Value of: Michael Bunting

[belair]

I haven't seen this mentioned in the Toronto media and I find that surprising.

I believe the Leafs would be best suited to trade him a year ahead of his UFA status and start to replenish some of the team's spent assets as they'll need them to shed the salary they'll need to this summer to improve the team's payroll structure and team depth.

His value will never be higher than it is now, scoring 63 points as a first year player. I just don't see the Leafs likely to be able to re-sign him to the deal he'd be expected to get in 23/24 considering he's probably looking at a deal in the $5-6m range based on his production.

So my question is what the Leafs think they should receive for this player as a rental. And which teams would find significant value in Bunting, who seems to be a very affordable complimentary scoring forward, making just $950,000 next season.

Click to read more...

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

This is silly. Toronto is trying to win now.

Getting a 2nd round pick or less for a guy who did well in the top 6 and makes sub 1m doesn't make sense.

 

[wonton15]

This is silly. Toronto is trying to win now.

Getting a 2nd round pick or less for a guy who did well in the top 6 and makes sub 1m doesn't make sense.

He'd easily get a 1st from a contender, but yes it makes absolutely no sense to trade him while Toronto is going for it

 

[A1LeafNation]

Lol

 

[belair]

This is silly. Toronto is trying to win now.

Getting a 2nd round pick or less for a guy who did well in the top 6 and makes sub 1m doesn't make sense.

Toronto's been 'going for it' each and every year they've had the core. And they'll be 'going for it' regardless of whether Michael Bunting is a Maple Leaf.

The fact of the matter is Toronto is going to need assets to sustain their competitive roster beyond next season and ultimately clear the misspent cap from their payroll.

Bunting, while a valuable piece for them, is a highly tradeable asset, but is also very replaceable in terms of the role he fills there. And if it doesn't happen now, it will next off-season. He's their rental as an impending UFA.

 

[Tufted Titmouse]

Toronto's been 'going for it' each and every year they've had the core. And they'll be 'going for it' regardless of whether Michael Bunting is a Maple Leaf.

The fact of the matter is Toronto is going to need assets to sustain their competitive roster beyond next season and ultimately clear the misspent cap from their payroll.

Bunting, while a valuable piece for them, is a highly tradeable asset, but is also very replaceable in terms of the role he fills there. And if it doesn't happen now, it will next off-season. He's their rental as an impending UFA.

We would be trading Bunting in hopes of finding another Bunting.

 

[AuraSphere]

Why the heck would we trade Bunting? Contenders spend picks to get UFAs, not get rid of them for picks

 

[belair]

We would be trading Bunting in hopes of finding another Bunting.

Bunting is a complimentary scoring winger to your elites. I understand that it's difficult to find a player of that quality through the UFA market or by trade, but it's possible to fill that role effectively.

Bunting was a free UFA signing whose stock has been elevated to something otherworldly within a calendar year. Another year from now they won't be able to afford him.

 

[The Devilish Buffoon]

Its really tough to think of a team that needs Bunting more than Toronto.

Only way it makes sense to trade him is if they undergo a full rebuild, or if they can add a sub-3m top 6er or top 4D. I can't see him sniffing either guy, but Gavrikov and Zub are two guys who come to mind.

Basically it will take a dream deal for it to make sense for Toronto to trade him.

 

[Killer Orcas]

Bunting is the last player you should be trading he fits like a glove in Toronto.

 

[ManofSteel55]

So you're on a team that wants to contend. You have some cap issues. And your solution to get better is to trade a guy who fits perfectly on the top line and makes no money?

 

[belair]

Its really tough to think of a team that needs Bunting more than Toronto.

Only way it makes sense to trade him is if they undergo a full rebuild, or if they can add a sub-3m top 6er or top 4D. I can't see him sniffing either guy, but Gavrikov and Zub are two guys who come to mind.

Basically it will take a dream deal for it to make sense for Toronto to trade him.

How less competitive is a Toronto team without Michael Bunting than one with him? I don't see the Leafs falling off significantly if they have to replace that player (again) through other means. He's been a win for them as an acquisition, but he's a rental.

