Big names abound at the trade deadline and start of free agency. With the immediacy of social media, rumors swirl, sometimes before a player even knows they are on the trading block.
In some instances, the names that hit Twitter and other outlets are purely speculative. Those are sometimes easy to distinguish as a person may preface the statement with "I'm hearing that..." without having any actual affiliation with a source, publication, or team. They are the self-proclaimed "insiders."
Even if the player in question is not available, considering if the team should bring the player into the fold can be a good exercise in evaluating the Red Wings current and future state. There is a straightforward formula for this.
For the sake of simplicity, we will use Mitch Marner as an example, but this formula applies to anyone.
Will the player improve the team?
There is an adage in hockey that states that the team who gets the best player wins the trade. In most cases, this is true. It goes for free agents as well. If the Red Wings acquire the player who will most improve the team, then it is a win.
Does the player fill a void, or would it be redundant?
Every team in the league is currently speculating about Mitch Marner who, as of this moment, is set to become an unrestricted free on July 1, 2025.
So, would acquiring him fill a void for the Red Wings? Yes, it would. He would make an immediate positive impact and make the team much more competitive.
Can the team afford the player?
Tony Wolak projected the contracts and remaining cap space for the Red Wings for Yardbarker. He believes that, after re-signing players, roughly $19.17 million in cap space will remain, allowing plenty of room to make a big splash this offseason.
If the team can move Vladimir Tarasenko, that opens an additional $4.75 million. That is a big if, but it could be easier to move him at the trade deadline, as his contract expires after this coming season and a playoff team in need of depth at right wing might be willing to take a chance on him.
This, of course, assumes that, even if Detroit is in content, the team’s depth at right wing can benefit or, at a minimum, break even by moving him.
Signing Marner may run about $13-15 million. So, the delta of replacing Tarasenko with Marner in the offseason would be $8.25 - $10.25 million.
If the team must shed assets, do the assets have a known value? If so, are any of those assets worth more than the player?
Going back to the point that whichever team acquires the best player is the one that wins. In this instance, simply signing Marner would be a win.
In a trade scenario, draft picks are always a gamble, as are young prospects. No team in the process of taking the next step wants to get rid of high draft picks, there is never a guarantee the pick or prospect will amount to anything or even help the team in the long run.
Using the Philadelphia Flyers as an example, they have some tough luck in the first round. In 2022, they drafted Cutter Gauthier fifth overall, and he refused to sign with the team. The Flyers traded him to Anaheim for Jamie Drysdale, who fills a need for the Flyers on the blue line but does not have as high a ceiling as Drysdale.
In 2018, they drafted Joel Farabee 14th and Jay O’Brien 19th. Farabee, along with one of their 2017 first round picks, Morgan Frost, were traded this past season. In 2018. They also drafted Jay O’Brien with the 19th pick. O’Brien never played at any level above college.
In addition to drafting Frost in 2017, they drafted Nolan Patrick second overall. Patrick had a migraine disorder, played parts of three seasons for Philly and had to retire at the age of 25.
That more than makes the point.
So, should the Red Wings sign or trade for the best player?
The formula is pretty simple. In the long run, if the player makes the team better without hamstringing them in other ways, then yes they should.