Possibility of Muzzin and/or Brodie left unprotected in the expansion draft?

[moon111]

The Athletic disagrees, from yesterdays article:

Toronto Maple Leafs (7-3-1)

Protected forwards: Auston Matthews, Mitch Marner, John Tavares, William Nylander, Zach Hyman, Alex Kerfoot, Pierre Engvall.
Protected defence: Morgan Rielly, Jake Muzzin, T.J. Brodie.
Protected goalie: Jack Campbell.
Potentially available: Justin Holl, Travis Dermott, Frederik Andersen, David Rittich.​

Who are the forwards exposed? Believe you have to make two forwards potentially available. Could be wrong.

 

[tokyoite]

they arent going anywhere.
we may have to pay price to convince seattle ignore these guys including Dermott.
Dubas may sacrifice Rielly.

 

[BlueBaron]

Why would we pay Dermott as a bribe for them to take Kerfoot when Dermott (or Holl) would be the guy we would be worried about them taking instead of Kerfoot?

If they end up taking Anderson, Brooks, Malgin, Engvall or someone who is not Kerfoot or Dermott/Holl, then we are doing extremely well. Obviously I would expect them to take a more proven and better player when they can, considering there will be a lot of cheap, young, and promising talent on worse teams that they can take from other teams, but if they decide to take one of those 4 guys then that is their loss.

We aren't worried about them taking Kerfoot because we need his Cap space and they know it. Holl is the guy they would logically target as a cheap top 4 D we need. Maybe we want Dermott over Holl but we want both over Kerfoot.

Looking at our roster who is more expendable than Dermott? Holl is markedly better, Sandin and Timmy are more important and Sandin is already stealing his spot....

 

[BlueBaron]

they arent going anywhere.
we may have to pay price to convince seattle ignore these guys including Dermott.
Dubas may sacrifice Rielly.

Seems doubtful and a bit insane.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Why would we do that? and lets say we did. who would we protect?
Rielly
Holl
Dermott?

I'd rather have 80 year old Muzzin than 20 year old Dermott

 

[Arthur Morgan]

I'm protecting Dermott over Holl. Younger. D tend to take a little longer to peak. Probably won't reach that till he's 26-27. Had and still has more upside. Cheaper. Can play anywhere he's needed (either side). Proved that when Muzzin and Rielly went down. Good insurance if there's another injury, if Muzzin declines, if Rielly prices himself out of town or if god forbid Sandin turns into Gostisbehere.

Were in Win now mode. waiting and hoping for Dermott to take that next step is foolish. our window is now. not in 3-4 years when he matures to the game. Holl is just...better

Go with the better options.

Doesn't matter what happens with Rielly or Muzzin down the road. or if Sandin turns into Gostisbehere.
Seattle expansion draft is this offseason and they are taking a player. Why give up the better current player when we are in win mode for issues we may have down the road? seems backwards and counter productive.

Why not argue paying Seattle for extra protection on Dermott or something. I say let him go we got Sandin and Liljegren ready for the show.

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Kyle Dubas loves him. Wouldn't trade him for MacKenzie Weegar, what the hell makes you think he'd let him go for free

Was it Dubas not wanting to move Dermott for Weegar?
Or Florida not wanting to move Weegar for Dermott?
Do you just assume all GMs are lining up to give us better assets for our players?

 

[shortfuze]

Ahahahahahhaahaha zero percent chance.

Building our blueline with these two as the backbone for just 10.6m in capspace is Dubas's single biggest accomplishment as an NHL GM.

it wasnt that funny

 

[Terrible GM]

Giving up either Kerfoot or Dermott exposes a potential gap that is not easily filled. Center depth is critical, keeping Kerfoot gives the Leafs an extra two year of third line center. If they give up Dermott, they have to go out and pick up a LD for second/third line pairings. I like Rielly, but if he is demanding 7+ million for his mediocre defensive play, I would expose him. Then role with Muzzin/Sandin/Demott

Losing Rielly was unthinkable to me a couple years ago, but I really think it depends on where the cap is going and initial talks with Riellys agent on salary demands. I mean can someone here argue for the sake of one more year of Rielly that his defensive play is not replaceable? Do you think Sandin can't handle the PP the way Rielly is playing on it?

edit: Just to add, I would rather a side deal go through to keep them all, as long as it's not another 1st round pick.

