Toggle sidebar

Speculation: Dermott does seem the most likely trade chip if they intend to deal from their roster - Spec

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Dermott's role has been limited again but I have liked his play. There is a decent chance he becomes a solid piece for another team, so if we are to trade him, it needs to be of equal value. I prefer to hang on to him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cpt Maple Leaf
It's been confirmed that Rutherford had a trade for North division defenceman before he quit.

I think it was either a Mete or Dermott deal for ZAR.
 
TMLAM34 said:
I’d be more interested in possibly dealing Liljegren looking for an upgrade with our forwards.

Arizona could be a potential trading partner. Crouse would be someone that interests me. Would be a nice addition to the bottom six. I’d really like our chances this year having guys like Crouse, Simmonds, Hyman, Muzzin, Holl, Bogosian, etc.

We also wouldn’t have to worry about loosing Crouse in the expansion draft when other players like Kerfoot and Dermott/Holl would be exposed.

Sam Bennett could be another option if Calgary continues to struggle.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't mind adding Crouse but why would you want to give up a 21 yr old, cost controlled RD with 2nd pairing upside for a 4th liner? Lilly has been one of the best defenders in the AHL the last 2 years and was better than Sandin last year.
 
acrobaticgoalie said:
I wouldn't mind adding Crouse but why would you want to give up a 21 yr old, cost controlled RD with 2nd pairing upside for a 4th liner? Lilly has been one of the best defenders in the AHL the last 2 years and was better than Sandin last year.
Click to expand...
Agreed for all those reasons. Lili has great upside, and it’s not hard to envision him developing a Muzzin like game.
Is it true though that Crouse is expansion exempt? Seems he’s been around forever.
 
I really like dermott... but with the expansion draft and our depth, now does make sense to deal.

What’s the return though?

If its not for someone expansion draft exempt then it doesn’t help us there. And dermott is on a sweetheart deal, and we have no cap space. Could trade for picks... but I still think Dermott will be one of our top 6 best dmen come playoff time.

I don’t mind the idea of packaging dermott with Kerfoot to upgrade our 3c position.

Dermott and Kerfoot for Kadri? :laugh:
 
stickty111 said:
Dermott's role has been limited again but I have liked his play. There is a decent chance he becomes a solid piece for another team, so if we are to trade him, it needs to be of equal value. I prefer to hang on to him.
Click to expand...

He's been a solid piece here. He will be a solid piece elsewhere, if traded. TD is still a 160 game Dman in the NHL and most agree that for those who are not stars, you need time. As you know, @stickty111, his numbers have been good for a 3rd pairing D. If we want to move that value, we need to get something back that the organization is missing.
 
aingefan said:
Agreed for all those reasons. Lili has great upside, and it’s not hard to envision him developing a Muzzin like game.
Is it true though that Crouse is expansion exempt? Seems he’s been around forever.
Click to expand...

According to https://thehockeywriters.com/coyotes-looking-ahead-to-the-2021-expansion-draft/ Crouse would need to be protected.

I like him, he's the most physical forward I can see us trading for this year where cap issues can be equalized. How it plays beyond the end of this season???
 
meefer said:
He's been a solid piece here. He will be a solid piece elsewhere, if traded. TD is still a 160 game Dman in the NHL and most agree that for those who are not stars, you need time. As you know, @stickty111, his numbers have been good for a 3rd pairing D. If we want to move that value, we need to get something back that the organization is missing.
Click to expand...
And he’s only 24.

He can easily become a top 4 dman in his career.
 
meefer said:
He's been a solid piece here. He will be a solid piece elsewhere, if traded. TD is still a 160 game Dman in the NHL and most agree that for those who are not stars, you need time. As you know, @stickty111, his numbers have been good for a 3rd pairing D. If we want to move that value, we need to get something back that the organization is missing.
Click to expand...
I am so torn with Travis Dermott. He has been a player I have loved to follow and watch since he was drafted. He plays an exciting brand of hockey, and he looks better this year than he has ever look IMO. I just do not see how we can fit him into our lineup after this year. He will 100% be scooped by Seattle. I understand the risks of letting him go, I just know that Rielly, Muzz, Brodie will all be protected and possibly Holl, I just cant think of a scenario where he gets protected.

We will lose this trade almost Guaranteed. Unless we get futures back. But no team is going to be willing to move futures if they are not prepared to extend TD and more importantly protect him.

