Speculation: A Pretty Long List of 'Own Rentals' (those that have walked to UFA). Trending...

[Apex Predator]

Are people really writing off guys like Sandin and Robertson? Pretty nutso if true.

I don’t think people are writing them off they don’t think they are ready yet. Maybe Liljegren is getting written off. I think it’s fair to think they might not be ready.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I don’t think people are writing them off they don’t think they are ready yet. Maybe Liljegren is getting written off. I think it’s fair to think they might not be ready.

Sure, that seems reasonable. At least I have no idea if they're ready or not and I don't like rushing prospects myself. That said, many people seem to feel like Liljegren is ready so I'd like to see him get a shot and I see no reason whatsoever for writing him off either.

 

[Twine Tickler]

It's not all gloom and doom but since playoffs are what it's all about, the fact that we've had zero success there is an issue, the fact that we don't seem to even show up for series deciding games is a huge issue and that is what most concerns me. If it doesn't bother you, that's great and I'm happy for you but mocking others for expressing their concern seems pretty dumb.

Trust me, I am not neglecting these things. I have been equally hurt by this team. I am very well aware of the potential that this core may fail once again. There are very real issues. But still, the answers are more likely within the players of the core group themselves rather than finding answers externally.

I've seen very rational posts posing the question who is going to be our Derozen? I see the point they are suggesting. Who of the core could be moved for that 1 piece that is going to push us over the finish line? The reality of it is, those trades seldom work. Especially in a sport where your best players play about 1/3rd of the total game time. Wherein Basketball they play 80-90% of the game, and have the entire game plan orchestrated around them. Hard to find our Kawhi when the circumstances are completely different. But I do get the logic.

That said, this core group could 100% be altered. That could be the answer. But when you take a closer look at it, of the core 4 we can only really trade 3 of them due to JT's NMC. Willy is producing most closely to his AAV, and would likely not give us a player in return with more value for cap spent. Not to mention he is 25 and his best years are still likely ahead of him. Also, of the 3 he is the most playoff proven. Which is what this is all about anyways.

That leaves Matthews and Marner. I think most people in here would agree that these 2 players are elite players. It is extremely rare for Elite players to be traded, especially ones as young as those 2. Trading <24 year-old superstars hardly ever works out for the team trading them. Additionally, it is extremely rare to trade elite players at any age and for that team to remain in "competitive".

So if the goal is to remain competitive, which I believe it should be, this is our group like it or not. I am not neglecting that this may not be the group that eventually gets it done. But this is a core group that is more than capable of getting it done based on their talent level. Something this franchise has not had since the early 2000's. Putting a for sale sign on the front lawn and selling at a low is likely not what is going to give us the best chance of winning.

IMO, run these horses for 2 more years, and liquidate if there is no tangible success. To me, this is the only realistic option we have. I am not suggesting everyone needs to like it, it's just kind of fact.

 

[ShaneFalco]

So if the goal is to remain competitive, which I believe it should be, this is our group like it or not. I am not neglecting that this may not be the group that eventually gets it done. But this is a core group that is more than capable of getting it done based on their talent level. Something this franchise has not had since the early 2000's. Putting a for sale sign on the front lawn and selling at a low is likely not what is going to give us the best chance of winning.

IMO, run these horses for 2 more years, and liquidate if there is no tangible success. To me, this is the only realistic option we have. I am not suggesting everyone needs to like it, it's just kind of fact.

So wait 2 more years and if they still can't do it then alter the course?
I'm not sure why some think moving Marner would be a terrible decision. The core as it's been mentioned, not only fails to win a single playoff round, but loses in embarrassing, heartless fashion. That 11 mill could be used elsewhere. He'll never live up to it. This core's DNA isn't going to change either, and the fact that they are talented means diddly if they fold in the playoffs every year. The team construction is off and some, including Dubas just won't even entertain even looking at other options

 

[Bluebear]

These would fall under Lou since they were pending UFA's by the time Dubas took over. If we wanted to trade them for value, Lou would have had to made those trades.

Out of that entire list, the only one I think that should have been moved was Gardiner (that Dubas could have moved). The rest had more value to the team than in a trade. The same applies to Rielly (if we can't get a proper replacement for him), Campbell, and Mikheyev.