 

[LeafGrief]

Giving up either Kerfoot or Dermott exposes a potential gap that is not easily filled. Center depth is critical, keeping Kerfoot gives the Leafs an extra two year of third line center. If they give up Dermott, they have to go out and pick up a LD for second/third line pairings. I like Rielly, but if he is demanding 7+ million for his mediocre defensive play, I would expose him. Then role with Muzzin/Sandin/Demott

Losing Rielly was unthinkable to me a couple years ago, but I really think it depends on where the cap is going and initial talks with Riellys agent on salary demands. I mean can someone here argue for the sake of one more year of Rielly that his defensive play is not replaceable? Do you think Sandin can't handle the PP the way Rielly is playing on it?

Oh no we might lose our depth 3c or #6 defenseman, and they're not easy to replace! Better expose the #1 instead. What the hell man? If you think Sandin can replace Rielly then there's your answer for who replaces Dermott.

Like, I don't agree with the people who hate Rielly anyways, but even if you want to get rid of the guy giving Seattle their best player so we can keep Travis Dermott is beyond the pale for ridiculous fan takes. If you want Rielly gone then you trade him because he's worth about 10x more than Travis Dermott is on the open market.

Exposing Rielly is a pants on head kind of take and it's disheartening to see it pop up several times in this thread so far.

 

[Mentat]

Near zero.
Exposing 2 of our best defencemen is something i believe does not even cross the mind of our GM.
I would be extremely surprised if we did it.

 

[Bluelines]

Think about who their GM, Director of Scouting and pro scouts are then that should give you an idea of who they will target.

GM: Ron Francis

Director of pro scouting: David Baseggio

Pro Scouts: Ulf Samuelsson, Cammi Granato, Stu Barnes, Dave Hunter, John Goodwin, Lorne Henning and William White. Andrew Allen (goalie scout).

There is a consistent character trait in some of these people, HIGH HIGH HIGH compete levels. Some of them you might say were dirty as players.

I'm thinking a big team, an aggressive team, a team with high Hockey IQ, a physical team.

 

[Bluelines]

Near zero.
Exposing 2 of our best defencemen is something i believe does not even cross the mind of our GM.
I would be extremely surprised if we did it.

I agree, highly unlikely but if Dubas thinks he can move a contract and get a player of equal skill for a lower cap hit, he may consider it.

 

[Canada4Gold]

We aren't worried about them taking Kerfoot because we need his Cap space and they know it. Holl is the guy they would logically target as a cheap top 4 D we need. Maybe we want Dermott over Holl but we want both over Kerfoot.

Looking at our roster who is more expendable than Dermott? Holl is markedly better, Sandin and Timmy are more important and Sandin is already stealing his spot....

I think SeaofBlue's point is you suggested they would pay a price of Dermott and a pick for Seattle to take Kerfoot which is essentially giving them a pick and both our 2 best exposed players which makes no sense. The most likely scenario is we protect Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, Holl, and Campbell. Guys like Mikheyev, Liljegren, Sandin, etc are exempt, Hyman is UFA and our best exposed players are Dermott, Kerfoot, Engvall, J.Anderson, or 1 week of Hyman before he hits UFA. Why would we give them Dermott, Kerfoot AND a pick in that scenario when the best Seattle can do is Dermott OR Kerfoot, whichever they prefer.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

I think SeaofBlue's point is you suggested they would pay a price of Dermott and a pick for Seattle to take Kerfoot which is essentially giving them a pick and both our 2 best exposed players which makes no sense. The most likely scenario is we protect Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, Holl, and Campbell. Guys like Mikheyev, Liljegren, Sandin, etc are exempt, Hyman is UFA and our best exposed players are Dermott, Kerfoot, Engvall, J.Anderson, or 1 week of Hyman before he hits UFA. Why would we give them Dermott, Kerfoot AND a pick in that scenario when the best Seattle can do is Dermott OR Kerfoot, whichever they prefer.

