I think I might actually be interested in that deal if I was Chicago. Not sure how the other two teams would feel.

Hate being a buzz kill but that Marner retention puts the Leafs about $3.7m over the cap ceiling.

I've said it and I'll keep saying it: I don't think Marner is a good fit for Pittsburgh. He's only 1 year away from being a UFA, and the Pens are only going to have a couple more years of playing meaningful hockey whether or not we trade for Marner. Would he really want to sign long term through his prime with a team that close to a rebuild? If not, he could easily just walk next summer. If he does, that's going to put the top picks a little further out of the Penguins' reach while they're rebuilding.
Then on top of that, that's the Pens giving up a 1st and 2 2nds (or 2 1sts and a 2nd if Carolina makes it to the finals) for a player that doesn't fit their timeline particularly well.

CHI is not retaining on Jones. Interesting proposal, though.

CHI would probably welcome the chance to get out from the long-term commitment to Seth. At least I would! But retention is a non-starter, nobody's tying up a retention slot for that long.

TOR fans should probably accept that Marner's real value is to a contender. To trade a guy expecting a massive extension to a rebuilding team...the return is gonna be underwhelming.

That may be. I wouldn't mind if Jones wanted out and CHI obliged, but not for nothing in return. Marner should not be a target, and at best it should be a 1-for-1 with Marner understanding that he must be willing to waive his NMC again at the deadline and be a rental. Even with an extension in place or on the table, I don't want to trade one almost 30 year old with a massive contract for another.

A bland over rated player on a long term over paid deal, for an over rated player on an expiring contract..... Chicago might agree.

In my mind it's a win to swap one guy with a massive contract for another guy with a massive contract with 7 years left on it.

CHI is probably not a smart long-term fit for Marner but if taking him allows CHI to 1) dump Seth Jones and 2) get some kind of 2024-25 deadline haul for Marner, I say that's two wins.

Yes I'm very negative on Seth J. but he's already overpaid for "meh" performance and in 3-4 years it's gonna be one of the worst contracts in hockey.

Honestly, that is fair. I think if we can move jones for positive value and he is willing to do it, it should be a consideration. But, Marner would have to sign off on the entire plan ahead of any sort of trade. He would have to be willing to be a rental and waive at the deadline. Otherwise, we would be giving Jones away for nothing. Which should not be an option, and would be completely unnecessary.

Yeah the NMC for Marner is big. Zero guarantee he'd waive for CHI and then they'd have to trust him to waive again. It's risky.

Jones has still been above average for offense from defensemen the whole time he has been with CHI, and he looks great when he has a legit partner, goaltending and some defensively responsible teammates where he doesn't have to overwork himself and try to do everything himself. Like this season, with guys like Foligno, Dicky, Blacky, and Donato on the ice, Vlasic as a partner, and Mrazek between the pipes, he looked well above average defensively too. And if you consider that he isn't going to have a ton of playoff miles on him like a lot of other players his age, his contract will likely age just fine. The narrative around him is way overblown, and CHI fans have him under the microscope, where something he does gets blasted and another player does it and no one bats an eyelash. I think we need to be more objective, and objectively his contract isn't a problem now nor should it be for the next 6 years. ELC's, bridge deals, and smart planning should be more than enough to make his cap hit manageable if things get kinda iffy.