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?