Proposal: Hockey Trade: Kerfoot for ??

[sens13]

Can you specifically identify where I said younger or better? You seem to have a reading comprehension problem man. Throwing out the term "idiots" in regards to other people on here is certainly a case of pot meet kettle.

lol then what are you looking for? What's your purpose for trading kerfoot?

You literally said on the first page your looking for a natural finisher. That's a better player. Why is someone going to trade their natural finisher for a guy who can't finish and has 6 goals in 38 games.

I didn't call anyone on here an idiot. I was talking about the teams. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

 

[banks]

Zero issue in adding to Kerfoot for the right deal.

Then that isn't a "hockey deal" though. That's just being a buyer. A "hockey deal" suggests swapping players that play a position that their new team needs more.

Johansen for Jones. JVR for Luke Schenn. Those were hockey deals. Those guys weren't traded because the teams were rebuilding, or because the players wanted out, or for cap reasons. The trade happens because their teams wanted a change to the on-ice hockey team, nothing more.

Adding to upgrade Kerfoot for a better LW/C isn't what I would call a hockey trade.

 

[WTFMAN99]

lol then what are you looking for? What's your purpose for trading kerfoot?

You literally said on the first page your looking for a natural finisher. That's a better player. Why is someone going to trade their natural finisher for a guy who can't finish and has 6 goals in 38 games.

I didn't call anyone on here an idiot. I was talking about the teams. Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension.

Looking for a more natural finisher than Kerfoot doesn't necessarily mean a better player. Kerfoot is really tenacious on the forecheck, can penalty kill well and pass, also some good wheels.

There are players that might be able to put the puck in the net a bit better but aren't as well rounded.

Better finisher isn't always better player, that knowledge comes with just watching hockey enough to understand

Then that isn't a "hockey deal" though. That's just being a buyer. A "hockey deal" suggests swapping players that play a position that their new team needs more.

Johansen for Jones. JVR for Luke Schenn. Those were hockey deals. Those guys weren't traded because the teams were rebuilding, or because the players wanted out, or for cap reasons. The trade happens because their teams wanted a change to the on-ice hockey team, nothing more.

Adding to upgrade Kerfoot for a better LW/C isn't what I would call a hockey trade.

You don't think adding is okay?

I mean I am dating myself but James Neal for Patric Hornqvist AND Nick Spaling is one that comes to mind.

Trading is such a rarity now that I probably need to dig for some more recent examples.

 

[JA17]

A pure hockey trade with Kerfoot would probably be a #5 defenseman. Someone who can step into the top 4 if needed. He isn't going to return a true top 6 forward or top 4 defenseman by himself.
Kerfoot + 1st + B prospect? That is a real solid package that the Leafs should be dangling for a legitimate difference maker on the blueline

 

[sens13]

Looking for a more natural finisher than Kerfoot doesn't necessarily mean a better player. Kerfoot is really tenacious on the forecheck, can penalty kill well and pass, also some good wheels.

There are players that might be able to put the puck in the net a bit better but aren't as well rounded.

Better finisher isn't always better player, that knowledge comes with just watching hockey enough to understand

True but which team is going to trade their better finisher for a player who outside of 30 games this was a #3c?

Oh so it's ok for you to take shots but if I do you get offended. typical leafs bias.
Before you get all defensive your implying I don't watch enough so I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll spell it out for you.

 

[WTFMAN99]

True but which team is going to trade their better finisher for a player who outside of 30 games this was a #3c?

Oh so it's ok for you to take shots but if I do you get offended. typical leafs bias.
Before you get all defensive your implying I don't watch enough so I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll spell it out for you.

Kerfoot was 2C last playoffs and produced really well for Toronto, I feel okay in classifying him as a good middle 6 forward that can play LW/C.

A team that would like some versatility or a pker would have an interest. The other big factor is that Kerfoot's contract actual dollars owed is less than the cap hit, budget teams might care about that factor too.

You couldn't possibly offend me, don't worry.

 

[TheBeastCoast]

I don't really see the point in trading Kerfoot in season. He had a great playoff and has been really good this season. Other people seem to be under the impression that he sucks when he doesn't. So just keep him.

 

[bernmeister]

You're the one who claimed that Strome would re-sign for less than Kerfoot. Now you want to "adjust the cost". Which is it? Either Strome is going to be a cheaper asset than Kerfoot, or he isn't.

Kerfoot is cheaper now (and 100 % cheaper next season, contrary to your claims), his versatility is more valuable to the Leafs than a purely offensive center, and he's under contract next year. It's a clear open and shut case. None of your arguments have held any water.