Because it gives us CAP room if Seattle would go for it .. but Seattle won't settle for it that easy .. they will take either Dermy 1st and Holl 2nd depending on who we expose because top 4 defense are very hard to get in pro hockey .. for Leafs it is good because we don't have to wait 5-7 years to develop another pro Dman and we get instant CAP to resign Zach and a couple other UFA's ... but Seattle has zero interest in a small lightweight 4C at 3.5M CAP hit

 

[Terrible GM]

Oh no we might lose our depth 3c or #6 defenseman, and they're not easy to replace! Better expose the #1 instead. What the hell man? If you think Sandin can replace Rielly then there's your answer for who replaces Dermott.

Like, I don't agree with the people who hate Rielly anyways, but even if you want to get rid of the guy giving Seattle their best player so we can keep Travis Dermott is beyond the pale for ridiculous fan takes. If you want Rielly gone then you trade him because he's worth about 10x more than Travis Dermott is on the open market.

Exposing Rielly is a pants on head kind of take and it's disheartening to see it pop up several times in this thread so far.

I didn't actually trade him, I didn't shoot him, save the dramatics. I'm only talking about making moves that will make sense long term. I see Dermott as a long term fit, and I feel he is better than a number 3 pair that you pay league minimum. I see a lot of value in him. I know many here do not. That's fine by me.

My only point is what Rielly will want to get paid vs what the cap will allow. I've loved watching the guy play for years, and much like Kaberle was years ago, he is lightning rod for criticism because of certain gaps. If he is going to want big time money.. do you keep him for the one year before UFA? As I posted, I'd rather the Leafs do a side deal to keep Rielly for that extra year, but in the end I have a gut feeling he is going to walk. The Leafs need to do their homework (and I'm sure they will), and have a long term plan for our D post expansion.

Out of curiosity, if the cap does not see much growth in a year. I know their is a new US TV deal, but their is also A LOT of lost revenue to recapture. Let's say it goes up a modest 2 million. Rielly wants 8.5 Million over 7 years. Are you doing that, and who is leaving?

 

[LeafGrief]

I didn't actually trade him, I didn't shoot him, save the dramatics. I'm only talking about making moves that will make sense long term. I see Dermott as a long term fit, and I feel he is better than a number 3 pair that you pay league minimum. I see a lot of value in him. I know many here do not. That's fine by me.

My only point is what Rielly will want to get paid vs what the cap will allow. I've loved watching the guy play for years, and much like Kaberle was years ago, he is lightning rod for criticism because of certain gaps. If he is going to want big time money.. do you keep him for the one year before UFA? As I posted, I'd rather the Leafs do a side deal to keep Rielly for that extra year, but in the end I have a gut feeling he is going to walk. The Leafs need to do their homework (and I'm sure they will), and have a long term plan for our D post expansion.

Out of curiosity, if the cap does not see much growth in a year. I know their is a new US TV deal, but their is also A LOT of lost revenue to recapture. Let's say it goes up a modest 2 million. Rielly wants 8.5 Million over 7 years. Are you doing that, and who is leaving?

I like Dermott just fine, he's a solid player and I've always believed he has upside. But you're trying to tie succession planning for Rielly into the expansion draft, and are proposing a terrible asset management scenario as a result. If Rielly wants 8.5m then we trade him. His trade value even with one year left on his deal is enough assets to go out and get three copies of Dermott. What you are proposing does not make sense long term because you would throw away the difference in value between the two players, which is enormous. We're a cup aspiring team and our coach throws Rielly over the boards 24 minutes a night. Dermott plays about 13. One year of Rielly is worth significantly more than holding on to Dermott.

I think Rielly is worth about 7m. He'll get laughed out of the room if he wants 8.5m, that's Pietrangelo money. We have Brodie and Muzzin at 5m and 5.6m, and those are strong internal comparables. If you're worried about him asking for 8.5m, I have to ask if you're worried about Dermott asking for 4m this summer or something equally silly. I mean sure, if Rielly is dead set on 8.5m then he walks, but Dubas isn't going to plan around players asking for silliness. All of those criticisms that you point out are part of the negotiation process. He's not an elite #1D so he's not going to get elite #1 money. He can ask for it, but Dubas is coming back with the Krug contract and they'll go from there.

Even with the new TV deal the cap will be flat for several more years to pay back all of the revenue from this year (they're getting full salaries in a year with no gate revenues, that's to be paid off over the next while). Kerfoot and Andersen leave, Hyman and Rielly get about 5m total raises.

