Welcome to Sound Debate! We’ve never tried this before, but John Barr and I (Darren Brown) have enjoyed conversing offline about whether or not the Seattle Kraken should pursue embattled Toronto Maple Leafs forward Mitch Marner this offseason. Here, we’ve put that discourse into a written format to discuss why Seattle should or shouldn’t attempt to land the high-scoring winger.
To give some context, Marner is an elite playmaking winger and part of the “core four” in Toronto who has come within spitting distance of 100 points on three separate occasions in his eight-year NHL career. His regular season was shortened to 69 games in 2023-24, yet he still managed 85 points (26-59–85) before a relatively quiet playoff series against the Boston Bruins in which he posted a goal and three assists in the seven-game series.
The rub is that the Leafs’ season again ended after one playoff round, and Toronto’s blood-thirsty media is calling for change. Head coach Sheldon Keefe has already been dismissed, and there’s plenty of speculation that the offensive core of Auston Matthews, William Nylander, John Tavares, and Marner could have a hole blown into it in the coming months. Toronto always has a whipping boy, and–whether fair or not–Marner took that title this season.
Worth noting, Marner also has one season left on a massive six-year deal that comes with a $10.9 million salary cap hit in 2024-25. If Leafs general manager Brad Treliving is truly considering moving Marner, now would be the time to do it. Should Seattle try for him?
Embrace debate.
Q: What would it take for the Kraken to land Marner?
Darren: Several days ago, a speculative article from Sportsnet proposed Adam Larsson and Shane Wright for Marner. I actually think that could be in line with the type of return that could pry Marner out of Toronto. I would absolutely hate to see Wright moved, especially considering the progress he has shown this season toward becoming a bona fide NHL center. He is right on the cusp.
But bringing a player like Marner will only happen if the player(s) and/or picks going back the other way sting for Kraken fans. As for Larsson, John, you mentioned on the latest Sound Of Hockey Podcast that you don’t see him waiving his no-movement clause, and I agree with you. I don’t think he’s going anywhere, but I could see a different defenseman being sent the other way like either Will Borgen or Jamie Oleksiak.
My personal preference would be that the Kraken give whatever they need to give in draft picks plus a supplementary current player to get it done, even if that means trading the No. 8 overall pick in this summer’s draft.
John: Having Wright as part of a deal feels a little rich to me, but that could be an example of the endowment effect, where we tend to value things we own more than they are actually worth. I wouldn’t even want to see Carson Rehkopf as part of a deal, but the Kraken will need to trade something of significant value for the Maple Leafs to even consider it.
The Kraken’s biggest assets are their prospects, and that might not be what the Leafs are looking for right now. If they want to change things up on their roster, they are probably seeking players who can contribute immediately rather than in the future.
A trade for Marner still feels far-fetched because the Kraken don’t have many players on the NHL roster right now that the Leafs would be interested in. And it’s also possible that if the Leafs are interested in any current players, the Kraken may not want to give those players up because they’re too thin right now.
Let’s not forget, Marner has a full no-move clause and controls where he can be dealt. It is entirely possible and likely that Seattle is not on his short list of places he would like to be traded to.
Q: What is the price of prospects you would be willing to pay?
Darren: It scares me to give up Wright. A lot of Seattle’s future currently hinges on his success, and I still love the look of Matty Beniers and Wright as Seattle’s one-two punch in the middle of the ice for years to come.
I wonder if they could keep Wright and send any combination of two other prospects to the Maple Leafs. Would some combination of Rehkopf (John, I know you love him and just said you don’t want him moved, but I would want to keep Wright over Rehkopf), Jagger Firkus, Ryker Evans, and/or Jani Nyman get it done? Those would be easier pills to swallow, and again, draft picks are fine by me.
John: I would do it for Jagger Firkus and Ryker Evans right now, but I am not sure that gets the deal done for Toronto. If it required Shane Wright, I would pass.
Q: Should the Kraken consider trading for Marner?
