Flames decline

Brock Faber won't be traded under any circumstances.

You've gotta give to get. Faber was ranked as the Kings' 7th best prospect on the Athletic and he's playing a position of organizational surplus. I get that he's a good prospect that projects as a dependable top-4 defensemen but he's getting way overvalued by some people on here (same with Brayden Schneider). He isn't untouchable in exchange for a center who just scored 99 points at $2.6m, especially if there's an extension involved.

Calgary declines, it wont cost Calgary a 2nd and 4th round pick to move Sean Monahan. Possibly a 3rd rounder at best.

And Vegas declines as well. No way does it cost a 2nd and 3rd round pick to move Dadonov. Not even close.

not trading miller in divison

They just tried to trade him for a 2nd this season and have lost leverage since then.

blues say no
not cause of value but we wont trade a first for a postion we have a surplus in rn

PHI decline.

Next yr they'll have ellis and ristolinen on RD, and while they'd move JVR (in all liklihood for a salary), it wont be Myers

Thank you lol.

Don’t give me we lost this leverage too. Someone will do it for just a second. Besides I think Vancouver is on the NTC

Brock Faber will not be made available under any circumstances. If he's the 7th best prospect as you say, then Vancouver shouldn't have any problems taking someone in the 3-6 spot in his place. The Kings won't trade Byfield, Clarke, or Faber. Pretty much every other prospect is available.

Doughty, Clarke, Faber is the future of this team's right side.

Sure, like I said Grans is also a possibility. Maybe Durzi or Spence as well, and adjust the pick(s) to compensate.

So Grans was the Kings #5 prospect in Wheeler's prospect rankings that you referenced where Faber was #7. Since the Kings are "upgrading" the prospect from Faber to Grans, does that mean the pick going back to Vancouver should be a 2nd instead of a 1st?

You said Faber was not moving no matter what, and then mentioned that any prospect other than Byfield, Clarke, and Faber are available. So I said sure, maybe Grans instead of Faber, since you clearly value Faber more than Grans, and now suddenly Grans should be worth more than Faber to you. You're making contradictory statements:

1) If you think that Faber is less valuable than Grans because of the Athletic rankings, then why is it such a big deal to trade Faber?

2) If you believe that Faber is more valuable than Grans, why would the Canucks accept a lower draft pick to downgrade to Grans?

The cost for acquiring a 100 point center making under $3m is high. I simply am stating that a return package of a potential top-4 D prospect, a 1st, and a B tier forward prospect is fair. Since you clearly like Faber so much, I said maybe it could be Grans instead. I don't know what else to tell you.