Woa, woa, woa!!!
I did not say the bold. I think I threw out a # somewhere that he would want more $ and more term, but give TML 4 yrs at 5.25m, which is less than 6+ and possibly longer term on open market.
The OP wants a 'hockey trade' for Kerfoot and I straightforwardly said not seeing it generally and def not for NY. Would take him back if nec if you want a good buy in Ryan Strome.
I left it w/clearly RS is better offense wise. To what extent Kerf is improved in the rest of the game, we can measure, but I don't see that overcoming a guy who is 2C who has demonstrated he can play with first line guys {panarin,etc.}.
Your disingenuous allegation is called out as the epic fail it is.
Keep Kerf and just give us sufficient picks.

 

[bossram]

Woa, woa, woa!!!
I did not say the bold. I think I threw out a # somewhere that he would want more $ and more term, but give TML 4 yrs at 5.25m, which is less than 6+ and possibly longer term on open market.
The OP wants a 'hockey trade' for Kerfoot and I straightforwardly said not seeing it generally and def not for NY. Would take him back if nec if you want a good buy in Ryan Strome.
I left it w/clearly RS is better offense wise. To what extent Kerf is improved in the rest of the game, we can measure, but I don't see that overcoming a guy who is 2C who has demonstrated he can play with first line guys {panarin,etc.}.
Your disingenuous allegation is called out as the epic fail it is.
Keep Kerf and just give us sufficient picks.

^ completely ignores useful contributions esp on offense RS would bring, + also dismissed that he would likely be a good value add to Leafs next season. At worst it is a cheap chance to audition this guy for a 4 yr deal after this, w/of course, a boost to the p'os

This is a quote, of you. You clearly said Strome would be a good value add to the Leafs next season. The only way Strome could be a "value add" next season, relative to Kerfoot, was if he signed a cheaper contract than Kerfoot's current $3.5 million cap hit. That is highly, highly, unlikely. Going from Kerfoot to Strome is in no way a "value" move, and cap considerations are part of the context that you conveniently and repeatedly choose to ignore.

Now you're pivoting by moving the goalposts and simultaneously trying to claim that a Kerfoot hockey trade with NYR would not work, but that trading Kerfoot straight across for Strome would be a win for the Leafs. When again, as I've explained, the versatility Kerfoot brings is more valuable to the Leafs than a purely offensive player. I would also consider Strome a 2C offensively, but that is simply not the role he would be given in Toronto. There is no path for him to center the Leafs' other elite players. They need cheap, versatile players who can move up and down the lineup and perform various roles.

And again, Toronto has cap issues. They can't add Strome purely for picks (not that they'd want to anyway).

My allegations were not disingenuous. I'm literally quoting you and directly responding to your arguments. You're the one who has "epic failed" in showing a continued inability to consider any other variables besides, "Strome scores more so he's good".

 

[bernmeister]

This is a quote, of you. You clearly said Strome would be a good value add to the Leafs next season. The only way Strome could be a "value add" next season, relative to Kerfoot, was if he signed a cheaper contract than Kerfoot's current $3.5 million cap hit. That is highly, highly, unlikely. Going from Kerfoot to Strome is in no way a "value" move, and cap considerations are part of the context that you conveniently and repeatedly choose to ignore.

Now you're pivoting by moving the goalposts and simultaneously trying to claim that a Kerfoot hockey trade with NYR would not work, but that trading Kerfoot straight across for Strome would be a win for the Leafs. When again, as I've explained, the versatility Kerfoot brings is more valuable than a purely offensive player. I would also consider Strome a 2C offensively, but that is simply not the role he would be given in Toronto. There is no path for him to center the Leafs' other elite players. They need cheap, versatile players who can move up and down the lineup and perform various roles.

And again, Toronto has cap issues. They can't add Strome purely for picks (not that they'd want to anyway).

My allegations were not disingenuous. I'm literally quoting you and directly responding to your arguments. You're the one who has "epic failed" in showing a continued inability to consider any other variables besides, "Strome scores more so he's good".

the underlined is true
the bold is a narrative you are trying to create, forcing it to be only if relative to Kerfoot.
False
Strome in a vacuum is theoretically worth 6+min for ballpark 5 yrs min more likely 6 min.
I proffered he'd give Leafs a hometown advantage of 5.25 x 4.
That automatically makes him a great value to the Leafs PERIOD.

What you guys do with Kerfoot is mutually exclusive and irrelevant.
The only ? is if Strome for picks is worth it for this year's cup since he is a ufa after and likely will give Leafs a shot. The issue there is if Kraken or some other club open up the wallet he might take $$ over personal preference, whereas if you get him now and road test him w/existing roster, you see how good the fit is likely to be and have inside track.

Again, no interest in Kerfoot except if a cap dump on Strome and we move AK after. I was fully clear and straightforward about this. To suggest AF holds more value than RS is comical, btw

 

[bossram]

the underlined is true
the bold is a narrative you are trying to create, forcing it to be only if relative to Kerfoot.
False
Strome in a vacuum is theoretically worth 6+min for ballpark 5 yrs min more likely 6 min.
I proffered he'd give Leafs a hometown advantage of 5.25 x 4.
That automatically makes him a great value to the Leafs PERIOD.

