I don't agree. I think the Kings would just wait until next summer and pitch him in free agency.

The Kings were in pretty heavily on Jack Eichel, but left the table because Buffalo insisted on including one of Byfield or Clarke. Blake walked away from the table rather than give up either one of those guys.

That was for 5 years of Jack Eichel. This is for 1 year of Dylan Larkin. I don't care if there's an extension in place or not. Detroit doesn't get compensated for unsigned years of a player that has one year left.

Ned is not worth a 1st. They have Thompson, they don't need a goalie right now.

It’s always very telling when people use the Jack Eichel trade as a comparable to anything.

Jack Eichel is a special player, there’s no question about that.

He had a serious neck injury and was in the midst of a controversial dispute with his team regarding an unapproved surgery on his neck.

Not to mention, the risk involved with the health of the player required the acquiring team to take on a $10m AAV contract along with any potential uncertainty with his health.

Stop using this trade as a reference or barometer.

If Eichel was healthy at the time of the trade, they would have gotten 3x what they got for him. He’s not a player you trade without being under those circumstances.

Brother, who is Thompson…..🥴

I don't care about his actual return. Lisa Dillman reported several times while she was still at The Athletic that Blake has said he has no interest in moving either of Byfield or Clarke.

Not for Jack Eichel, not for Dylan Larkin, not for Jacob Chychryn, not for anyone.

Stop thinking your player is the exception to that. He's not.

The fact that you italicized “the Athletic” really helped drive your point home. Nice work.

It wasn't for emphasis, but for proper citation. Sorry (not sorry) if my respect for journalists and their work offends you.

Nice work completely dodging said point.

Responding to conjecture didn’t seem productive to me.

The entire point you've made in this ACGM (that teams will give up their top prospects for 1 year of Larkin) is conjecture.

You’re 100% wrong. I never said or implied that.

"I mean, nobody is actively seeking to trade their top prospects but if an opportunity presented itself to acquire a player like Dylan Larkin (which it won’t), teams would have no issue moving a player like Byfield or even Clarke. "

Ugh. Brother, I literally included in my post that the guy signs an extension in the trade.

Even the comment you quoted has nothing to do with contract status and only the quality of player acquired in response to your comment about the players being untouchable.

I don't understand why people think that a team like Detroit should be compensated for uncontracted years of a pending UFA. Detroit has one year of control left over Larkin's contract. They're going to get paid for one year of Larkin. If the team that acquires him signs him to an extension, great, but that doesn't mean that Detroit should get a return for 9 years of Larkin.

Dylan Larkin is an exceptional player. 1 year of him is worth a 1st round pick, a 2nd round pick, and a "good-but-not-great" NHL-ready prospect. Short of Connor McDavid, no pending UFA is worth a blue-chip prospect like Clarke or Byfield. If LA signs him to an extension after that, good for them. It doesn't affect his trade return.

I think you’re missing something here. And, let me start by agreeing with you on the differing of values of a player based on their team control.

With that being said, the basis of my trade scenarios, is that prior to agreeing to a trade, the acquiring team is allowed to speak to the players agent and come to terms on an extension prior to agreeing to a trade.

Take the Seth Jones trade for example, that is exactly what happened before that trade took place. It’s pretty common.

But again, I agree that a players value is absolutely impacted by whether or not an extension is in place and if a team agrees to a trade for a player on an expiring deal and the team ends up extending the player later like the Nick Leddy deal for example, then no, that extension should not be taken into account in the trade.

Can Boston even afford that-

Next offseason would dictate that with about $20m+ Coming off the books with Pastrnak to re-sign. So, it’s conceivable; I don’t believe they go into rebuild mode once Bergeron & co are gone.

My point is that being able to speak with a player's agent prior to the deal determines whether or not a team will trade for a player at all, but does not affect the trade return.

A team like LA isn't in the market for rentals, so if they called up Yzerman and said "Hey we're interested in Larkin, can we talk to his agent about an extension before we do a trade?" If Yzerman said no, Blake just hangs up the phone and no deal gets done. If Yzerman says yes, and Blake and Larkin's agent work something out, then the Yzerman and Blake work out a return for the 1 year remaining on Larkin's contract. The extra 8 years that Blake and Larkin's agent agreed to have no bearing on the return at all.

Yeah, that’s where we disagree and that’s okay.

You'll find out soon.