Also important to note that we picked up free agents for no assets as well, and if we did move those pending UFA's for assets, we'd need to spend assets to replace them. It's not a one-way street. We can't trade Rielly for a 1st++ and then be without a #1 defenseman... We'd be spending a good chunk of Rielly's return getting a guy who is semi-capable of replacing him.

Barrie should have been moved without question, he did not have more value to the team than in trade. He didn't play that well for the Leafs and the team was very inconsistent all year and looked like crap at many times. I thought it was obvious that a deep playoff run was very unlikely, and a message should have been delivered by being sellers.
Also would have carried assets over and salvaged the Kadri trade.

At the time I thought it would be good to move JVR as well since it was obvious he wasn't going to be kept and the team was still so young and developing. Would have been able to fetch a great package(Probably a decent prospect and a decent pick) that could have included young assets that might have still been on cheap contracts last year, when the team looked ready to be a real threat

 

[Gary Nylund]

Trust me, I am not neglecting these things. I have been equally hurt by this team. I am very well aware of the potential that this core may fail once again. There are very real issues. But still, the answers are more likely within the players of the core group themselves rather than finding answers externally.

I can respect that opinion, I just happen to have a different one.

That leaves Matthews and Marner. I think most people in here would agree that these 2 players are elite players. It is extremely rare for Elite players to be traded, especially ones as young as those 2. Trading <24 year-old superstars hardly ever works out for the team trading them. Additionally, it is extremely rare to trade elite players at any age and for that team to remain in "competitive".

It's rare for such players to be traded - since the sample size is so small, how can you say it "hardly ever works out"?

Lindros was traded - the team trading him won the cup. Thornton was traded, the team trading him won the cup. How many examples can you give me when a <24 year-old superstar was traded and it did not work out for the team trading him?

I dare say that we could give Marner away today and we'd still be "competitive". Of course that would depend on your definition of the word but I'd say we'd still be favoured to make the playoffs which seems competitive to me.

So if the goal is to remain competitive, which I believe it should be, this is our group like it or not. I am not neglecting that this may not be the group that eventually gets it done. But this is a core group that is more than capable of getting it done based on their talent level. Something this franchise has not had since the early 2000's. Putting a for sale sign on the front lawn and selling at a low is likely not what is going to give us the best chance of winning.

Strongly disagree. I would only trade Marner and his value most certainly is not low. The guy's a 1st team all-star for crissake, what makes you think his value is at a low point? Trade him to a team that has no cup aspirations but wants to make the playoffs, cares more about real dollars then about cap space and needs to sell tickets. That way his poor playoff performance won't be a concern, in terms of real dollars he's a pretty good deal, he's great in the regular season so he'll help make the playoffs and he's also a big name star that is fun to watch (during the regular season) and will definitely help sell tickets. Bottom line is that he's worth more to a team like that then he is to us so we should get a massive return for him and it's more likely than not (IMHO) that we'll end up being a better team for it. We'll still have plenty of talent but we'll also be able to surround them with a much better supporting cast.

IMO, run these horses for 2 more years, and liquidate if there is no tangible success. To me, this is the only realistic option we have. I am not suggesting everyone needs to like it, it's just kind of fact.

It's your opinion which can respect, even if I don't agree with it but it most certainly is not fact. And after 5 years of 1st round exits, pissing away another two years is a LOT. That brings us to Matthews being 1 year away from UFA status and if we're still sucking in the playoffs at that point, it's hard to count on him not wanting out.

 

[4thline]

So wait 2 more years and if they still can't do it then alter the course?
I'm not sure why some think moving Marner would be a terrible decision. The core as it's been mentioned, not only fails to win a single playoff round, but loses in embarrassing, heartless fashion. That 11 mill could be used elsewhere. He'll never live up to it. This core's DNA isn't going to change either, and the fact that they are talented means diddly if they fold in the playoffs every year. The team construction is off and some, including Dubas just won't even entertain even looking at other options

I think this is the issue in question, that because they/he *haven't* delivered in the playoffs necessarily means that they *can't*, because if they *do* there's no reason to think that the construction is off. If we got Point/Kucherov performances the last two post seasons and came up short, yeah, blame the roster construction. But that's not the case.