 

[Terrible GM]

I like Dermott just fine, he's a solid player and I've always believed he has upside. But you're trying to tie succession planning for Rielly into the expansion draft, and are proposing a terrible asset management scenario as a result. If Rielly wants 8.5m then we trade him. His trade value even with one year left on his deal is enough assets to go out and get three copies of Dermott. What you are proposing does not make sense long term because you would throw away the difference in value between the two players, which is enormous. We're a cup aspiring team and our coach throws Rielly over the boards 24 minutes a night. Dermott plays about 13. One year of Rielly is worth significantly more than holding on to Dermott.

I think Rielly is worth about 7m. He'll get laughed out of the room if he wants 8.5m, that's Pietrangelo money. We have Brodie and Muzzin at 5m and 5.6m, and those are strong internal comparables. If you're worried about him asking for 8.5m, I have to ask if you're worried about Dermott asking for 4m this summer or something equally silly. I mean sure, if Rielly is dead set on 8.5m then he walks, but Dubas isn't going to plan around players asking for silliness. All of those criticisms that you point out are part of the negotiation process. He's not an elite #1D so he's not going to get elite #1 money. He can ask for it, but Dubas is coming back with the Krug contract and they'll go from there.

Even with the new TV deal the cap will be flat for several more years to pay back all of the revenue from this year (they're getting full salaries in a year with no gate revenues, that's to be paid off over the next while). Kerfoot and Andersen leave, Hyman and Rielly get about 5m total raises.

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but there is value in exposing him as well. Cap space for long term affordable moves or perhaps a side deal with Seattle to expose him. It's all irrelevant if he intends to sign a reasonable deal. For the record, I still do enjoy watching Rielly play and hope he re-signs, but just wish he could harness some type of physicality in front of the net consistently. He's way to soft there.

 

[BertCorbeau]

I've said for awhile I'm open to moving Rielly for futures pre-expansion draft but there are some risks there too as we can't overlook the great stuff Rielly brings.

I consider moving him pre-expansion draft since they Leafs can keep both Holl and Dermott. From there shore up some defensive depth but signing someone like Oleksiak in free agency. Some size/physicality that can kill penalties.

Still, revamping the d-core to the likes of:

Muzzin-Holl
Sandin-Brodie
Oleksiak-Dermott
Liljegren

That offers some versatility in pairings:

Muzzin-Holl
Dermott-Brodie
Oleksiak-Sandin
Liljegren

Muzzin-Holl
Sandin-Brodie
Oleksiak-Liljegren
Dermott

Muzzin-Holl
Dermott-Brodie
Oleksiak-Liljegren
Sandin

Effectively, trying to keep the younger blue liners from being over-exposed over a full season. And allows Sandin and Liljegren to be on the PP.

 

[Sweet Leaf]

For the record I think there's little chance both are exposed and a pretty good chance one is exposed. Some further supporting points after reading through.

1. I'm surprised, given our cap situation, how many of you think giving up young cheap talent on D with upside like Dermott and Holl is a way more palatable decision. Dubas and Keefe love these kids and for good reason.

2. I believe Sandin can be a top 4 defencemen on the left side in short order. He's not taking Reilly's spot...I could definitely see Sandin being a better defencemen than Muzzin is within the next 12-24 months.

3. They like Liljegren. We like Liljegren. It's not unfathomable to project him as a top 4 defencemen in the next couple of years and again he's getting mature now. Again he's a young cheap option for a team in need of young cheap options.

4. Again, the best argument that this is/has been considered is the way the contracts are structured. The organizational "hope" at the time was the young guys would make these signings redundant in due course and they negotiated for that contingency.

 

[LeafGrief]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but there is value in exposing him as well. Cap space for long term affordable moves or perhaps a side deal with Seattle to expose him. It's all irrelevant if he intends to sign a reasonable deal. For the record, I still do enjoy watching Rielly play and hope he re-signs, but just wish he could harness some type of physicality in front of the net consistently. He's way to soft there.

There's similar value in exposing Nylander to create cap space. If you're dead set on getting the cap space, you trade the player for futures. You don't give him away in the draft when you don't have to because that's just flushing the value difference between Rielly/Dermott down the toilet. Morgan Rielly's trade value in the summer is higher than the value of Travis Dermott to the franchise as an asset entirely. Therefore, it's a slam dunk decision to keep the higher value asset (Rielly or his trade value) and let the lower value asset (Dermott) go in the expansion draft.

