That definitely wont get Giroux even without retention

Genuinely curious about what you think it would take to get him.

1st + one of Addison/Lambos/Beckman. They would probably want Addison. For retention, that probably cost a 2nd in value

There has to be a 1st included IMO. The retention by Philly has basically no value at deadline since it's only done so the deal can actually be made. I'd say a 1st, Rask (for cap purposes) and a solid prospect gets it done. They could basically pick anybody not named Rossi/Boldy/Wallstedt/Addison/Lambos.

And then Giroux would have to feel comfortable leaving the place he has played for over a decade, but that's another story...

that's a joke right?

I legit am curious what your historical basis for that is (show me the last time a rental player at the TDL got a 1st, 2nd, and a prospect like Addison or Lambos)
(that's pretty significantly better than what Taylor Hall got from ARZ)

I could easily see the ask being 1st, & a 2nd, (Giroux is still top tier) but no more than that

I am still curious what previous trades you would base that off of.

This is strange because I am almost always the one arguing your side. Maybe you value Addison too high? I'm also assuming Minnesota is dumping cap here to make it work

Hall trade returned a 1st + Merkley + Bahl
Duchene traded for a 1st and a conditional resign 1st, as well as Abramov
Assuming the 2nd was the difference between Miller and Namestnikov, McDonagh returned 1st + Howden + Hajek
Stastny trade returned 1st + Foley (he was playing really well in NCAA at the time)
Rick Nash trade returned 1st + Lindgren (and more)
Iginla trade returned 1st + 2 top NCAA prospects.

Again I think this is a difference in perspectives on Addison. Maybe you are right on Lambos though but Addison is in his D+4 year and playing ok

This. And that's exactly why I think buying Giroux is a terrible idea. Love him as a player, I just don't think we'll win the cup with him and a deal like this greatly handcuffs our future.

Would 1st + Addison be fine if they took on Rask though. I also don't think it handcuffs you that much either as Minny has a pretty deep prospect pool

Retention on a rental at the deadline doesn't cost a 2nd. It's a courtesy provided by the team to make the deal happen. That, or taking a cap dump back. These things don't cost extra.

Still hate it. Rask gets a ton of hate but he's a fine player. Cap hit is way too high but he's been great in a depth role for us. I'd actually be pretty happy if we can get him back at $800-900k this offseason.

We do have a deep pool, but our cap is absolutely f'ed with the Suter/Parise buyouts and we're going to need as many ELC deals as we can get.

Yes it does, since when did retention cost nothing? Even at the TDL. It may not cost a 2nd but it certainly isn't free

For a rental? It surely is free. That's how these deals work. The only time retention ever costs anything extra is when a third team gets involved exclusively for the purpose of retention. Retention and cap dumps are tools to make the deals go through, not bargaining chips.

Isn't a 3rd team getting involved proof that retention isn't free? You literally cant prove it is or isn't otherwise

It's a completely different situation when a third team is brought in to retain. That team is getting nothing out of the deal, and needs to be incentivized to join in. The team trading away the rental in a two team trade is already getting the assets from the trade. So no, it's not proof.

You know what, there is no way either of us is going to agree on this so Im just going to drop it and move on

I don't know how people can see what Foligno, Barclay Goodrow, and Blake Coleman cost and not think Giroux is worth a good prospect and a 1st. Its inconceivable he isn't worth twice as much as those guys. I know its different style of play. Those guys were tough forwards, but Giroux is bolstering someones top 2 lines with offensive production. I don't know if he's being undervalued by fans because of how poorly the flyers are playing, but Giroux is quite literally the only one keeping them somewhat competitive game to game this year. Singlehandedly. No one wants to overpay for a rental, but you are asking a team to trade the face of their franchise for the last decade, still playing well. Then if the flyers retain half to make the cap easier to maneuver for the remainder of the year... only enhances value.

Coleman wasn't a rental so that doesn't count. As for Giroux's rental value, nobody will move a blue chip prospect but he should get a return similar to either Hall or Iginla. It should also be noted that Pavelski and Hertl are on the same market and have similar value.

Agreed!! I think HErtl/Giroux will get about the same value, but I'd imagine Pavelski fetching a little less than those 2 imo.

and thats my bad, I thought Coleman was a rental that year. Thanks for the correction.

I dont see why Pavelski should get less, he's the only one of the 3 over a PPG. Goodrow also wasn't a rental for that matter.

Then why would you even suggest Addison be included? You seem to be undervaluing a blue chip prospect pretty badly then if you're willing to go against your own statement and think we'd move him for a rental. Even if that rental is Giroux.

Just because the Wild have sufficient depth at defense that allows us to keep Addison out of the lineup and bouncing up and down between the NHL, taxi squad, and the AHL. Doesn't mean he's not doing well, which he is, or that he's done just ok by your definition or change his status as a blue chipper. He's still seen as a top 4 defenseman in terms of potential, tears up the AHL whenever he's down there and is routinely our best defenseman down there, and had played extremely solid for being so young whenever he's be called up to the NHL. Does he have things to work on? Sure. But his talent is obvious and it's simply a matter of time until he replaces Dumba. Frankly put, he's not available or going to be moved for a rental we wouldn't see past this year.

Same for Lambos. The only one of the 3 you mentioned that would even remotely be on the table is Beckman. One of O'Rourke or Hunt is far more realistic.

Because I don't consider Addison to be as good of a prospect as you do maybe? He is like Merkley from the Hall trade.

You may not like him as much as me or consider him a blue chip prospect by personal opinion. But, it does not change his status as a top 50 prospect in the NHL by fact. So whether you agree with it or not, the Wild will not move what is considered a top 50 prospect for a rental, bottom line.

He's also a much better prospect with a higher potential than Merkley ever did or had.

Not really

It was more about Lambos than Addison, Lambos was just drafted in the 1st, So it sounded more like the ask being two x 1st and a 2nd
(fair enough on Addison, he was a Pens draft pick so I probably have a bit more attachment to him then other people)

the point was more that I couldn't see the return on Hertl/Pavs/Giroux being more than a 1st & 2nd or 1st & (not top) prospect
(Historically that seems to be the price)

Giroux is reportedly gonna cost a 1st + a conditional 2nd + a prospect and I would assume that prospect is to be a decent one