The question is where you want to go with that found money. Do you want to cash it in and help extend that competitive window? Or do you want to run with it, hoping that good things will happen and risk letting it die on the vine?

Obviously this is a much larger conversation than just Bunting. The Leafs need to shed cap. And to do that they'll need trade capital. Trading Mrazek is going to cost them. As it stands they've got about $7m to re-sign all of Sandin, Liljegren, their goalie and a number of depth forwards that likely aren't coming back. They're getting thinner.

Trading Bunting away hurts them less than trading any of their core. It hurts them less than paring down the defense, which needs to improve.

 

[Tasteless Beaver]

You have depth scoring at an extremely low price, and your first instinct is to trade it away? You need more Michael Buntings, not less.

 

[Zegs2sendhelp]

You can send him to Anaheim if you’d like…

 

[seabass45]

How less competitive is a Toronto team without Michael Bunting than one with him? I don't see the Leafs falling off significantly if they have to replace that player (again) through other means. He's been a win for them as an acquisition, but he's a rental.

The question is where you want to go with that found money. Do you want to cash it in and help extend that competitive window? Or do you want to run with it, hoping that good things will happen and risk letting it die on the vine?

Obviously this is a much larger conversation than just Bunting. The Leafs need to shed cap. And to do that they'll need trade capital. Trading Mrazek is going to cost them. As it stands they've got about $7m to re-sign all of Sandin, Liljegren, their goalie and a number of depth forwards that likely aren't coming back. They're getting thinner.

Trading Bunting away hurts them less than trading any of their core. It hurts them less than paring down the defense, which needs to improve.

Are you trying to convince Leafs fans that they should trade him to Edmonton?

 

[CycloneSweep]

There is zero reason to move Bunting as he is extremely cheap for his production. Maybe if the team is floundering somehow at the deadline you flip him for a 1st, but not before that.

You cant improve your team by sending out arguably the most valuable (cost per point) contract they have.

They have 11 forwards, 4 defenders and 2 goalies signed for next year and if the cap goes up a mill they will have roughly 8.5 to spend for 1 third liner, 2 extras and 3 defenders. They do have to resign Campbell as well.

If they were to move anyone it would unfortunately probably be a guy like Kerfoot or swapping out Nylander for a defender or something

 

[belair]

So you're on a team that wants to contend. You have some cap issues. And your solution to get better is to trade a guy who fits perfectly on the top line and makes no money?

Depends how long you want to contend.

There are two routes you can go as Leafs GM. You can trade one or two of the guys who make all of the money and deal with the consequences of that. Or you can probably get a similar valued return out of the UFA you just signed, who likely costs himself out either way one year from now.

In the past Toronto has routinely allowed these types of assets to walk to free agency because it didn't 'make sense' for the contending team to trade a good player. It has hurt them in terms of ultimately improving their on-ice product year by year.

The Leafs have three picks this year and have already spent the 2nd rounder in the '24 draft. Knowing you'll need to use some of those assets to get a team like Arizona to take Mrazek's contract, what parts of their roster are they going the cap space and necessary to allow them meaningfully improve? Are they going to rely solely on the UFA crop? Or are they going to need more capital to add the impactful top 4 D, the two-way forward or the goalie they want?

Michael Bunting is probably the best valued asset the Leafs currently own that hurts them the least to lose.

Are you trying to convince Leafs fans that they should trade him to Edmonton?

No. Edmonton has nothing to do with this. He wouldn't be a good fit there, nor could they afford to keep him.

This is solely about Toronto's off-season roster situation.

 

[ManofSteel55]

Depends how long you want to contend.

There are two routes you can go as Leafs GM. You can trade one or two of the guys who make all of the money and deal with the consequences of that. Or you can probably get a similar valued return out of the UFA you just signed, who likely costs himself out either way one year from now.

In the past Toronto has routinely allowed these types of assets to walk to free agency because it didn't 'make sense' for the contending team to trade a good player. It's hurt then in terms of ultimately improving their on-ice product you by year.

