I think I saw it may be long term for Benning but idk.. we’ll see. But idk if the Avs would want Benning if he’s going to have only like a dozen games or hockey.

Burroughs in playing RD!
I admit he isn’t like a defensive god but he’s look very good, and even Quinn stated he’s been over utilizing him/ putting him in more difficult situations then maybe he should.

I think he’s been great. Idk what his value is - I think Quinn and Grier are in love with Burroughs.

Granlund has always been better than folks gave him credit for the last year or so, but I also don't think he has the value you're asking for here. Imo, he's not going to bring a first unless he keeps up this type of production for an extended period. And even then he's not bringing a first plus a Gulyayev type prospect.

The Rangers trade is optimistic but closer. Something comparable from Colorado would be a first and Johansen. Gulyayev or a first is at least somewhat reasonable, but Gulyayev and a first is not.

A few overpayments, but that NYR Sharks probably shouldn't do.

It might be better/more realistic for MG to use the one retention this year for Duke/AB maybe for a 2nd and then again next TDL if Granlund is still playing well.

He was certainly tough enough so maybe that's what Quinn & Grier like, and yes he was RD in Colorado. IIRC at one point he had one Jacob MacDonald on his left and they didn't actually look bad.

1st off Gulyayev IS a top 5 Avs prospect, 2nd Avs don’t trade 1st rd picks, they’ve done it once under the current regime and that when they got caught in a bidding war with no goalie, 3rd nobody is giving SJS a 1st for Granlund after the tire fire that was last year much less a 1st AND a guy they just picked in the first round. This year because of the cap situation of all the contenders it’s been a buyers market, but trying to stay constructive the team I wonder if they do something is AZ I don’t think a 1st is remotely possible but if he produces at the current rate somebody should bite. I would warn against using some comps, like Eller or just about anything TB does because they are willing to overpay for a specific guy for a specific reason.

Love the optimism but I don’t think a hot stretch of games like this is necessarily going to restore Granlund’s value to be a 1st++. His value is closer to a top 100 pick than it is to a 1st and your top D prospect (like in the Avs trade).

The goal of the game is to put the puck in the net. Spending the assets valued at two 1sts for a guy who scores worse than Logan O'Conner and is not a top 6 guy, is a horrible trade and one the Avs wouldn't make. His secondary skills aren't a need for the Avs. Nice ref with the Bolts trade but, please point out a single trade the Avs have made that was that desperate. Closest is Timmins and a 1st for a top goalie in Kuemper.

Now you just being silly.

Therein lies the rub.......the part I've outlined in bold. Which can be used to both support or oppose your arguments. Certainly you've put time into it and kudos for that. However, not being nasty, that one isn't the smartest statement you've made. I could make the same comment about your beliefs about Granlund you see? You're a fan and GMs may not see it the same as you. I'm a fan and GMs may not see it the same as me. Holds no value in a debate other than its basic truth that GMs and fans often don't see things the same.

When we look at comparisons (and I've just glanced over names mentioned through the thread - Bertuzzi I'm not even commenting on as I hate even typing the name or anything even after this length of time and it being the nephew) it's always tricky. Eller was brought in (and overpaid for to my mind) to do a specific job and to me it didn't work out. Others may have a different view but I thought he was pretty much garbage (as was Sturm when the Avs tried him, regardless of being part of the cup winning team, and Brassard sometime earlier). Maybe that's just not having time to develop chemistry and that might be part of why sometimes it's better to make no move at all. BUT the Avs management SPECIFICALLY were looking for someone to do that defensive C job. Tampa specifically went after (and massively overpaid for) Jeannot to be a specific type of player with the upside of only being 24? 25? at the time and hoping his totals would bounce back somewhat. As was pointed out above about Greenway also having the age/untapped potential factor to add in, regardless of how things may have turned out (and hindsight is a very accurate science). There were also elements of team control with those guys. So I think the question is to a great degree, what SPECIFIC role is Granlund going to fill for what team? What you can then get back will depend on how badly that team feels the need to fill that role.

TheEarthmaster also makes a good point about whether the second year would be harmful to his rental value and I guess that is probably more on a 'cap fit'. For example for the Avs I would argue harmful as they are that tight against it so whilst not necessarily reducing how he's valued it would be likely to negate any chance of a trade. Doesn't get more harmful than no deal if you're wanting to move him for assets.

TDL deals (or ones approaching the TDL) are often a gamble and have us as fans shaking our heads (Jeannot even reputedly had other GMs shaking theirs but.....Chiarot anyone?) Even deals like the one for Lehkonen had Avs fans (me included) grumbling at the cost (I'm waiting for the Avs to acquire Monahan for a first and then I will officially quit CF, especially if they go on to win another cup lol). It turned out to be a great move even though more often than not it would appear they don't really pan out. It's why we're armchair GMs not the real thing after all, but from what I've seen over the years no move at all is often the best move. I think sometimes it's a 'Be seen to be doing something' action.

