McCarron for Hanzel is the kind of trade you do when Hanzel is 4 years younger and not broken. You could compare it to the Schenn /Simmonds trade for Richards which Flyers got good value on and helped the Kings win their 1st cup. Richards was also signed long term.
But Richards 4 years later was no where near the value of what the Kings paid for him.
Hanzel is better than an older Richards, but he is still too old, too broken and has no contract for next year. McCarron may end up as merely a 4th liner, but because of his size and his ability, the fact that he is on an ELC, the fact his next contract should be fairly low and that he is exempt from the expansion draft means he has good value league wide.
He's a prospect you put into a trade for Landeskog, since Colorado wants a 1st, an NHL ready prospect or young player, and a top prospect.
The other option is to trade McCarron for a young D.
On top of that, the development of Danault as a centre means our center position is not nearly as bad as it was earlier in the year. Pleks has picked up his play and Danault has solidified his spot. We no longer need Hanzel.
Landeskog though is an MT/MB type player & is signed. We also need D more than we need Hanzel. The ask for Hanzel is a freakin joke.