I think that 2025 pick needs to atleast be a conditional (win 2 rounds it becomes a 1st) or something

I think that's reasonable. I was thinking maybe another prospect but I can't see LA moving someone like Spence without a LD coming back

Honestly, I don't see either team interested in this.

Trotz was quoted as saying to Saros that he's not going to consider trading him unless a "franchise altering player" that's "too good to pass up" is offered in return. Nothing like that is going to Nashville here.

It makes no sense for LA to give up a Kings' ransom for Saros now. They're not able to negotiate an extension until July 1, and paying a huge haul before then gives Saros' camp a ton of leverage in contract negotiations, just like it did last year for Gavrikov. Blake couldn't afford to let Gavrikov walk after giving up a 1st round pick for a rental, so Gavrikov took him to the cleaners and extorted an extra $1M AAV out of the Kings because he knew Blake would pay whatever he wanted. Saros could tell Blake that he wants the Bobrovsky contract, otherwise he's going to test UFA.

Any deal for Saros won't happen until July 1, and will either be for a return suitable for 1 year of a quality goaltender (i.e. significantly less than the reported asking price), or with a signed extension in place at the time of the trade.

The picks aren't enough value, and I don't see NSH having much interest in any of those players. They aren't going to looking to add depth wingers, when they've got Tomasino, Evangelista, Pärssinen, Kemell, L'Heureux, Schaeffer, Afanasyev etc., all vying for roster spots now and in the near future.

Can you link where Trotz said that? I also said that this probably isn't enough for Nashville in my description.

I think you are being pretty unreasonable with your expectations from the LA POV. Even if Saros were to ask for 10M (though I imagine it will be more in like with the Hellebuyck deal) it's the exact same year that the Gavrikov contract comes off the books.

I said as much in my description. Then as @littlejerryseinfeld suggested I think the 2025 2nd being a conditional 1st makes it more fair. As for the wingers. Grundstrom is a 4th liner, and simply there to make the cap work Not sure how that conflicts with your aforementioned prospects as you really don't want to be playing them on the 4th line. You could also just not qualify him too.

Arvidsson could also be flipped to a 3rd team in this proposal (admittedly being lazy in that regard) or brought back as a familiar face and and mentor. He is certainly an upgrade over Trenin on the 2nd line at least.

Also of those prospects Parssinen and Afanasyev are the only guys who should be considered for a call up before the end of the year

The ESPN broadcasters on the LA vs. Nashville game last night (Buccigross and Campbell-Pascall) were talking about it and quoted Trotz directly.

It doesn't have to do with what's fair and what's not, but rather extension negotiation leverage. If Blake trades for him now, he has none, and that's a lesson that was hard learned after the Gavrikov debacle. Even if the Kings could afford $10M, they absolutely shouldn't pay that much for a goaltender. But how much would it cost the Kings to convince Saros to not wait and see what he could get on the open market? For Gavrikov it was roughly a $1M AAV overpayment, along with the player's desired term (2 years), a full NMC, and maximum signing bonuses.

I thought Arvidsson was the guy who was just in there to make the cap work. If he's out week to week right now, there's no way NSH is going to able to flip him at the deadline for anything.

I just don't think it's a strong enough return that NSH should be adding a player with value at the deadline, and their last retention spot to Saros here.

Trenin's not a second line player, but then Tomasino isn't a fourth liner either. Brunette's line combos don't make sense, aside from the top line. Still, many of those young players I mentioned are the kind of player who could be thrive in a bottom six role, without it being considered a waste of their skills (Afansyev, L'Heureux, Schaeffer, Pärssinen). I think it'd be a good idea to try and recreate the magic NSH briefly had with the Herd line (Jeannot-Sissons-Trenin), than what they've been doing this year - putting guys like Tomasino or Evangelista with plugs like McCarron and Smith, instead of skill players.

I mean I think it's pretty unrealistic to expect a franchise altering player for Saros. Carolina's not going to give up Necas and New Jersey seems to have made Mercer a non-starter. So it really comes down to Holtz vs Turcotte in this situation. I think both are fine prospects still with top 6 potential but not elite potential. One more of an offensive player and the other more of a 2-way game (I think you can figure out who is who).

Again I don't get this line of thinking at all. Like your POV on extending players is that 1) if you trade for them you have to extend them, and 2) they all expect to be be overpaid. Did you not trade and extend Fiala in a similar way? He had full arb rights when LA negotiated with him so he held most of the cards. Maybe your issue with the GM instead?

Yes, I agree that it's unrealistic to expect that in return for Saros. However, I think the main point here is that the Preds aren't actively shopping him. Trotz is listening to offers and essentially saying that if someone is willing to come along and dramatically overpay, then they'll do it. Otherwise he's not going anywhere. At last year's trade deadline, Trotz reportedly wanted BOTH Byfield and Clarke for him, which was obviously a non-starter. This year, I think he wants at least one of them, in addition to some draft capital. I think that's equally unlikely.

My thinking here is in line with expecting the Kings to have to pay a "franchise altering" sum to get Saros in a trade, and you don't do that for 1 year of a goaltender. Minnesota allowed the Kings to negotiate with Fiala before trading for him, and the extension was signed minutes after the trade was announced. If there was a chance that Fiala wasn't going to sign, they never would have done the deal.

I do have my share of issues with Blake, but that's not really relevant to the issue here. If the Kings can acquire Saros for a modest price to where it wouldn't be such a big deal if he walked next summer, then I'd be all for it. From all reports, that's not going to happen. If they're going to dramatically overpay for him, then they need to be damned sure that, like Fiala, there's a long-term extension signed minutes later, and that can't happen until July 1.