Ugh Vancouver doesn’t want a LHD.
They’re looking for a RHD.

Both Eberle and maroon would be good depth adds for playoffs.IMHO.

Hagg is a depth add, it's unlikely he will see NHL action unless a couple of injuries to the blueline happen, he's not supposed to be an upgrade.

Can't see the hawks tying up a retention slot for anything less than a third. They have a full team of players the can trade with retention to get a better pick

As the post says, it doesn't have to be the Hawks, and that is a fair market value for 1.375M in retained salary on a rental. The Hawks would only get a 3rd if they're retaining on a massive cap hit, like Arizona did with Kane's last year.

Sure but the hawks get tagged in these type of deals all day long. Just trying to get the word out.

The Hawks get tagged because it makes sense for them to capitalize on cap space they aren't going to use anyway. What would you rather have, 9.5M in open cap until July 1st, or 8.2M until July 1st and a 6th-round pick?

They have 2 retention slots and a full team of guys that need retention to be flipped for a better pick than a 6th

How about instead of including Bloom we just agree on a 5th and call it a done deal

Hawks have 7 picks in the first 3 rounds of 2024 draft. Well keep the cash, you keep the pick. As stated before they are going to use the retention slots to trade players already on their roster for MORE than a 6th round pick.

Someone would pay more.

Alright, like I said it could be any team.

The Wild paid a 7th for Maroon at 20% retained and a 22-year-old ECHL player in the offseason. They're getting better value back for 40% retention. I doubt a team pays more for Maroon.

Okay, no problem, if the 5th is too much we'll just keep him.

That's fair market value for Maroon, you don't magically get more value for a player simply because he's on your team now.

Well the Wild have him now, so the Wild get to determine what it takes to acquire him. Like I said, if it's too much, no worries, we'll just keep him.

Okay? It still doesn't change the fact that it's fair market value.

Okay? That still doesn't change the fact that Minnesota declines your trade

It's a fair market deal. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean the Wild won't accept it.

Let me guess, you were that kid who'd say "I'm going to take my ball and go home!," when the game didn't go your way?

The Wild don't have to accept a deal just because you think it's fair market value. There's a reason they acquired Maroon, it's because they want Maroon on the team.

Your team is on pace to miss the playoffs by 15 points. It makes sense to trade UFA-expiring players.

My team is out of a playoff spot by four points in December, and they've finished with over 100 the last two seasons. Regardless of any of that, they're still not obligated to take your deal just because you think it's fair value. Offer something they'll take or live with not getting the player you want. Stop throwing a tantrum because you think they need to give you want you want because you want it.

You're the one who threw a tantrum my guy, you did the "I know you are but what am I?" and "I'm taking my ball and going home!" which is fine, you're welcome to go away with your playground antics. I've provided direct examples for the trades above, why they are fair deals, and you haven't provided any reasoning why Maroon would be worth more, because he isn't. It's a fair market deal, that's my goal with these posts - base it off of real-world trades and the NHL trade market.

Pointing out that your team is .500 in December isn't throwing a tantrum, it's stating a fact. Only one team in the last decade has had a record of .500 or less on December 20th and made the post-season; St. Louis in 2019. Now you're welcome to believe that your team is different, just like the Oilers and Blues fans believe their teams are too, but the odds are definitely against the Wild.

AZ got a 3rd to retain 25% of Kanes total cap hit, which may have been about double the cap hit, but the actual salary owed to Kane for last season was significantly less than what Eberle will be owed at this years deadline. In cases like this, where the cap hit is irrelevant to the third party team, actual dollars matter more, and, even more so, the retention slot itself is worth more than the cap and salary amounts, and CHI only has two of them left. CHI is one of very few teams that could actually do something like this, and the less cap space a team has the more them retaining is worth. So, most other teams are likely going to charge more. So, sorry, but a 6th round pick IS NOT fair market value for third party retention at the deadline, especially not in such a cap strapped deadline.

I strongly disagree. It makes more sense for the Hawks to use their retention slots to move players currently on their roster at the TDL for better returns than a sixth.
Also you did clearly say any team, but the point of posting a proposal is to get feedback from others on what you created. Whatever team you pick will evoke replies from that teams fans.