IF we're trading Fiala, and IF it's for a package of futures (as opposed to an established or soon to be established top six center), it would absolutely need to be something like Holloway and a 1st at minimum. No 2nd, no lesser prospect. Holloway and a 1st is the bare minimum it should take to get Fiala.

I agree, but people get really sensitive about their prospects and picks on this site.

Oilers are super high on Holloway though and I really don't think he's on the table. Cap space is overly valuable with the flat cap and I think there's a decent chance they get an impact player while on his ELC. Likely a trade for Fiala to Edmonton doesn't work.

My gut take is that IF Fiala has to be moved for futures, we should wait a year and play him with Kaprizov. We don’t need the cap space this year, and I feel that a full 82 with Kap would result in a career 70+ point year for Fiala. Which obviously drives his value way up.

Not bad. D corps is solid. I'd prefer to keep Fiala and pass on Landeskog. It'd be a lot of $ to commit to another player that isn't a true #1 center. On that 2nd line you could have Boldy at LW and Fiala RW.

I agree. If you're signing Landeskog for 7.5Mx4yrs why wouldn't you want the younger Fiala for 6.5Mx5yrs?

It’s not that I don’t want Fiala. Essentially, these moves would be like trading Fiala for Landeskog, Holloway and a 1st.
Yes Fiala can be game-breaker, but in return they get a skilled, top line wing who plays a heavy game, takes face offs, and would be a huge influence on the youngsters coming up. In addition, they also get another high end C prospect and the 1st. The Wild are going to need as many high end prospects as they can get for years 2-4 of the buyouts.