In my mind we have 3 options.
-trade TD for picks, just try and recover as much as you can.
-trade TD for a more useful rental forward that consistently has a spot in the lineup and helps us this year win a cup
-or keep TD as an own/rental and understand that we will lose him at the end of the year. he will be used as an insurance policy in the event someone gets hurt. But given how he is used so sparingly right now, the own rental option just seems foolish

If it were up to me, I would trade him for picks. Wait until the deadline, see what injuries happen league wide, and to the Leafs. If we are still in a position where we still are not using TD, dish him to the highest bidder

Either way you look at it, we are going to lose Travis at the end of the year. That's all but a guarantee. Its a damn shame. Hopefully for our sake he turns out to be more like a Leipsic, and less like a Theodore
 
Brobust said:
It's been confirmed that Rutherford had a trade for North division defenceman before he quit.

I think it was either a Mete or Dermott deal for ZAR.
Click to expand...

Zach Aston-Reese is a decent defensive 4th liner. You can get him for like a 4th round pick, and the Leafs have other guys they can use on their 4th line more than a 1 mill guy who is slightly better than what you get on waivers.

The Leafs and Habs would get more value out of letting Seattle just take Dermott and Mete at the end of the year and keeping them as high quality depth than making that trade without a significant plus coming from Pittsburgh.

Blueger makes the most sense, and even he would likely have to come with a fairly good plus from PIT.
 
meefer said:
According to https://thehockeywriters.com/coyotes-looking-ahead-to-the-2021-expansion-draft/ Crouse would need to be protected.

I like him, he's the most physical forward I can see us trading for this year where cap issues can be equalized. How it plays beyond the end of this season???
Click to expand...

If you do Dermott + Barabanov (old regime, but Arizona had interest in him before) or Engvall (makes more sense for cap) for Crouse, then you can make the cap work if we don't have any extras on our roster.

I don't think it makes sense for the Leafs for various reasons. 1) Crouse would need to be protected; 2) I don't think he is any better than a guy like Engvall (who could back the other way and is only a year older); 3) He's a 4th liner at best on the Leafs right now, and we'd already have a fairly slow 4th line that gets caved in often (Spezza and Simmonds); 4) Dermott, even as depth, is likely more valuable than Crouse so Arizona would need something else that is enticing to make it worth it for us.

It will take a lot for the Leafs to consider moving Dermott and losing our depth, and Crouse isn't really enough.
 
Twine Tickler said:
I am so torn with Travis Dermott. He has been a player I have loved to follow and watch since he was drafted. He plays an exciting brand of hockey, and he looks better this year than he has ever look IMO. I just do not see how we can fit him into our lineup after this year. He will 100% be scooped by Seattle. I understand the risks of letting him go, I just know that Rielly, Muzz, Brodie will all be protected and possibly Holl, I just cant think of a scenario where he gets protected.

We will lose this trade almost Guaranteed. Unless we get futures back. But no team is going to be willing to move futures if they are not prepared to extend TD and more importantly protect him.

In my mind we have 3 options.
-trade TD for picks, just try and recover as much as you can.
-trade TD for a more useful rental forward that consistently has a spot in the lineup and helps us this year win a cup
-or keep TD as an own/rental and understand that we will lose him at the end of the year. he will be used as an insurance policy in the event someone gets hurt. But given how he is used so sparingly right now, the own rental option just seems foolish

If it were up to me, I would trade him for picks. Wait until the deadline, see what injuries happen league wide, and to the Leafs. If we are still in a position where we still are not using TD, dish him to the highest bidder

Either way you look at it, we are going to lose Travis at the end of the year. That's all but a guarantee. Its a damn shame. Hopefully for our sake he turns out to be more like a Leipsic, and less like a Theodore
Click to expand...

Disagree, there's one player on one team where I think the value and salary works out favorably for both. Arizona...Crouse. Vesey and Dermott for Crouse. Not that I want to trade TD, but as you say, it's hard to imagine him remaining on the roster and not getting scooped up. Crouse offers the most physical presence we can afford, and I want that presence. He can skate and PK and has scored similarly to Vesey. We might lose him in the draft, but I'd guess Kerfoot holds more value. To date, I'd go 4/4 with Rielly, Muzz, Brodie and Holl being protected. The variable(s) being Muzz or Rielly (hard to imagine) being exposed. Doubtful.
 
SeaOfBlue said:
If you do Dermott + Barabanov (old regime, but Arizona had interest in him before) or Engvall (makes more sense for cap) for Crouse, then you can make the cap work if we don't have any extras on our roster.

I don't think it makes sense for the Leafs for various reasons. 1) Crouse would need to be protected; 2) I don't think he is any better than a guy like Engvall (who could back the other way and is only a year older); 3) He's a 4th liner at best on the Leafs right now, and we'd already have a fairly slow 4th line that gets caved in often (Spezza and Simmonds); 4) Dermott, even as depth, is likely more valuable than Crouse so Arizona would need something else that is enticing to make it worth it for us.