What you guys do with Kerfoot is mutually exclusive and irrelevant.
The only ? is if Strome for picks is worth it for this year's cup since he is a ufa after and likely will give Leafs a shot. The issue there is if Kraken or some other club open up the wallet he might take $$ over personal preference, whereas if you get him now and road test him w/existing roster, you see how good the fit is likely to be and have inside track.

Again, no interest in Kerfoot except if a cap dump on Strome and we move AK after. I was fully clear and straightforward about this. To suggest AF holds more value than RS is comical, btw

1. You're just making an assumption that Strome will take a "hometown discount". I can easily just say, "Strome will look to maximize his earnings as this is his one big UFA contract he'll be able to sign". Why are your narratives true but no one else's are? Of course the discussion has to be "relative to Kerfoot" because he is the roster player that would supposedly be subtracted to add Strome. All gains in the NHL are relative. To ignore that is simply dumb.

2. There is no "in a vacuum". There is context, and teams already have certain needs and constraints. Again, you just choose to ignore whatever context/considerations hurt your arguments, but include whatever ones help them. I've been perfectly fair and consistent. I agreed with you that Strome is a 2C offensively. I agree with you regarding his market value.

3. BUT these things have to be considered in conjunction with team needs, cap considerations, etc. You've said "the only question is if Strome is worth it for this year?" Firstly, this again is a reversal of what you've just said regarding Strome being a value add/hometown discount in seasons following this one. Secondly, as I've repeatedly stated to you, Strome would not be worth it because what he brings to a roster does not fit nor align with the Leafs' particular needs - and this is even ignoring the cap considerations, which make it a non-starter to begin with.

4. I've never said Kerfoot has "more value" than Strome. I've been stating that the particular attributes Kerfoot brings (versatility, lower cap commitment) are more valuable to the Leafs than the particular attributes Strome would bring.

 

[bernmeister]

1. You're just making an assumption that Strome will take a "hometown discount". I can easily just say, "Strome will look to maximize his earnings as this is his one big UFA contract he'll be able to sign". Why are your narratives true but no one else's are? Of course the discussion has to be "relative to Kerfoot" because he is the roster player that would supposedly be subtracted to add Strome. All gains in the NHL are relative. To ignore that is simply dumb.

2. There is no "in a vacuum". There is context, and teams already have certain needs and constraints. Again, you just choose to ignore whatever context/considerations hurt your arguments, but include whatever ones help them. I've been perfectly fair and consistent. I agreed with you that Strome is a 2C offensively. I agree with you regarding his market value.

3. BUT these things have to be considered in conjunction with team needs, cap considerations, etc. You've said "the only question is if Strome is worth it for this year?" Firstly, this again is a reversal of what you've just said regarding Strome being a value add/hometown discount in seasons following this one. Secondly, as I've repeatedly stated to you, Strome would not be worth it because what he brings to a roster does not fit nor align with the Leafs' particular needs - and this is even ignoring the cap considerations, which make it a non-starter to begin with.

4. I've never said Kerfoot has "more value" than Strome. I've been stating that the particular attributes Kerfoot brings (versatility, lower cap commitment) are more valuable to the Leafs than the particular attributes Strome would bring.

I agree that 1 -- hometown discount -- is not a given but it is plausible.

I disagree as to 2 "in a vacuum". It is in a vacuum b'c as I've made forthrightedly clear at sq. 1, NY has no interest in Kerfoot, and would only consider to oblige taking at the right # back to facilitate a deal. This DOES mean, like it or not, Strome's value is in a vacuum. I appreciate you acknowledging him being established as the superior offensive player and that my assessment of perceived market value was fair.

Item 3, 2 separate pts:
"You've said "the only question is if Strome is worth it for this year?" Firstly, this again is a reversal of what you've just said regarding Strome being a value add/hometown discount in seasons following this one."
Yes, I did say the quote but no, your narrative is wrong. The issue of what Strome costs this year is determined by his current salary and whether or not Rangers retain. THAT -- his cap hit for this season -- does not have anything to do with whether or not he gives Leafs a discount in the future. I brought that up to acknowledge that yes, Leafs could just wait for him to emerge as ufa, and not pay anything now to acquire now. Like I said, that all depends on how much you do/do not want to further go all in this yr.

As to second pt of item 3, ...
"Secondly, as I've repeatedly stated to you, Strome would not be worth it because what he brings to a roster does not fit nor align with the Leafs' particular needs - and this is even ignoring the cap considerations, which make it a non-starter to begin with."
I am not telling you that you are not entitled to your own opinion. I've seen posts by Leaf fans good w/2nd + for Strome.

Likewise item 4, that is yr opinion and you are entitled to it. I sense Kerfoot's game is improved but I don't get the sense it is THAT MUCH improved. So, amicably, like adults, let's agree to disagree.