Value of: Connor Murphy 50% retained

LEAFANFORLIFE23

Registered User
Jun 17, 2010
47,420
16,046
I wouldn't pay quite as much for him as they did for McCabe because McCabe had more term when he was acquired than Murphy does, and also McCabe came with a depth forward.

Plus even with 50% retention Murphy is still 200K more expensive then McCabe so to me he's not worth quite as much.

That said I'd still have a future 1st on the table.

I think adding Murphy would really solidify the Leafs defense.

I mean Tanev and OEL have already but if they could add a guy That could bump OEL to the 3rd pair the defense is set.

If they could get double retention THEN I would pay just as much as they did for McCabe
 

MHO

Registered User
Sep 27, 2023
141
150
I wouldn't pay quite as much for him as they did for McCabe because McCabe had more term when he was acquired than Murphy does, and also McCabe came with a depth forward.

Plus even with 50% retention Murphy is still 200K more expensive then McCabe so to me he's not worth quite as much.

That said I'd still have a future 1st on the table.

I think adding Murphy would really solidify the Leafs defense.

I mean Tanev and OEL have already but if they could add a guy That could bump OEL to the 3rd pair the defense is set.

If they could get double retention THEN I would pay just as much as they did for McCabe
Hey it's not like the Blackhawks have a shortage of depth forwards they could attach.
 

Space umpire

Registered User
Nov 15, 2018
3,242
2,626
Cocoa Beach, Florida
I wouldn't pay quite as much for him as they did for McCabe because McCabe had more term when he was acquired than Murphy does, and also McCabe came with a depth forward.

Plus even with 50% retention Murphy is still 200K more expensive then McCabe so to me he's not worth quite as much.

That said I'd still have a future 1st on the table.

I think adding Murphy would really solidify the Leafs defense.

I mean Tanev and OEL have already but if they could add a guy That could bump OEL to the 3rd pair the defense is set.

If they could get double retention THEN I would pay just as much as they did for McCabe
I don’t disagree on value. Basically McCabe at 50% cost you a 1st … “plus”. Lafferty at that point was maybe worth a late 3rd or 4th. The Leafs paid a 1st and 2nd for McC and Laff and a couple of late picks.
I see similar for Murphy and xxx.
When your building and have multiple higher picks those late picks have limited value. While a contender can use them hunting for tweeners or to use in other deals.
 

Clownish

Registered User
Jan 1, 2014
2,098
835
I wouldn't pay quite as much for him as they did for McCabe because McCabe had more term when he was acquired than Murphy does, and also McCabe came with a depth forward.

Plus even with 50% retention Murphy is still 200K more expensive then McCabe so to me he's not worth quite as much.

That said I'd still have a future 1st on the table.

I think adding Murphy would really solidify the Leafs defense.

I mean Tanev and OEL have already but if they could add a guy That could bump OEL to the 3rd pair the defense is set.

If they could get double retention THEN I would pay just as much as they did for McCabe
Murphy also adds value as a leader. He's not wearing the "A" as some token nomination. He's always ready to be in a scrum after the whistle or drop the gloves to hold the other team accountable for any nonsense, yet he knows the line that the refs have and doesn't take his aggressions too far by getting a dumb penalty in a post-whistle skirmish.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad