Seattle

Anaheim says no

Oh, Seattle says no as well imo

Oh, and Kane, Tanev, and maybe Domi, too

Damn bro you came hard had to do me like that

What’s crazy I think Seattle would take this marner for McCann straight up is lopsided McCann and tanev for marner seems doable Robby and Lilly for larrson if he doesn’t sign seems like an overpayment what’s the reason?

And Marner, and McCann.

If Marner waives, and Seattle is interested and Larsson agrees, it's going to be closer to Larsson straight across for Marner. Robby and Lilly for Larsson isn't even close in the same way that Tanev and McCann isn't even close for Marner.

My man did you just say larsson for marner lmao calm down bucko

Any Toronto fan that thinks they are getting better than that is going to be disappointed. Toronto is trading at such a disadvantage in any deal involving Marner because Marner controls where he gets traded, if he gets traded, and if Toronto even gets anything in return.

This is just wrong and kinda hilarious but I’ll give you a break seeing how you just started watching hockey but I’d bet my life that marner will get more then a 31 year old UFA they would just keep him and let him walk

LOL. That's rich from someone who started a thread over who would say no. Obviously you would.

As a Kraken fan, I don't think the value in a vacuum is horribly lopsided in either direction, although McCann/Tanev might be a bit light for Marner while Liljegren/Robertson is a touch light for Larsson. However, I think this trade idea dies for a couple of reasons:

1. Toronto is almost certainly on McCann's no-trade list in no small part due to how they handled him in the expansion draft.
2. I believe Seattle will pursue all avenues to acquire more offensive talent that don't involve trading key pieces from their roster before considering a deal like this. If they trade away too many key components, it would undercut the whole point behind trying to make the current team better in the first place.

FWIW, I don't think Larsson or McCann are deal breakers for Seattle in a potential Marner trade (the only ones I would give that label to are Beniers, Dunn, and Wright). However, I doubt the Kraken would be willing to lose them both for the reasons outlined above.

Honestly, I have a hard time seeing Marner being dealt at all this offseason. A lot of the trade speculation seems to be driven by Leaf fan wishcasting rather than anything concrete. He's shown no indication of being willing to waive his NMC and his lofty cap hit + contract status are significant complicating factors in a deal. I have a feeling this ends like the Nylander speculation last year; Marner stays and either extends midseason, is traded at the deadline, or walks after next year.