Absolutely nothing. Don't want Marner and his potential 12m price tag next year.

Mitch Marner's play style goes against everything that LA had a problem with in last year's playoffs. He's a great regular season player, no doubt. But he doesn't fit what LA needs, and his exorbitant cost will prohibit any trade. I see zero chance LA actually goes for him, the media just needs things to get clicks and discussion going.

But let's think about it for fun, cause that's what this site is for and you requested a conversation instead of just proposing something dumb, which I respect. Let's assume LA is the only place he says "Yes, you can trade me there, otherwise I'm staying with Auston". And let's assume LA is willing to entertain offers.

The first thing Toronto says is "We want Byfield or Clarke" to which LA says "QB is our only heir to Kopitar and Clarke is our only heir to Doughty. Marner doesn't have the ability to replace either of them as heir to those respective positions on the team. Therefore, they are off the table. Period."

Most other players worth anything on the Kings also have NMC's or NTC's. The one person that doesn't is Trevor Moore. He fits the window Toronto is trying to win in and was a 30+ goal scorer this past year. I'd imagine he'd have to be a part of the trade. Without retention on Marner, a swap of those two players brings the net cap still at $6.7mil coming to LA, which is clearly unmanageable. With 50% retention, net is ~1.2mil coming to LA which is doable. I'd argue that the retention in and of itself would be worth a 1st round pick in a normal situation, but this is not normal because Marner has full control of where he goes. Think the Tarasenko trade this past season and how it handcuffed the return Ottawa got. So my guess is LA argues that a 1st round pick and a prospect covers both the difference in skill between Marner and Moore AND the retention. Toronto obviously doesn't like that.

LA's offer for Marner 50% retained, under the impression that it would be a rental because they couldn't afford the expected 7mil increase on cap the next year (if Marner only signs for 12mil), would probably look something like:

Moore
1st 2024 (#21)
Pinelli

I would argue against LA making the trade, because it seems more lateral than anything. Doesn't address any of the real needs of the team. And I know Toronto fans are going to come for me in response. The two teams just don't make good partners. I'd argue almost no team makes a good partner for a Marner trade and the 95% probability is that he stays in Toronto.

Awesome. Great response....

You wanted an answer and you got one.

Well put and well thought out from an LA perspective, which is exactly what I was after. I can't say I agree with the assessment of Marner as I think recency bias is playing a huge part in your thoughts. He's been a great playoff performer in previous years including 22 points in 18 games over the prior two seasons. He's just shy of a point per game on his NHL career in the playoffs and plays some of the toughest minutes of any star player including top PK duty. He was also a huge part of many deep playoff runs in his jr career including a memorial cup win in his final playoff where he had 44 points in 18 games and was a +30. The fact that he's bad in the playoffs is IMO media driven. I also don't think Toronto is handcuffed as much as people thing they would be. I believe Marner is willing to accept a trade, obviously to a location of his liking, but I don't think he limits the leafs to 1 team. Its not in his best interest to make it public that he's open to it as the fans and media would be even more all over him.

did I though? no need to be an A-Hole. keep scrolling by