1 trade from each of the teams id take as a WPG fan:

NJD - Severson + Bratt + 1st + 2nd.

Habs - Domi + 1st.

NYI - Pulock + Bellows + 2nd

Ty smith and Boqvist and a first are a huge no front NJD.

Smith has a argument for best defence prospect.
Boqvist is very very solid and safe to say he’ll be an nhl player (whether he’s great or just good/decent is obviously what we’ll see as he is a prospect and as you said hasn’t proven anything).

Smith is just a no go tho.
Brannstrom fetched mark stone and brannstrom is not as good as smith imo and mark stone is better than Laine easily

Brannstrom is better than smith. I’m not disagreeing, stone is a better player then laine. However laines value is probably higher than his was at the trade deadline.

Montreal wouldn’t give up Domi 1 for 1 tbh

Bergevin would laugh his ass off at Cheveldayoff for such a one sided trade

laine is 6 years younger.... come on bud

THEN STOP TRADING FOR LAINE..... it's obvious MTL fans want him, but they try to trade him for chit... (u have to give to get)

What does that have to do with skill?

Mark stone is an easy top 10 winger in the nhl let alone you can argue he’s top 10 or top 15 forward in the nhl. Laine is not (yet at least he’ll decide if he is the future).

Mark stone is older but it’s not like he’s 32 or “old”.

Be realistic. Mark stone has a 200ft game, amazing in both ends, his takeaway ability is off the chart and he’s still got a hell of an offensive kick

..

what did stone accomplish in the nhl age 21 and under? and what did laine? u cant just compare and 27 year old to a 21 year old and call it fair

You’re literally saying nonnsense. Just because Crosby is old does that de value you him if you traded him for Laine? No.

You clearly don’t understand hockey well if you’re devaluing stone because he’s 27 and wasn’t playing at 21.

Stone > Laine is an easy skill comparison.

Laine has more of a future.

Stone is better now.

It’s simple yet you can comprehend such and easy topic.

nice.. we finally agree!! Stone is easily better than Laine right now.. never said that he isn't. But what we r comparing is trade value... who has more, stone or laine? it's laine easily.. for reasons like age and ceiling etc... if u don't get it by now then pleaz stop embarrassing yourself

You’re embarrassing yourself lmao. You’re saying a guy who’s a top winger in the nhl has less value than a guy who scored 50 points? I’m a Laine supporter he gets more flack than he deserves and is devalued more than he deserves. If I was drafting a team (fantasy draft, not yahoo fantasy), I honestly wouldnt know who to pick. Think about it from a unbiased perspective.

Laine 21 (probably 8-9mil we don’t know yet) maybe 8years?
Stone 27 (9mil) 8 years

We can almost guarantee stone (in his prime) will almost fill out that contract fully with prime hockey. So what hell he 35/36 when it’s done. Maybe 5 years will be his best hockey taking him to 32, now pavelski and burns are 2 examples of guys mid-late thirties still playing some of their best hockey. So let’s be pessimistic and say he’s regressing at 33 (which I don’t think is likely). That means 5/6 years of his contract will be top 10 player in the nhl. That’s a player that is impacting the game every night.

Laine is a tough case. He’s been inconsistent but I mean the guys 21, **** at 21 he’s damn good as you know I don’t have to tell you. A bad year for him is 30 goals lmao imagine saying ah bad year but still scoring 30? That means this player is obviously amazing. Now I think Laine is putting up 40-50 goals this year cause I think everyone trashing Laine is gonna eat **** when it happens and start respecting him again after trashing him this whole offseason. But I’m a fan of neither team. ( I hate Vegas (my 2nd fav team is Ottawa) and I hated playing against mark stone ). Laine is deadly. But mark stone actually scares me, Laine doesn’t, yet.

I think Laine can be a top player in the league within the next 3-4 seasons (for context I don’t consider matthews a top player yet either if that helps, a top scorer yes but not overall, overall he’s maybe top 20 or cusp).

So let’s continue being pessimistic since I was with stone, stone plays prime hockey for the next 5/6 years, Laine becomes a top player after 4 years (doesn’t means bad in those 4 years).

That means if your trying to rebuild yes you can be fine with picking Laine. But if you’re trying to win the Stanley Cup (which if it’s not obvious, that’s the goal, like Winnipeg for example). Stone is the guy to pick as he’s not less valuable because he’s 27. If he was 30 I’d understand your point (8 year contracts starting at 30 are scary sometimes).

Now we stone is a better choice for winning, doesn’t mean Laine CANT be a better choice, just for me if you’re telling me I got a 5 year window, Laine is riskier and risky pays off you gotta be risky sometimes. But stone is safer and safer isn’t always worse. If we’re optimistic both players are amazing for the next 8 years and it comes down to preference, pure scorer 40-50 maybe even 60 goals versus a 70-possibly 80/90 point guy who plays 200ft and takeaway machine.

Lol I'm not going to write 10 pages for an argument.
I'll keep it short.. let's say both laine and stone can be pretty good till 35... which is easily doable for both comparing their trade value right now.... u have 14 years of laine and 8 years of stone. Of the 2 laine has the higher ceiling. Now the main question here is can he reach it? Who knows. I think so he has all the talent he s just to friggen lazy..... which can be fixed with maturity.... so yeah. Laine>Stone. Ps:give him a good center as well