IF I were to put a value on Granlund it's probably a high 2nd to late 1st and maybe a middling prospect you could work with if you're lucky and if he continues to perform as he has been. His overall career will be a factor, his age, term possibly. He's better than some give him credit for but I also don't think he would bring some of the returns you're expecting above but then the teal tint to your glasses can never be totally removed any more than the burgundy one on mine no matter how hard we try to be fair lol.

You guys are saying he's a 2C but he's only a 2C *on the San Jose Sharks*. Most contending teams wouldn't be acquiring Granlund with the intention of playing him in a 2C role. On the Rangers, on Vegas, on Edmonton, he would be a 3C at best, probably a winger and very likely not in the top six.

Now it's possible for depth players to be worth a 1st round pick-ish- Coleman, Goodrow, JG Pageau. The difference is all of those guys were much younger, and most of them were dirt cheap (cap wise). One of you says it's a non-starter to retain, the other says obviously the sharks should retain if it gives the assets. This is something the Sharks brass will have to reckon with and that will greatly affect the market due to his term.

At the end of the day, rival GMs (much like rival fans being critiqued!) are not going to be tuning in every night to watch Mikael Granlund play either. They're going to be looking at the production (good!), they're going to be looking at the underlying numbers (mostly bad! though the last 9 games have been decent). And they're going to watch some tape that an intern stitches together. Then around February they'll start tuning in more. So for his value to raise, he's going to have to play this well for more than the 9 games he has. By OPs own math he hasn't had more good games than bad this year and yet his value of a first round pick is unassailable? C'mon.

And if this wasn't clear- teams can talk themselves into doing stuff all the time. The Leafs traded a 1st for Foligno. The Lightning traded a 1st for Savard. These were dumb moves, but the price was still the price. So can some GM talk himself into trading a 1st for Granlund? I'm not putting it past anyone. But if, as OP says, we're talking about what I- as the GM of a generic TDL buyer- would do: I've got Ryan Dzingel in the back of my head still and regardless I have to see more than 9 games. I can't remember a 1st round pick being traded on the basis of 9 good games before.

Yeah no Avs declined

Granlund also has a history now of not performing when traded. I'd hope NHL GMs would see he's done this twice now and not trade a ton of assets for him.

2019 after being traded by the Wild to the Preds - 16 games played, 1 goal and 4 assists, then 1 goal and 1 assist in 6 playoff games.
2023 after being traded by the Preds to the Pens - 21 games played, 1 goal and 4 assists

He's PRODUCING as a 2C. With Duclair and Zetterlund as his wingers. It's not that he's playing 2nd line minutes, it's that he's literally playing like a 2nd line Center. Also if you seriously think GMs are making trades without scouting the player you're insane. They're NOT fans, it's their job to have people look at these players and not just look at some Jfresh card or their statline. You are aware organizations have NHL scouts right?

And you're wrong, he had 8 games to start the year where the entire team was bad and he was dealing with an injury. Since then he's been consistently phenomenal on both sides of the puck.

Agree with you, do not really understand the people saying he's not even worth a 2nd, personally I would want a good prospect and a pick or a first and a mid round pick
at 2.5m with the way he has been playing that is an absolutely fair deal

Sure, he's a 2c on the sharks, but how about a 3C on a true cup contender. at 2.5m that easily fetches a late first or a good prospect and a mid round pick.

I agree though, He has to play well for more than 9 games

I am sure this post is based on the premises that granny keeps playing well though

Respectfully, if granny plays like this up until the deadline, at 2.5m for 2 years he is worth a lot closer to two late firsts than the 100th overall pick

(before anyone kills me for saying this, I know his value isn't 2 firsts lol, just making a comparison)

Maybe 1 of our RHD?

I mean, if it's a 1rst you do it, but you won't convince most Sharks fans of retaining more than this year. For a 1rst, I would. Reason to keep is 1 more year and Cooch's availability next year?

Man, if Benning is hurt, I's hate to lose Burroughs, he eats up most of the minutes at RD.

Think I've only seen a couple of Sharks games this year outside of vs the Avs if I'm honest. May have to watch more to see how Burroughs is doing. Always thought he showed some promise. At least got them twice vs the Avs to watch during the hols.

This goes with one of my caveats on TDL moves. Some players take longer to develop chemistry rather than being bad players (I'd argue it's part of what the Avs are going through atm with a bunch of new guys and the Skipper out as well as there's no question to my mind Landy is the Avs 'glue') so they aren't necessarily good additions at the TDL, whereas some can slot straight in (rare imo). They can even sometimes be a negative, not because they're bad players, just that they damage chemistry that is already there. Subtraction by addition.

Bertuzzi is a different player. Granlund was just traded for a 2nd wasn't he?