John: Without question, the Kraken should consider this opportunity. Marner is an elite NHL forward who has consistently ranked in the top 10 in the league for points per game over the last three seasons. Talent of this caliber rarely becomes available, so the Kraken should strongly consider pursuing him if the Leafs start shopping him.
Darren: You’re right, John, and he would instantly become the best player on the Kraken by a long shot. I question how real the desire is from Treliving to move on from Marner at this juncture, but where there’s smoke, there tends to be fire with this kind of thing.
John: I see this situation similar to the Matthew Tkachuk scenario, where the player is entering the final year of his contract, and an extension seems unlikely. They need to get something in return for him, and now would be the opportune moment. However, the player holds significant control in this situation, so it’s debatable whether he would even consider coming to Seattle in the first place.
Darren: This might be the worst “debate” ever, because we’re on the same page a little too much here. Considering it and doing it are two very different things. I do think the Kraken should kick the tires to find out what it would take and if they can somehow lock in an extension for Marner beyond next season.
I also think such an extension would be very un-Ron Francis, in that it would be north of $11 million per year over six-plus years. Can Seattle’s GM stomach that? I’m not convinced.
Q: Is the timing right?
Darren: While I would love for the Kraken front office to investigate how such a deal for an elite winger would look, this timing piece is what makes me think the team should not take this swing right now.
If the roster were one big piece away from Stanley Cup contention, I would say push the chips in and go for it. But the reality is that Seattle is not one player (no matter how good that player is) away from pushing for a championship. The Kraken still need their prospect pool to mature more to be ready to help lead the team to success, rather than just being fringe call-up options like they were this past season.
John: This is where our agreements end, Darren. I personally think that even teams in the earlier stages of rebuilds should always consider acquiring an elite player. I remember the Rangers signing Artemi Panarin in the summer of 2019 after a 32-36-14 season. It seemed premature at the time, but it has proven to be a smart move.
Darren: Fair point, and the Rangers did successfully build up around him. It also helped that they had a No. 1 and a No. 2 overall pick and found another elite goaltender. But, I’m sticking to my guns. One day, I will call for a “chips in” kind of move, but I don’t think today is that day. Instead, they should use their cap space and spare assets to add a couple second-tier scorers this offseason and see what kind of impact that makes.
John: Ok, so it’s settled. We don’t agree on whether the Kraken should trade for Mitch Marner this offseason.
Before we close this out, one aspect we haven’t really addressed yet is the cost of extending Marner should the Kraken acquire him, though you did allude to it earlier. It’s reasonable to assume that his next contract will exceed $11 million per year and likely span a maximum term of eight years. Committing such a significant amount of money to one player will come with opportunity costs, especially considering that if some of the Kraken’s prospects develop into star players, they will also require substantial contracts. While this isn’t a major obstacle to completing the deal, it’s important to consider all the impacts of a potential trade.
Darren: Yeah, I kind of see that as the cost of doing business, though. If you want to bring in an elite player and inject a star into your lineup from another team, then you have to pay him and deal with the consequences later. But it’s another reason I don’t think Seattle should do this right now, because it goes against the approach of Francis.
While I’ve found myself taking the “don’t do it” stance in this debate, if the Kraken surprise me and take this swing, I won’t be mad about it. Instead, I would be thrilled to see Marner in deep sea blue.
—
What do you think, folks? If you had the opportunity, would you trade for Mitch Marner this summer?
I don’t think he’s as expensive as you gentlemen do. He’s available as an FA in one year so the cost you both mention is entirely too high for a guy on his last year. Also, remember that without Income Tax in WA, he’d see a SIGNIFICANT pay raise worth millions and that has value to him. I’d give a first and a second rounder and maybe somebody like Tanev, a guy the Leafs actually need.