Personally I think that the move on time is next off-season, if ever. But I also think there's a reasonably good chance that the GM that moves either of them this early in their careers is going be absolutely roasted by the history books when it clicks elsewhere (unless the trade leads to a cup)

 

[Bomber0104]

When was the last time the Leafs actually sold off a half-decent expiring contract for futures?

Kaberle?

Even that was a season or two too-late.

The Leafs never do this and the reason is simple: the GM in charge always thinks the teams are better than they are and "need" that player for whatever unrealistic goal they set for themselves.

 

[Racer88]

This thread lacks common sense. When do contending teams ever trade free agents? The last two teams put out we had a higher ambitions than a first round exit so..

Obviously an incorrect “higher ambitions”. It turned out to be just a mirage. The GM is paid a lot of money to know the difference

 

[Racer88]

and if they hadn't made moves and the result was the same these same posters would be arguing the other side of the coin.

Yes…..I’m a big fan of hindsight.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I think this is the issue in question, that because they/he *haven't* delivered in the playoffs necessarily means that they *can't*, because if they *do* there's no reason to think that the construction is off. If we got Point/Kucherov performances the last two post seasons and came up short, yeah, blame the roster construction. But that's not the case.

Personally I think that the move on time is next off-season, if ever. But I also think there's a reasonably good chance that the GM that moves either of them this early in their careers is going be absolutely roasted by the history books when it clicks elsewhere (unless the trade leads to a cup)

If they stubbornly stick with this core through this flat cap era and don't end up winning a cup, they'll also be absolutely roasted. If we keep failing in the playoffs and Matthews decides he wants out, they'll be absolutely roasted.

This is Toronto, fail with this bevy of talent and you'll be roasted no matter how you fail. If you're in charge you can't let that fear paralyze you, you just have to keep your head down and do what you think is best for the team.

 

[4thline]

If they stubbornly stick with this core through this flat cap era and don't end up winning a cup, they'll also be absolutely roasted. If we keep failing in the playoffs and Matthews decides he wants out, they'll be absolutely roasted.

This is Toronto, fail with this bevy of talent and you'll be roasted no matter how you fail. If you're in charge you can't let that fear paralyze you, you just have to keep your head down and do what you think is best for the team.

My bad, I wasn't saying that the down side is getting roasted, moreso stating my belief that the downside is that it WILL click, and they likely will make the trade regrettable and carry the mail to a cup elsewhere, which will beget the question, would they have done it here and were we just too impatient.

I think that the flat cap era is an artificial time horizon. If Matthews is a career leaf- that's the timeline to win a cup. If he wants out, commitment to him is moot.

I also think the bolded is amusingly paradoxical. The reason for expectations both being high and not being met is the very same.

 

[Gary Nylund]

My bad, I wasn't saying that the down side is getting roasted, moreso stating my belief that the downside is that it WILL click, and they likely will make the trade regrettable and carry the mail to a cup elsewhere, which will beget the question, would they have done it here and were we just too impatient.

I think that the flat cap era is an artificial time horizon. If Matthews is a career leaf- that's the timeline to win a cup. If he wants out, commitment to him is moot.

I also think the bolded is amusingly paradoxical. The reason for expectations both being high and not being met is the very same.

I mention the flat cap because IMO that's the reason we're in such a tough spot and why I think we should change course (trade Marner). We could ride it out I suppose though it's not clear how many years that would be and not sure it makes sense to wait when I see no reason we can't trade Marner and come out of it a better team. And my biggest concern is that if we're still spinning our wheels two years from now, that might be the reason for Matthews not wanting to stay.

 

[egd27]

When was the last time the Leafs actually sold off a half-decent expiring contract for futures?

Kaberle?

Even that was a season or two too-late.

The Leafs never do this and the reason is simple: the GM in charge always thinks the teams are better than they are and "need" that player for whatever unrealistic goal they set for themselves.

 

[4thline]

I mention the flat cap because IMO that's the reason we're in such a tough spot and why I think we should change course (trade Marner). We could ride it out I suppose though it's not clear how many years that would be and not sure it makes sense to wait when I see no reason we can't trade Marner and come out of it a better team. And my biggest concern is that if we're still spinning our wheels two years from now, that might be the reason for Matthews not wanting to stay.