 

[LeafGrief]

For the record I think there's little chance both are exposed and a pretty good chance one is exposed. Some further supporting points after reading through.

1. I'm surprised, given our cap situation, how many of you think giving up young cheap talent on D with upside like Dermott and Holl is a way more palatable decision. Dubas and Keefe love these kids and for good reason.

2. I believe Sandin can be a top 4 defencemen on the left side in short order. He's not taking Reilly's spot...I could definitely see Sandin being a better defencemen than Muzzin is within the next 24-48 months.

3. They like Liljegren. We like Liljegren. It's not unfathomable to project him as a top 4 defencemen in the next couple of years and again he's getting mature now. Again he's a young cheap option for a team in need of young cheap options.

4. Again, the best argument that this is/has been considered is the way the contracts are structured. The organizational "hope" at the time was the young guys would make these signings redundant in due course and they negotiated for that contingency.

1. Keefe sure as heck loves Holl. He plays him 22+ minutes a night. He doesn't love Dermott though, he plays him 13 minutes a night. He plays Muzzin and Brodie 22 minutes each as well. Travis Dermott has upside, but the Leafs are aspiring to win a cup in the next few years. We're not waiting around on Dermott to become as good as Muzzin or Brodie. I think it's very clear here that you're massively underrating what Brodie and Muzzin bring to the team if you think that Dermott is on the cusp of replacing that.
2. Clearly underrating Muzzin. Offensively, sure Sandin might be better real soon. He might never be as good as Muzzin is defensively.
3. Why would we expose Brodie to give Liljegren space in a few years? If Liljegren is amazing then we stick him on the third pairing and run with an elite defense core. Remember, we're trying to win the cup, not the cap space challenge.
4. What? The contingency gives the team an out if the players aren't playing well. They're both utterly fantastic and the backbone of our much improved defense.

 

[Sweet Leaf]

If Sandin reaches his projection he'll vault ahead of Muzzin on the depth chart. This means you have Muzzin as your 3rd best LD on the bottom pairing. That's a very expensive contract to be on the bottom pairing.

 

[LeafGrief]

If Sandin reaches his projection he'll vault ahead of Muzzin on the depth chart. This means you have Muzzin as your 3rd best LD on the bottom pairing. That's a very expensive contract to be on the bottom pairing.

So trade him when Sandin reaches his projection if that's the case.

 

[Sweet Leaf]

1. Keefe sure as heck loves Holl. He plays him 22+ minutes a night. He doesn't love Dermott though, he plays him 13 minutes a night. He plays Muzzin and Brodie 22 minutes each as well. Travis Dermott has upside, but the Leafs are aspiring to win a cup in the next few years. We're not waiting around on Dermott to become as good as Muzzin or Brodie. I think it's very clear here that you're massively underrating what Brodie and Muzzin bring to the team if you think that Dermott is on the cusp of replacing that.
2. Clearly underrating Muzzin. Offensively, sure Sandin might be better real soon. He might never be as good as Muzzin is defensively.
3. Why would we expose Brodie to give Liljegren space in a few years? If Liljegren is amazing then we stick him on the third pairing and run with an elite defense core. Remember, we're trying to win the cup, not the cap space challenge.
4. What? The contingency gives the team an out if the players aren't playing well. They're both utterly fantastic and the backbone of our much improved defense.

1. Biggest reason imo for the difference in ice time is Dermott is on the 3rd pairing with Bogo and Holl is on second pairing with Muzzin. We don't know if Holl would be ahead of Demott on the depth chart of Dermott played the right side like Holl does.

2. I'm not underrating Muzzin. He's a very good defencemen. Nazem Kadri was a great center and we traded him for non hockey reasons too. The cap is a bitch.

3. IMO Brodie is less likely to be left unprotected for this reason. IE Org less certain on Liljegren long term than Sandin.

4. And you know this how? You think that clause is there because the org anticipated one or both shitting the bed yet NEVER considered the option and likelihood that Dermott, Holl, Sandin and Liljegren would ever develop to a point where the org deemed those contracts an expensive luxury they could replace from within? This is irrational. I'm not saying it's going to happen or the way things will go down but to never think the org considered this is wrong imo.