I doubt that he would push the needle enough by himself to justify selling off our future. Sure, last season was a disappointment, but only because season 2 was insanely better than anyone could have expected. When I look at what Kraken prospects are producing in the minor leagues I get really excited about the future. I say, stay the course, let those young players develop, then look out…
Personally I’d do it but this feels like the high profile type trade that Francis normally shy’s away from. He’s never made a move for an elite player through trade and I don’t think that’s his thought process. Most of the best players he’s nabbed were through UFA signing or developed internally.
In terms of Marner, as much as I love Larsson, I would trade him straight up. Or maybe Oleksiak and Tanev for him. But realistically I just don’t see Seattle making that move.
Shane Wright is a non-starter for a couple reasons.
First off… I absolutely agree with TW. The price isn’t what Sportsnet – a Toronto based media company – is speculating. The “realistic” takes I’ve heard are more along the lines of a No.1 defenseman… which would just be Larsson. Maybe also a couple picks or maybe a Winterton… but NOT Larsson and Wright. Plus, as mentioned on the pod, Larsson isn’t going to Toronto.
Second… Seattle is rather – though not expressly – counting on Shane Wright to make the team next season. Even with Wright, they still need another center. So a “Shane Wright” deal for Marner brings in a $10.9 winger, leaves the Kraken with Beniers and Gourde down the middle, and peanuts to find two middle-six centers.
I just don’t see it.
No. His point totals are inflated because he’s surrounded by a whole group of other offensive stars. Would he score as much as the #1 option on a team without that kind of offensive talent around him? Not likely. Andre Burakovsky (even sans the injuries) hasn’t provided that kind of punch.
Seattle has some great young players in their pipeline. Keep building the right way.
No, Mitch Marner, hopefully, will stay with Toronto Maple Leafs.
On the timing… is it too soon?
There’s the Rangers… and then there’s the Kings.
Los Angeles made the playoffs with an aging core and some developing prospects…
and lost in seven to the Oilers.
–
So they traded for Kevin Fiala – ya know, to speed things up. They traded away Brock Faber…
and lost in six to the Oilers.
–
So they traded for Pierre-Luc Dubois – ya know, to speed things up. They traded away Gabe Vilardi… and lost in five to the Oilers.
–
Maybe now they can trade away Quinton Byfield for Mitch Marner…
and get swept by the Oilers next year.
–
For every Rangers, there’s a Kings. I think it may be a little painful in the near term, but, with another top ten pick this draft, I think it’s a little too soon to be trading away assets.
Also, New York traded away nothing but cap space to land Panarin. Marner would cost both space and assets. It could be a hit on one or the other… not both.
Go Kraken!!!
Great conversation topic!
Kick the tires! See what the deal would be. I still feel like the team needs an elite scorer. They’ve got to imagine all the scenarios.
Worth a try. The Kraken would just need to make sure they are trading away assets commensurate with what they are actually getting — Marner for one year, at a $10.9 million cap hit (or less, if there is salary retention), plus exclusive negotiation rights until next July on an extension. The problem though is that they are competing against a chronically irrational market. NHL teams seem uniquely inclined to pay an unreasonably massive premium for those negotiation rights. They trade away top picks and prospects under the assumption that they will get the player for a longer term. Then, once the trade is completed, they are under enormous pressure to complete an extension and agree to way too much money and term — at least as much as the player would have cost on the open market. These end up being some of the worst contracts in the league, sometimes instantly. See Seth Jones, Jonathan Huberdeau, Jeff Skinner, Erik Karlsson, etc. This is the “shiny new toy” problem that Sean McIndoe talks about. The irony is that this renders the exclusivity period valueless. That’s even more surely the case here than usual, as Marner has already shown to be an extremely aggressive contract negotiator with his current team (and good on him for that).
(Contrast that with MLB, where teams will happily just trade for a one year rental, knowing full well they will likely not re-sign the player. Sometimes that one year still fetches good value, because flags fly forever, but the value still drops as you get closer to free agency.)