I guess it depends on how you describe flat cap and how you think that's going to play out. If you say flat cap is over next season when we start seeing gradual increases again I think that's hard to use as the final factor for trading a potential hall of famer with a solid 7-10 years left in their career.

But I agree that I think we can get better from a Marner trade. I just disagree that it's a necessity- unless he is literally incapable of duplicating his regular season impact in the playoffs (unlikely IMO), or we can't win with both him and Matthews delivering at that level (unlikely IMO)

 

[Twine Tickler]

So wait 2 more years and if they still can't do it then alter the course?
I'm not sure why some think moving Marner would be a terrible decision. The core as it's been mentioned, not only fails to win a single playoff round, but loses in embarrassing, heartless fashion. That 11 mill could be used elsewhere. He'll never live up to it. This core's DNA isn't going to change either, and the fact that they are talented means diddly if they fold in the playoffs every year. The team construction is off and some, including Dubas just won't even entertain even looking at other options

whether it happens in TOR or elsewhere, I am confident Mitch will have playoff success at some point in his career. Maybe he won't be a cup winner, but he will prove his worth in the playoffs, he is too good of a player not to.

the reason moving on from Marner is a not logical is because you will likely receive penny's on the dollar for him. I'd much rather run this core for 2 more years, until Matthews final year, and then liquidate for 1st round picks and futures if the failures continue. Start a modified rebuild, similar to Boston in 2015 when they dished Lucic and hamilton for 1st rounders. It was a changing of the guard for the Bruins and IF they would have selected any talent in those 3 picks they could have virtually been unstoppable. They literally took the only 3 players without talent...

AM and MM would command larger returns than what Boston got for Hamilton and Lucic, so rebuilding off of their potential returns would be a very very strong start. Not to mention the leafs ability to retain on their deals if they were really committed to a full rebuild at that point. In fact, AZ has amassed a shit ton of picks for the next couple drafts and may be in a position to move on from some of those prospects they eventually select as well as future draft capital to have a homegrown superstar AM34 at a retained value. Mitch as well.

The time to move on Mitch or Auston is not now. They will still be massively productive players in 2 years, and they give us the best chance at winning now. We will almost guarantee not be a better team in the immediate future if we make a trade that involves Mitch, and might still be in a position to liquidate in 2 years time anyways. If Auston does not extend, he cannot play his final year as a Leaf. Period. That is not a player you can "own rental". So the direction of this team kind of falls in his hands.

I am with most, this core group is incredibly frustrating to watch at times. But we cannot give up yet. That time will come, and we will be positioned very well to rebound with their potential trade returns even at that time. They are far from the back nine of their careers.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I guess it depends on how you describe flat cap and how you think that's going to play out. If you say flat cap is over next season when we start seeing gradual increases again I think that's hard to use as the final factor for trading a potential hall of famer with a solid 7-10 years left in their career.

I'm under the impression that the cap is likely to stay flat (slight increases at best) for several years which is a HUGE part of me wanting to trade Marner. Here's what seems to be a decent summary of the situation:
Why is the salary cap projected to stay flat when revenues should rise soon?

But I agree that I think we can get better from a Marner trade. I just disagree that it's a necessity- unless he is literally incapable of duplicating his regular season impact in the playoffs (unlikely IMO), or we can't win with both him and Matthews delivering at that level (unlikely IMO)

I guess I'd say that keeping Marner isn't a necessity any more than keeping him might be. I keep coming back to the Lindros example - if you trade a great player you get a ton back so what's the problem? I keep reading "you just don't trade a player like Marner" and what can I say, I'm not even close to being convinced.

Incapable of duplicating - thing is, 3 bad playoffs in a row is pretty bad. For that cap hit, a poor playoff should be a rare exception and 3 consecutive failures IMO is something that should not happen, period. Say he has a great playoff next season, does that mean that there's no reason for concern any more or is it possible that going forward, he only goes MIA say every other year or something like that? Is that satisfactory or at that cap hit, does that leave you wanting more? Maybe it never happens again, anything's possible but for me anyway it's just not possible to be confident that we're going to consistently get our money's worth from him in the playoffs.

