Swap Foote for Johnsson. SJ isn't getting 2 first rounders and a 1st in a stacked draft

Assuming this deal would be made at the 22-23 TDL in which Johnsson would actually HAVE to be part of the deal for the money to work

Agree, SJS should be willing to take on some cap.

I think that's way too much for Meier, Holtz alone should cover most of his value.

I think that’s a bit rich for Meier both trade and contract but that’s a hell of a roster

Holtz and the 23 1st plus taking on Johnson for Meier seems fair. I would even throw in a 4th.
If you want to push it to the 24 1st I think adding in a D prospect (walsh or Mukhamadulin) or a 2nd is fair, not big on foote to be honest.

Holtz ceiling is less than that of Meier's now by most pundits and it's not like Meier is older being only 26.
and you have to pay more for talent now otherwise you would be keeping Holtz.

Seems like the Sharks should keep him then.
Someone get this message over to Grier.

Don't think it'll get you out of paying a 1st (tho could be later year). Ignoring the ceiling debate you're swapping unknown for something known. One ready now vs one ready later to fit each team's time frame better. E.g. if the offer is just Holtz + 2nd I hope SJ just keeps him and doesn't get fleeced

I couldn’t agree more. even if Holtz has a higher ceiling you have to overpay for a plug and play who has 6-7 years of prime left vs someone who needs to still be groomed and is 3-4 years from his potential ceiling.

Any reasonable trade comp for Meier gives Sharks very little room to get that much more than a 7th overall draftée in Holtz:
Mark Stone = Blue chip prospect + auxiliary pieces
Kevin Fiala = pick #19 (in a weaker draft) + one pretty good prospect
JT Miller = pick #20 + auxiliary pieces
Taylor Hall = pick #20 + decent prospect + auxiliary pieces

Given that no GM other than Grier will be inclined to sign Meier to his 10m QO he is to be priced as a rental.

Per game theory, Meier's price wouldn't change much at all if there's a reasonable extension attached due to the extension not being a benefit given by Grier / the Sharks.
In other words, Meier chooses where he wants to extend, not the Sharks.
Therefore there's no added payment given to the Sharks in a trade for Meier.

That's also why this talk of Holtz's ceiling relative to Meier and overpayment doesn't apply in the case of Meier, Grier is already working from a losing (rental) position.
The Sharks will either sign Meier to his QO, extend him themselves or deal him at a rental price to the suggested comps above.

What about negotiating an extention with another team as part of a trade which doesn't lock him at rental price? Lots of variables here and I think giving Meier away for cheap or for those example comps is going to be the least likely occurrence. We all seem to agree he will most likely just stay in SJ but nobody knows what Meier wants at this point.

Grier doesn't have the ability to leverage a hypothetical extension against an increased return of assets.
This is due to a negotiated extension is not a benefit that Grier can provide his trade partner, that's purely down to Meier and his agent.
Therefore that extension should not be priced into Meier's trade return.

What's stopping all 3 parties discussing a potential trade together with Meier accepting the intended destination team giving confidence that he'll extend for a reasonable amount before the trade is initiated?

I don't think the scenario you're describing is realistic in the NHL.
As the buying GM, why would you have one conversation with two parties (Grier and Meier) where two deals would need to be negotiated (trade return + contract extension) instead of two separate conversations with each party limited to the subject matter each party is interested in?
Furthermore, as the player in this scenario, why would you want to put yourself in a situation where you gave up control of where to be dealt to by agreeing to an extension before having the terms of the trade set?

For such a thing to go down you'd have to find a GM buyer that would be perfectly fine with giving up leverage (and subsequently an increased amount assets) for... what reason exactly? A marginally smoother trade process? To give a competing team a better trade return as an act of kindness? To have a better relationship with Grier for any other deals in the future?

Because tge GM wants the player and the trade may not happen otherwise at the price offered to Grier. Grier approached you allowing you to talk to Meier's agent to work out details of an extention prior to a trade taking place to have more certainty.


I don't understand. In this scenario of negotiating before the trade Meier is still in control of saying yes or no to the destination team. And there there is motive behind players deciding to take a big long term deal avoiding uncertainty. Things would only go awry if people go back on their word.


What leverage for buying GMs? Grier doesn't have to trade Meier or trade Meier to a specific buyer. Meier and Grier have the leverage but as the buying GM you can be more confident you'll get the extension you want by being able to work out the details of it before the trade with the player/player's agent

Yes that's true.
But that doesn't mean that Grier is in a position to ask for Star Player value with term.
Remember that no GM (other than Grier) would sign Meier to his 10m QO.
So the only thing you are buying from Grier is Meier as a rental + UFA negotiation rights (UFA as such that no GM trading for Meier would QO him at 10m). And such negotiation rights typically hold the equivalent value to a late rd pick.


Also true, Grier doesn't have to trade Meier.
But given that he's looking at a rather extensive rebuild with the Sharks, his best course of action would be to trade Meier this season or the next season after giving Meier his 10m QO.
I mean sure, Meier could extend with the Sharks but isn't that rather unlikely at this point?
Aren't all these Meier-trade ideas indicative of the community heavily expecting his imminent departure?

I understand that I might not be expressing myself perfectly clearly, I'm not the best writer (and certainly not in my second language) but the gist of what return Meier could possibly receive may be understood by asking yourself this question: how does the return for trading Meier this season (as an RFA with a 10m QO) differ from trading him next season (as a pending UFA)?
I think the answer to that question is that the return would be pretty much the same both seasons (assuming he plays at a similar level next year as this year).
And that return, in either case, would be equivalent to a rental star winger, as per the comps I suggested earlier today.