So, the Kraken should absolutely explore trading for Marner based purely on the value he would bring for the one year he is under contract. If there is a deal that makes sense under those terms, do it. Then later, if they can work out a reasonable contract extension, do that too; otherwise, let him walk. The problem is, some other team will probably be stupid and overpay in a trade for multiple years of Marner to which they don’t yet have the rights.
The Kraken should absolutely be burning down the Toronto phones. To compare with the Knights, Marner is Seattle’s Eichel. You have to do everything possible to bring him here. These opportunities for a young player do not happen very often at all and likely not when you feel the timing is just right.
Wright should be the only true untouchable. I would suggest Larsson or Oleksiak, plus 8OA, but that pick would likely be a defenseman, so its like trading two Dmen which would hurt. Still I’d probably do it. Deal with those ramifications after you have landed your star.
And, no, I don’t suspect Marner would score 90+ points right away without his superstar linemates in Seattle, but he still would be the best player on the roster by a mile and offer unique talents. Down the road, pairing with an older Shane and McCann or one of the winger prospects maybe he would get back to 90+.
No
Sorry trigger finger.
No. Hell No. Emphatically No.
So he’s a top four forward for the Maple Leafs, and has the stats you’d expect when playing with Matthews, Tavares et al. And yet they haven’t made it past the first round since before ice was invented. Defense was the Kraken’s strong point last season. Larsson has a no trade, and I wouldn’t give up Oleksiak. Shane Wright has the potential to be (at least) a solid, second line center – a poor man’s Patrice Bergeron if you will.
Let’s say the Kraken make this trade. If someone thinks he’ll be our Jack Eichel, they’re kidding themselves. Eichel was the final piece to a championship roster, whereas Seattle is nowhere close to that level. And if Marner underperforms (i.e. not even a 30/35 kind of guy) the Kraken won’t want to re-up him given his likely ridiculous salary expectations (regardless of performance). And if he “balls out” they won’t be able afford to resign him anyway. So, in either case you’re trading assets for a one-year rental – not the way to build a franchise.
Marner is the hockey equivalent of empty calories – someone who can produce stats but not elevate a team to the next level, and certainly not worth giving up any valuable assets for. The Kraken would be much better served by taking a run at Jonathan Marchessault, Jake Guentzel, or what-the-heck Sam Reinhart in free agency. Players that would be top liners and have a winning pedigree to go with it.
How valuable is Beniers? Is he worth more than Wright? Could he be the trade chip if Marner were locked up pre-trade?
I was initially marking this as a hard no, why would we give up our best shutdown defenseman and arguably the best on our roster for a potential one year rental. (I think it would probably take Larson to make this happen…)
I think it comes down to Larsons age and contract negotiations moving forward. Larson would be a great addition to the Leafs and a player like him could be the difference maker for the next two to three years. For us Larson could be replaced potentially with a FA like Chris Tanev or something similar and let’s be honest Larson isn’t going to be around when our core matures regardless. If I were RF I’d be having some serious talks with Larson regarding contract extensions ASAP and if he’s not interested in taking a team friendly extension of three years or less I’d seriously consider this trade.
Marner is young enough that he’s going to be potentially productive for 8 plus years.
Would Wright even need to be part of the trade? How is Wright going to help TO win a cup within the next couple of years? I’m not even sure he’s a player that they would target. I think assists that would help TO win a cup in the short term would be preferable.
Marner for Larson, Burakovsky and a second.
TO gets a less expensive replacement for Marner but still one that can help win a cup short term in Burakovsky. They also get a top tier Defender and another draft pick that’s about as good as their first round pick that they qualify for.
Kraken get a young core player that they can build around without giving up our youth. We can replace Larson in FA for the short term and that might be as long as we have Larson regardless. We are trading wings in Burakovsky and Marner up front…. Obviously a huge upgrade.
To be honest I’d even consider adding yanni to the trade for a NHL ready prospect. I think with the right players moving it could be a great trade for both teams.
Outside thought….. being that goaltending has been an issue in TO would they consider Gru with half his salary retained? Probably not but they might be asking for Daccord…. 😞