 

[Gary Nylund]

the reason moving on from Marner is a not logical is because you will likely receive penny's on the dollar for him. I'd much rather run this core for 2 more years, until Matthews final year, and then liquidate for 1st round picks and futures if the failures continue. Start a modified rebuild, similar to Boston in 2015 when they dished Lucic and hamilton for 1st rounders. It was a changing of the guard for the Bruins and IF they would have selected any talent in those 3 picks they could have virtually been unstoppable. They literally took the only 3 players without talent...
.

I call BS. There's zero reason to think this is true.

 

[Twine Tickler]

I call BS. There's zero reason to think this is true.

there are few players better than Mitch in the NHL. He is a top 15 player in the league. Some might even say higher. A trade that makes us better immediately would have to involve a player that his currently better than Mitch. WHich would mean there are potentially 13 players at most that would be available to trade with once you subtract Auston who is very clearly a top 5 player in the league. And sure you could explore the avenue of trading 2 5's for a 10 or a 7 and a 3 for a 10 but it is likely still a deal we lose because we lose the best player in the deal. Who also happens to be only 24........ The only player that makes any sense to move Mitch for is Jack Eichel. By all accounts this has not even been entertained by the Leafs or Sabres. If there is an other name that you could feasibly see as available and that make our team better I am all ears. But remember it takes 2 teams to make a deal work

Any fair market trade for Mitch would more than likely be a futures heavy deal. One where we could eventually win. A la Erik Karlson. But lets not forget how bad OTT got once EK left. I'm not sure its time to do that yet for the Leafs given how young this core still is. results aside

 

[CupcakeSprinkles]

Obviously an incorrect “higher ambitions”. It turned out to be just a mirage. The GM is paid a lot of money to know the difference

This is literally every team that does not win the cup.. trade for a FA/keep FA's then risk having them walk.

 

[Gary Nylund]

there are few players better than Mitch in the NHL. He is a top 15 player in the league. Some might even say higher. A trade that makes us better immediately would have to involve a player that his currently better than Mitch. WHich would mean there are potentially 13 players at most that would be available to trade with once you subtract Auston who is very clearly a top 5 player in the league. And sure you could explore the avenue of trading 2 5's for a 10 or a 7 and a 3 for a 10 but it is likely still a deal we lose because we lose the best player in the deal. Who also happens to be only 24........ The only player that makes any sense to move Mitch for is Jack Eichel. By all accounts this has not even been entertained by the Leafs or Sabres. If there is an other name that you could feasibly see as available and that make our team better I am all ears. But remember it takes 2 teams to make a deal work

Any fair market trade for Mitch would more than likely be a futures heavy deal. One where we could eventually win. A la Erik Karlson. But lets not forget how bad OTT got once EK left. I'm not sure its time to do that yet for the Leafs given how young this core still is. results aside

I call BS again.

 

[Twine Tickler]

I call BS again.

If you could provide me a feasible trade proposal that makes us a better team next year that involves mitch going the other way I am all ears. I've already suggested Jack as being the obvious one that I'd agree would likely improve our team, so if you could think of anyone else, I am all for hearing you out. Again, I have suggested that they can win a deal that is futures heavy, kind of like the ones you have already pointed out (Lindros & Thornton)

But lets not forget, the Lindros and Thornton trades took years to fully materialize into a cup. 4 seasons for Quebec/Colorado and 6 years for Boston. Not to mention the Thornton deal has gone down as one of the worst deals in NHL history for Boston. They received Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and Wayne Primeau in return for a first ballot HHOF'er. None of those players amounted to anything for the Bruins and only in some 3rd layer of a trade tree would have shown any benefit to that 2011 Stanley Cup team. But ya, I guess it worked out in a way that doesn't prove your point at all..

What I am suggesting is not all that far off the same thing as you, but when these kids are 26 and 25, not 24 and 23. The return for Mitch and Auston in 2 years time is not going to be all that different, expecially when you factor in that the Leafs would be able to retain 50% of their deals to maximize the return. They'd be entering a new rebuild anyways, so what difference is 11 mill dead cap in 2023 and 5 mill dead cap in 2024 (Mitch and Auston retained at 50%). We would get that exact same Lindros type of return you speak of as well as a real chance to go for it these next 2 years. I am not sure what the rush is. they are 23 and 24. To think these 2 have shown us all they got in the playoffs is a touch premature. I get the frustration, some progress should have happened already, but they are far from over the hill and write offs. May as well run it back 2 more attempts before we completely rebuild.

