Yeah Toronto declines that easily, doubt he waives for Chicago in the first place
No point in Chicago giving up assets for rentals either

lol good one

Gotta be bait

If the Leafs move Marner, Leaf fans are going to be disappointed with the return. A couple of late 1sts is about the best they will get and this delivers that.

BTW...keep Lillypad, he was a throw in

Disappointed with the return and netting a worse return than top 6 deadline rentals is a big difference. This is embarrassing

Again, a couple of late 1sts is likely the value, and this trade delivers that. If you think Marner brings back more than a couple of late firsts, or that you feel this isn't worth a couple of late firsts, than by all means argue that instead of making vast generalizations in your responses because you subjectively don't like it

What historical trade precedence leads you to believe this is even remotely true? Everyone on here is acting like its the first time a star with limited years on their deal or with question marks has been traded.

I also love your usage of "subjectively" there when your entire rational behind this is subjective and heavily influenced by clear biases that you seem to have concocted with quite literally no level of objectivity.

This delivers Toronto's own pick, which will likely be in the 20s, and two garbage players. You honestly think Chicago would be the only team interested in getting Marner, even for a season?

Leafs can do much better than this trade, but, yes, it won't be a home run deal. Marner controls his destination and the team trading for him knows that.

In all sincerity...Patrick Kane. I'm not suggesting dumb GMs don't exist, but for the (correct) level of Bananas we all went for the Seth Jones trade. Patrick Kane got a 2nd round pick due to his NMC. I'm NOT suggesting a 2nd is the max. I'm suggesting expect FAR less. At least this way you won't get disappointed.

I just want the Leafs to get the cap space at this point. That's a major win in itself. Anything on top of that is a bonus imo.

A) I'm literally going off by what the Leafs media says with some saying a late 1st and a prospect and others saying a vet solid RHD guy and a late 1st. This fullfills both that and than some
B) Marner not showing up in the playoffs makes him suspect for a team trying to acquire a player for a playoff push next year, thus driving down his value.
C) Marner's history of negotiating his last deal and thus anticipation of a very big cap hit on his next deal, coupled with the normal negative of being a UFA and thus a 1 year rental, doesn't bode well for any long term use for him by an acquiring team.
D) Patrick Kane's return and Kane doesn't disappear in the playoffs like Marner and that is quite literally, the only reason a team will want him. Yes marner will do better than a 2nd, but curb your expectations as the insider analysts are saying and I am here.
E) He's overpaid...clearly

Please feel free to debate so I'll turn the question on you....what historical trade precedence leads you to believe this is unfair? And I love you combating the word subjective when your response is heavily influenced by clear biases that you seem to concocted with quite literally no level of objectivity.....see how easy that is to argue like a child?

Murphy is garbage? LMAO....he literally is better than McCabe who probably was your best if not second best defensive player in the D zone this past season. Ask anyone in Chicago where McCabe and Murphy played on a line together quite often who is better.

Okay I'll address everything in order of which they were presented.

A) Listening to Toronto media about anything speculative is wild especially when the only articles written about Marner thus far have been by bloggers and not actual beat writers or national personalities. Not to mention that negotiations obviously haven't begun so anything that is speculated on is likely for targeted clicks.

B) Marner has absolutely had some serious issues in the playoffs however, he does lead a notoriously bad Leafs playoff squad in points since being drafted. Not to mention he's had some great series in the past so it may or may not be simply a scenery change that is needed to unlock something. Although I will concede that it could have negative effects on his value but they would be pretty small.

C) Marner has a full NMC which again will lower his value but not because it is present but because it will essentially allow him to dictate where he will be traded to should he be willing to waive it. However, because of this NMC, the likely course of action will follow many previous scenarios in which the players agent, in this case Darren Ferris, will be allowed access to negotiate with other teams prior to a move to try and settle on an extension. I would guess that any deal involving Marner, likely comes with an extension. If not, the odds of him being retained on said team should be quite high given that he would have expressed interest in being traded there by waiving his NMC to go there.

D) If we look at the last 5 years, there have been several star level forwards to be moved. These include (in chronological order): Hertl, Guentzel, DeBrincat, Meier, Tkachuk, Eichel.
Now I think almost everyone can agree that Marner is better and more impactful than everyone on that list minus Tkatchuk and Eichel, so we will look at their deals first.