The Leafs have three picks this year and have already spent the 2nd rounder in the '24 draft. Knowing you'll need to use some of those assets to get a team like Arizona to take Mrazek's contract. What parts of their roster are they going to meaningfully improve? Are they going to rely solely on the UFA crop? Or are they going to need more capital to add the impactful top 4 D, the two-way forward or the goalie they want?

Michael Bunting is probably the best valued asset the Leafs own that hurts them the least to lose.

Who plays in Buntings spot next year?

Toronto needs to go for it, not sit back and try to outsmart themselves. Teams trying to win don't trade contributing pieces for futures.

 

[Ciao]

We would be trading Bunting in hopes of finding another Bunting.

It would be asinine to trade Bunting and then try to replace him.

It wouldn't save any money off the cap.

It would be difficult if not impossible to replace him at a similar cap hit.

He's a Scarborough, Ontario, native playing in his hometown market, where his level of play and on-ice value is probably at its highest.

A lose-lose-lose proposition.

 

[belair]

Who plays in Buntings spot next year?

Toronto needs to go for it, not sit back and try to outsmart themselves. Teams trying to win don't trade contributing pieces for futures.

Who's played in Michael Bunting's spot in the past? It's important to remember that this guy was a shot-in-the-dark UFA signing with no track record. The two guys next to him are Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner.

Teams that want to win need to identify the parts of their roster that need to improve. And sometimes to improve those areas, they may need to make sacrifices.

 

[belair]

It would be asinine to trade Bunting and then try to replace him.

It wouldn't save any money off the cap.

It would be difficult if not impossible to replace him at a similar cap hit.

He's a Scarborough, Ontario, native playing in his hometown market, where his level of play and on-ice value is probably at its highest.

A lose-lose-lose proposition.

The idea isn't about saving money off of the cap. It's about replenishing trade capital because they'll need quite a bit of it this summer if they want to go into next season with a deeper on-ice roster considering their cap situation.

 

[Ciao]

Who's played in Michael Bunting's spot in the past? It's important to remember that this guy was a shot-in-the-dark UFA signing with no track record. The two guys next to him are Auston Matthews and Mitch Marner.

Teams that want to win need to identify the parts of their roster that need to improve. And sometimes to improve those areas, they may need to make sacrifices.

Zach Hyman.

Edmonton Oiler now. Remember him?

The idea isn't about saving money off of the cap. It's about replenishing trade capital because they'll need quite a bit of it this summer if they want to go into next season with a deeper on-ice roster considering their cap situation.

These guys don't grow trees.

Bunting was a long shot that worked out well. The Leafs can't count on replicating that.

If they could so easily replace him, he would have no trade value.

The Leafs need what Bunting has to offer right now. This is the future.

 

[belair]

Zach Hyman.

Edmonton Oiler now. Remember him?

They've thrown depth guys in that role, too. Hyman was there primarily, but his versatility allowed him to play deeper on the roster the same way he's been used in Edmonton.

Alex Galchenyuk was in that role a year ago.

Absolutely no reason to believe that a guy like Nick Robertson couldn't thrive in that role. Or a variety of the cast-off options likely available on the UFA market for a similar bargain.

What you can't get is the return you could expect from him without moving one of Matthews, Marner or Nylander. And any of those three hurts a lot more than trading Bunting.

 

[Ciao]

They've thrown depth guys in that role, too. Hyman was there primarily, but his versatility allowed him to play deeper on the roster the same way he's been used in Edmonton.

Alex Galchenyuk was in that role a year ago.

Absolutely no reason to believe that a guy like Nick Robertson couldn't thrive in that role. Or a variety of the cast-off options likely available on the UFA market for a similar bargain.

What you can't get is the return you could expect from him without moving one of Matthews, Marner or Nylander. And any of those three hurts a lot more than trading Bunting.

I'm not really suggesting they trade Matthews, Marner or Nylander either.

 

[ck26]

The fact of the matter is Toronto is going to need assets to sustain their competitive roster beyond next season and ultimately clear the misspent cap from their payroll.

Their plan to "clear the misspent cap" is to trade away maybe the most cost-effective scorer on the roster?

Why don't the Leafs just attach picks / prospects to the "misspent" contracts to bribe a team like Seattle to take them?

Giordano is gone after this year. There's your money to pay Bunting.