Edited Feb. 21, 2021 at 12:52 a.m.
Benkel, you did a great job creating a trade that reflects the Duchene trade from 2017. Almost to a T in terms of comparable prospect values.
The problem is comparing Duchene to Hertl. When he was traded, Duchene was a year younger than Hertl is now, had a higher draft pedigree and had accomplished more in the NHL -simply a bigger name - and most importantly was scoring at .73 PPG for a bad Colorado team vs .62 PPG for Hertl on a Sharks team that had been good up until last year. The players aren’t as close as you want them to be and you should not expect the return to be that close.
You’re also underestimating the roles that the specific teams played in that deal. Nashville had a logjam on defense and Ottawa was loaded with picks and prospects. The Bruins are far from deep in the pipeline and thus more attached to their prospects. Nashville didn’t see a long-term spot for Girard; Boston will put Studnicka just about anywhere to get him in the lineup. Bowers was a JAG prospect for Ottawa, Beecher is Boston’s best unsigned prospect. And Kamenev and Lohrei is the one comparable you missed in my opinion. One was older and already establishing his pro value while the other is a long-term project with higher upside.
The point is that the Bruins simply won’t make this deal because you think Hertl is the new Duchene. They aren’t as close as you like and the situation isn’t the same. The Sharks likely get one of those three top prospects and then one or two lesser prospects and maybe a pair of seconds or a 2022 first. In my opinion, the Sharks should still take that rather than risk Hertl walking.
(Also, keep the Perfection Line together and put a healthy Kase on the Czeching line, DeBrusk on the third line, Ritchie on the fourth line. Looks great)