Tkachuk: The context behind this deal starts with Tkachuk informing Flames management that he would not sign long-term and would walk come his UFA eligibility. So we have now established context that this player created full control over his destination with this request similar to the effects of a NMC, slightly diminishing his value. Secondly, he was coming off of his first elite regular season and also had a solid playoffs. Thus establishing his overall value as an elite winger. I'd argue Tkachuk in this situation would be more valueable than Marner given his age, RFA eligibility, and recent performance. However, Marner is the more polished and consistent producer making the gap smaller.
- This deal was essentially just Tkachuk for Weegar + Huberdeau
- Weegar was a solidified top 4 defensemen who was arguably the teams number 2 after a great season
- Huberdeau came off of a career year in terms of production and was poised to be great again as one of the best playmakers in the league
- Both players were on 1-year deals
The basic value of this deal is significantly more than two late firsts. Based off of deadline rental prices (which are of course lower than offseason rentals given the shortened time with player) Weegar would have likely net a first + prospect + mid-level picks at the next deadline and Huberdeau at the same rate of production would have likely net a first + prospect

Eichel: The context behind this deal is very interesting. Eichel started his latest season with the Sabres scoring at his worst rate since his rookie season before getting injured. Within his recovery window it is discovered he needs surgery on his back but the Sabres management refuses to allow him to receive a new and somewhat untested type of disk replacement. Because of this he requests a trade. Eichel has term left on his $10M contract with his future hanging in the balance of this procedure. So, we've established that Eichel is at his near lowest point value wise and because of the nature of the trade request the Sabres have a minimal level of leverage. Not to mention, Eichel has never made the playoffs once in his career. Marner's playoff woes and NMC are clearly nothing in comparison to his situation making him undoubtably the more valuable asset especially if signing an extension with the supposed trade partner.
- the deal was Eichel for Tuch, Krebs, a first, a second and a third.
- Tuch was a solid top 6 forward for Vegas and again using the method from before based off of historical trade deadline deals, would be worth at minimum a second and a third
- Krebs was a first round pick from 2-years prior and showed great promise and production in the AHL and WHL prior to the deal
- The picks obviously speak for themselves

Meier: I wasn't going to include him because he is clearly a tier below as a player in comparison to Marner but I'm rolling. Context to this deal, it was a deadline acquisition with Meier ending up as an RFA with a hefty QO price tag in the coming offseason. He was having another great season with the Sharks before requesting a trade and was hungry to get to a winning team.
- the deal was essentially: Meier + Filler for Mukhamadullin (an A- D-prospect), Zetterlund (a very serviceable middle 6 forward), a first, a second + filler
- given that this deal is mostly prospects, you can't exactly pinpoint prices like with roster players
- Zetterlund was the only roster players and would've been worth likely a 3rd + filler and Mukhamadullin is obviously worth a late lottery first

So yea, here's my complete thoughts on the matter with full levels of objectivity and rationalization based off of the information available to me. I would love to hear how based off of this information Marner is going to be worth two late firsts.

An impressive response. Cheers! One thing, though. Most of those players were significantly younger and under RFA status. In a scenario such as the one @ChiHawk has presented, we would essentially be giving TOR the assets they would normally get minus what could be considered a retention fee. But more of a long-game retention fee. We take him for the season so TOR has cap space, and then move him with retention at the deadline for MORE because we are retaining. CHI gets back what they spent plus a little more for giving TOR cap relief, and retaining, and gets assets that make more sense for their rebuild than Murphy and AA do.

Personally, I don't like the idea of CHI spending anything in trade for him or anyone really. Especially without having thoroughly discussed and confirmed that Marner is completely aware and on board with the idea, and will waive again at the deadline. But, I get the logic and the allure, and it could potentially be a lucrative deal.

I completely agree with this from a Chicago point of view. I can't see any real reason why Chicago would be willing to give up draft or prospect capital to acquire a player like Marner when they realistically could just try and develop those assets into home grown stars. This Blackhawks team is perfectly set up for a fast and effective rebuild, why jeopardize that by trading away great assets.

As you brought up with the RFA eligibility, you're completely right and that was noted. However, I think that's where the thought of a negotiated extension being needed to pull the trigger on any deal is most important. In this specific case, I can't see why Chicago would be willing to commit long-term to an asset commanding the return I mentioned above when he could possibly still be there in the offseason next season. Not to mention, unless theres a highly lucrative deal in place, I can't see Marner waiving for Chicago given their contention timeline.