ability to talk with that players agent and settle on a deal that is compliant with your teams cap situation which can be guaranteed through a trade agreement? This shouldn’t be that hard to understand. Not to mention it’s not like the Wild are being forced to trade him, they have the option to sign him long term if they want to, it would just be smarter to trade him for assets given their current cap situation.

Then let Minnesota do all the hard work of the negotiations and sign him to a reasonable contract. Then I'd be all about giving up that value to Minnesota. However, the truth of it is that Minnesota can't afford to qualify him, let alone extend him, and they shouldn't be compensated for extension years that they wouldn't get anyway. If Minnesota qualifies Fiala, they open themselves up to the risk of arbitration and Fiala getting awarded a contract that would require them to make other undesirable moves.

If I'm a team like LA, I would walk away from a crazy trade proposal like this and look to sign Fiala as a UFA after Minnesota doesn't qualify him. If another team does pay an outrageous price, then the Kings can look to acquire one of the many other wingers that will be on the move this summer.

Same as for Ottawa here too

Trent Mann could give me another Jake Sanderson value prospect with that 2022 1st round pick (OTT)

I am not giving up that and an excellent prospect with top line potential for Fiala

So let’s drop LAK from the equation. Why does it matter if MIN signs him long term to trade him as opposed to having another team negotiate the same long term deal? The end result is a player locked up for term. And from a market stand point, if a team only wants him for 1 year then that will be reflected in what the team would offer. Much the same a team that wants him long term will reflect that value in a trade offer. I think Fiala is a great fit for LAK, NJD, and OTT. All of which have the cap and desire to sign him to term. That will make a team’s offer to sign him for one year moot. If there isn’t a market for Fiala, then that’s another story but I don’t believe that’s the case.

Don't see the Rangers trading Kakko anytime soon, he has not suffered in NY, and this "change of scenery" is not the correct assessment. Turk has loved his play, and while he did acknowledge that he does not have the points he would like, his defensive play has developed into one of the best in the league. I see once Kaapo gets back to the 2nd line he called home for so long he will start producing again.

I'm very curious as to how Yegor is worth more than Kakko