It will take a lot for the Leafs to consider moving Dermott and losing our depth, and Crouse isn't really enough.
Click to expand...

There are many who argue that Engvall should be more physical, Crouse is top 10 in the league in hits for the past 3 years. He's not a 4th liner, I have no idea where you get that idea. He's faster than Spezza and Simmonds, why suggest otherwise and he has PK experience? Yes, Dermott is valuable to Arizona, he's what they need. Throw in Vesey, who does not impress me, and it's cap neutral. He's 23, 6'4" and hits a lot, blocks shots, has played lower than expected (perhaps rightly deserved? I don't think so) but has upside. We want a physical presence, he is a physical presence...and can play. I don't get the downside, other than perhaps losing him in the expansion draft, where I see Kerfoot having more value because he can play C.

edit: a left side of: Hyman/Mykhyev/Crouse/Thornton/Robertson/Engvall...not bad.

Just my opinion.
 
meefer said:
Disagree, there's one player on one team where I think the value and salary works out favorably for both. Arizona...Crouse. Vesey and Dermott for Crouse. Not that I want to trade TD, but as you say, it's hard to imagine him remaining on the roster and not getting scooped up. Crouse offers the most physical presence we can afford, and I want that presence. He can skate and PK and has scored similarly to Vesey. We might lose him in the draft, but I'd guess Kerfoot holds more value. To date, I'd go 4/4 with Rielly, Muzz, Brodie and Holl being protected. The variable(s) being Muzz or Rielly (hard to imagine) being exposed. Doubtful.
Click to expand...
I don't mind a trade for Crouse for sure. I think that was a player I had on my list for potential targets. I also would protect 4 D (Reilly, Muzz, Brodie, Holl). I would have a deal made in principle with Hyman as a UFA, and leave him unprotected. Therefore if Seattle selects him, he can then walk back to TO. Protect 6 forwards (JT,AM,MM,WN, X, X) and then protect soup in the cage.

one of those player X could be used to protect crouse
 
I don’t think you would even need to deal Dermott for Crouse. At most Liljegren and Engvall. But some will argue that’s even an overpayment.

We wouldn’t be able to protect Crouse but with Dermott/Holl and Kerfoot unprotected, don’t think Seattle is picking up Crouse over any of them.
 
meefer said:
There are many who argue that Engvall should be more physical, Crouse is top 10 in the league in hits for the past 3 years. He's not a 4th liner, I have no idea where you get that idea. He's faster than Spezza and Simmonds, why suggest otherwise and he has PK experience? Yes, Dermott is valuable to Arizona, he's what they need. Throw in Vesey, who does not impress me, and it's cap neutral. He's 23, 6'4" and hits a lot, blocks shots, has played lower than expected (perhaps rightly deserved? I don't think so) but has upside. We want a physical presence, he is a physical presence...and can play. I don't get the downside, other than perhaps losing him in the expansion draft, where I see Kerfoot having more value because he can play C.

edit: a left side of: Hyman/Mykhyev/Crouse/Thornton/Robertson/Engvall...not bad.

Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

He's a fourth liner because he is not better than the guys we currently have in our top 9 (including Vesey), just like Engvall is not really playing in the top 9 right now either... And Engvall brings a lot more to the table. Hitting and mediocre PKing (he would be worse than every one of our PKers) is really the only value Crouse provides to Arizona, which is exactly why he would only be a 4th liner here. You need to bring more than hitting to be more than a 4th liner for the Leafs.

He doesn't actually block a lot of shots, he sucks at possession (even for a guy with more defensive zone starts), he's really not that good of a skater, and while he does PK, he is not good enough to PK on the Leafs with the guys we currently have. He may be able to work his way up with time and development, since he is only 23/24 years old, but he'd start on the 4th line and have to work his way up.
 
TMLAM34 said:
I don’t think you would even need to deal Dermott for Crouse. At most Liljegren and Engvall. But some will argue that’s even an overpayment.

We wouldn’t be able to protect Crouse but with Dermott/Holl and Kerfoot unprotected, don’t think Seattle is picking up Crouse over any of them.
Click to expand...

Liljegren has more value than Dermott... And we are not chasing Crouse for anything of real value outside of Dermott. The only reason why Dermott would be on the table is because he would be exposed and not fit with the team long term, whereas Crouse may be able to be protected and stick in the lineup for longer. Liljegren is exempt and fits with the team a lot better than Crouse going forward.
 
Crouse would look good on our third line instead of Vesey.
Crouse Kerfoot Simmonds would be a very physical line and they can all skate well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom