So, you won't trade for anyone that isn't under "team control"? If so, you should be come a Coyotes fan. Good luck finding an upgrade with goalscoring that is already under "team control" for more than 2 years.

Lol. Someone doesn’t pay attention to how the FO works

I didn’t say you did Herb, I was allowing a spot for the masses to insert their own favorite trope. I do like that it made you laugh out loud however, we can always see the positives in things.

As an example, if the Canes agreed to a deal for Nylander with the Leafs but they wanted an extension as part of it (assuming Leafs agree) - that is optimal. They then know what Nylander is looking for and have that information to make informed decisions on.

Marner is more expensive, with more long term uncertainty…and you can make the argument that Nylander fits what the Canes need more than Marner.

That is my logic

3 things:
1) The Canes know they are in a cup window right now. They even stated publicly (for the first time) that they would potentially be willing to move a 1st round pick for a rental at the last trade deadline. Times have changed as this core ages.
2) Neither Pesce nor Necas are under team control for more than the next 2 years
3) You are correct, this Canes FO would never give up a good asset (3rd round pick or higher or a good roster player/prospects) for players that aren't under team control for at least 3 years - Trochek, Ghost, Vatanen, Edmundson, Bear, Hakanpaa, etc...

I can completely understand your point that Nylander may fit the team needs more effectively than Marner. And I totally understand and would prefer if Nylander comes with a 7 year extension. I just don't see how it makes sense to prefer a 1 year rental (and "we'll talk in July") vs a 2 year contracted player (purely from a conceptual perspective). You can talk extension with either of them at any time once they are on your team. And I think the cost certainty for Marner is much more clear than Nylander (who is currently underpaid). Marner may not even get a raise with his next deal... We will see. In other words, you already have the cap space allocated for Marner. You may not for Nylander.

I would not trade for a ‘we will talk in July’ rental.

All those pieces you mentioned aren’t even supporting your argument. They are doing the opposite. 3rd round picks aren’t “good assets.”
We gave up a bust for Hakanpää
We got back bokk who had control with Edmundson. So that doesn’t support your point
Tro, we traded a fallen out rental and a bunch of low level pieces. Not talking high level, nhl roster players.

You tried to make a point terribly.

Check necas. He is a RFA after his deal, he definitely has team control. They didn’t say they would move a first for a rental, they said they would be aggressive for the right piece.

I'll reiterate point #1 - times are definitely different

For 2 - My understanding is Necas is only under team control until '25, right? So 2 more years? Maybe it's 3? Regardless, he won't be cheap anymore and can leave if he'd like as a UFA. Pesce is not under team control beyond this year. Plus, in this deal, we'd be getting Lilegren who would be under team control as well. So, it's still 2 guys in with 2 or more years of control with 1 going out.

For 3 - again, see point #1. AND, a 3rd round pick for a 3 month deadline acquisition isn't all that much different (in terms of value) than a 1st for a 2 year "rental". The point is simple... even the "asset control" Canes have given up picks and prospects for rentals and short term commitments. I'll admit, I laughed when typing Vatanen and Hakanpaa The deal that is most similar to what is proposed on this thread is Troch... The Canes gave up a lot of assets for a 2 year "rental" and nobody had a problem with it. We can look back now, evaluate how the assets spent have turned out, and say we won that trade. But we still only had Troch for 2 years! We gave up a 1st for 3 years of Skjei who was a much larger gamble than acquiring a Mitch Marner. I just don't see a big difference... Marner would be here for 2 years minimum. And I think he'd be a relatively easy negotiation to keep beyond as he already makes a huge salary so there won't be this 30-40% jump in a salary request. This isn't some prized & controlled asset dump for a rental.

I just don't see how contending teams (in the case the Canes) say to an important member of their team...."We want your ass outta here, so hurry up and sign an extension so we an trade you the Leafs. But if can't come to an agreement on an extension to the Leafs, you are welcome back to the Canes family as we go on another Cup run."

Because it’s a sign and trade… there is no extension with the Canes. The contract being signed is for the Leafs. This literally happens all the time. Like a day ago with PLD.

You have to be kidding if you think it was the same. PLD was an going to a RFA July 1st....free to sign with any team in the NHL (with compensation going back to the Jets).
Pesce in under contract for one more year to the Canes.

Pesce can sign an extension with Car at any time. If the contract parameters are too pricey for the Canes liking then signing it with the intent to trade to Tor is exactly the same thing. It garners a higher return because Pesce comes with term. Win had team control for a full year as well. Nobody was going to sign PLD to an offer sheet. This is literally no different. PLD wasn’t moving to the team of his choice until next summer either.