 

[Gary Nylund]

If you could provide me a feasible trade proposal that makes us a better team next year that involves mitch going the other way I am all ears. I've already suggested Jack as being the obvious one that I'd agree would likely improve our team, so if you could think of anyone else, I am all for hearing you out. Again, I have suggested that they can win a deal that is futures heavy, kind of like the ones you have already pointed out (Lindros & Thornton)

But lets not forget, the Lindros and Thornton trades took years to fully materialize into a cup. 4 seasons for Quebec/Colorado and 6 years for Boston. Not to mention the Thornton deal has gone down as one of the worst deals in NHL history for Boston. They received Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and Wayne Primeau in return for a first ballot HHOF'er. None of those players amounted to anything for the Bruins and only in some 3rd layer of a trade tree would have shown any benefit to that 2011 Stanley Cup team. But ya, I guess it worked out in a way that doesn't prove your point at all..

What I am suggesting is not all that far off the same thing as you, but when these kids are 26 and 25, not 24 and 23. The return for Mitch and Auston in 2 years time is not going to be all that different, expecially when you factor in that the Leafs would be able to retain 50% of their deals to maximize the return. They'd be entering a new rebuild anyways, so what difference is 11 mill dead cap in 2023 and 5 mill dead cap in 2024 (Mitch and Auston retained at 50%). We would get that exact same Lindros type of return you speak of as well as a real chance to go for it these next 2 years. I am not sure what the rush is. they are 23 and 24. To think these 2 have shown us all they got in the playoffs is a touch premature. I get the frustration, some progress should have happened already, but they are far from over the hill and write offs. May as well run it back 2 more attempts before we completely rebuild.

Specifics don't matter IMO. Get back maybe 3 guys in the 4M range, 2 guys in the 6M range, 3 guys in the 3M range, whatever could work. Or part of the package could be futures and we'd have more cap space to work with. Jack is fine too assuming he's healthy enough.

Who cares how the Thornton trade worked out, point is it worked out. I don't care about winning or losing trades, I care about winning the cup.

I do think that the return for Matthews with one year left one his deal could be much less then it would be today. And I'm not interested in a new rebuild in two years, trade Marner today, contend for the next decade works for me just fine.

 

[ACC1224]

If you could provide me a feasible trade proposal that makes us a better team next year that involves mitch going the other way I am all ears. I've already suggested Jack as being the obvious one that I'd agree would likely improve our team, so if you could think of anyone else, I am all for hearing you out. Again, I have suggested that they can win a deal that is futures heavy, kind of like the ones you have already pointed out (Lindros & Thornton)

But lets not forget, the Lindros and Thornton trades took years to fully materialize into a cup. 4 seasons for Quebec/Colorado and 6 years for Boston. Not to mention the Thornton deal has gone down as one of the worst deals in NHL history for Boston. They received Brad Stuart, Marco Sturm, and Wayne Primeau in return for a first ballot HHOF'er. None of those players amounted to anything for the Bruins and only in some 3rd layer of a trade tree would have shown any benefit to that 2011 Stanley Cup team. But ya, I guess it worked out in a way that doesn't prove your point at all..

What I am suggesting is not all that far off the same thing as you, but when these kids are 26 and 25, not 24 and 23. The return for Mitch and Auston in 2 years time is not going to be all that different, expecially when you factor in that the Leafs would be able to retain 50% of their deals to maximize the return. They'd be entering a new rebuild anyways, so what difference is 11 mill dead cap in 2023 and 5 mill dead cap in 2024 (Mitch and Auston retained at 50%). We would get that exact same Lindros type of return you speak of as well as a real chance to go for it these next 2 years. I am not sure what the rush is. they are 23 and 24. To think these 2 have shown us all they got in the playoffs is a touch premature. I get the frustration, some progress should have happened already, but they are far from over the hill and write offs. May as well run it back 2 more attempts before we completely rebuild.

Some are of the belief that moving Marner is simply addition by subtraction.

 

[All Mod Cons]

I thought Dubas was supposed to be some kind of forward thinking, new-age GM that would do things differently to the rest of the pack, like moving impending UFAs for picks/prospects when applicable.

He seems to act like all the other GMs who are dinosaurs, yet doesn't quite get as good results.