Leafs can have Joonas Korpisalo for David Kampf in a 1 for 1 swap.

No way the Sharks retain on Granlund, even if they had a retention slot left, which they do not (surprised the sim didn't catch that). Granlund has proven value this season and if that continues will be a stronger draw at the TDL.
That being said, given the state of the Shark D, I think they listen to other potential deals that include Niemela.

well the Sens sure aren't giving you positive value for that Kampf contract

If Marner's contract had Pulock's term, or maybe even Varlamov's, then Toronto would say No. But since it only has one season left, the Islanders say No.

They are giving up their apparent #2 RD who is about to turn 30 and an ancient back up goalie for a world class top 5 RW. It's obvious that any Marner trade would come with an extension. Or the understanding that he will sign one upon arrival. This is a grossly 1 sided trade. The Marner hate is insane.

He's not "a world class top 5 RW"; he's a world class top 5 RW with only one season left on his contract. Why do you have such difficulty processing the fact that time affects value? Moreover, why do you project people "hating" Marner? The only antipathy for Marner the player that I see comes from Toronto fans who allege that he's soft, doesn't show up for the playoffs and isn't worth a bloated contract figure, whereas outsiders criticize Marner trades only because his contract makes him a lame duck. Obviously, if Marner comes with an extension at an absorbable cap hit, then this trade favors the Islanders, but I don't think that NY's current cap situation would permit such an extension. There's a reason why my comment focused solely on term.

Granlund is a decent option but I don't see the Leafs giving up anything to get a guy of that quality when they can just go the UFA route and/or slide Domi over to 2C...also as mentioned above SJS have used their 3 retention spots so leafs would need to pay more to a 3rd team...at the TDL 2025...maybe a deal like this could happen if needed

EDIT sorry forgot about your NYI trade...I won't argue over the weight of the deal either way but I actually think its a good deal for the Leafs! Could be its a 3 team deal and Marner goes elsewhere as I feel like NYI already have a guy in Marner's spot (Barzal)

Come on man, use some sense. Anyone saying, it's only 1 year is purposely limiting this discussion to lower his value. Beyond that, rentals go for crazy overpays every year. Every year fans will say any FA they have is worth a first plus. But Marner? He has no value, TO will have to take back horrible cap dumps to make it fair. Essentially making Marner himself a cap dump.

This is disappointing, I have always held you in high regard but your Marner takes recently are purely mob thought, self justification bs talking points.

If Panarin had 1 year left and was traded, he would get five times the value Marner gets. Why is that? How do people think Crosby would have exponentially higher value than Marner? To think all teams would bend TO over a barrel because they are somehow without a choice on keeping or trading Marner is absolutely delusional. If Rantanen was in the block with 1 year left, would people say the same thing? Absolutely not, they would be offering insane packages with the caveat of "an extension would come with the trade". But not Marner. He is a 1 year rental that is a cap dump for some reason.

Pollock is not worth a quarter of Marner and Varlamov is absolutely not needed. This is a gross loss for TO.

I wont argue worth or weight but...
-Pulock is a 1st or 2cd pair RHD (needed)
-Varlamov is a good backup vet G (needed)

Its a decent blue print for a deal although sure maybe I prefer Daccord and Larsson or just getting Montour as a UFA plus a G

I think if Marner is traded (IF) its for Bitcoin...easy to flip assets...1sts and 2cds

I think that you're reading a lot more into people's comments and mine that isn't there.

I've been consistent in saying (repeatedly) that I don't think most Marner trades are realistic not because his value is low but because it is too high and most teams won't want to give up what he is worth, based precisely on what other "rentals" go for both in the off-season and at the trade deadline, so I'm actually in complete agreement with you there. And you ignored (twice) the point I made that my demurrer to this particular deal is based solely on term. You can add all the value from the Islander side that you want and NY isn't going to do it. Look at what Bo Horvat and Jake Guentzel got and tell me that some GM is going to pay what Toronto asks and deserves for a much better player. If Adam Henrique is worth one first-round draft pick, what GM is going to pay 4 or 5 for Marner?

Once again, I repeat: teams will decline Marner trades not because he's bad but because he's too good and therefore will cost too much for the one season that they might have him. And it's pointless to posit an extension included because we don't have any way of knowing whether Marner would accept it or the team could afford it.

He won't be traded I imagine. Doesn't make much sense. No one is going to offer fair price. Keep him, next year will be tough but it gets easier the year after.

The reason they go that route for a Granlund, if we ignore all the reasons it can't work, is the UFA route results in a more expensive player that expects a long-term contract. Especially now that the cap is finally going up, everyone wants a piece of the pie. If they can find someone in the Granlund mold, they get to kick the tires before making a commitment.

You know what I take it back, for Niemala and a 3rd ya I do it! Granlund has just a year left so its a good no risk option!