Should Toronto trade away their 1st and 2nd picks in 2022?
- Thread starter Orfieus
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
LeafChief
Matthew Knies Enthusiast
That's a weird poll. It would entirely depend on what they would be getting in return for their first round pick.
Also, unless Mennell plays 30 games with the Leafs, they will retain their 7th rounder.
Also, unless Mennell plays 30 games with the Leafs, they will retain their 7th rounder.
CantLoseWithMatthews
Registered User
- Sep 28, 2015
- 49,735
- 59,495
if they can find the right trade then yeah. They don't need to trade a 1st for the sake of it like last year, but there's no reason not to try to compete now
I wasn't able to update the poll but I did edit my post, the player(s) acquired will be rentals but they will make Toronto a better team
SeaOfBlue
The Passion That Unites Us All
- Aug 1, 2013
- 35,591
- 16,777
I would say no. We don't need expensive rentals and I doubt there are too many long term guys we can afford at this point.
We have some prospects we can use to acquire some cheap depth, and beyond that, I think we run with what we have this year, short of there being a major injury.
We have some prospects we can use to acquire some cheap depth, and beyond that, I think we run with what we have this year, short of there being a major injury.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,109
- 62,027
I don't think so. They are capped out for one, and second, we need a mystery box ELC to throw into the mix with Robertson and Amirov over the next couple of years with first round upside. Good organization building habits extend the duration of a contender. That helps us re-sign our future UFA's. Leafs appear to be opening up a window of contention so it's not necessarily a "last dance" again.
It entirely depends upon who and what is available, but I really think that the deadline this year should be focused around adding depth.
no, here's an idea lets keep our picks for a few years. Tired of the draft shmaft attitude.
Terrible GM
Registered User
Depends on the player coming in, and how strong the draft is. Normal drafts the value of a late first round pick is about the same as a second round pick. So giving up a first isn't the end of the world.
I really dislike bringing in a good UFA for a first (Foligno). If you are going to give up a first for a UFA, they better be very good player, or better yet not a UFA and maybe have a year left at least (if the cap will allow it). That said I was kind of excited for Foligno at the time.. but injuries make the trade appear worse than what is was ....I guess.
I really dislike bringing in a good UFA for a first (Foligno). If you are going to give up a first for a UFA, they better be very good player, or better yet not a UFA and maybe have a year left at least (if the cap will allow it). That said I was kind of excited for Foligno at the time.. but injuries make the trade appear worse than what is was ....I guess.
DraftSchmaft
Registered User
- Jul 29, 2021
- 2,350
- 2,936
Yes because I'm assuming it's implied the rentals are significant additions to the cup run like a top 6 winger or real top 4 D. Don't see why a poll would exist otherwise. Currently best team in the league it would be absurd not to go for it if this continues.
Mad hatter
Go Leafs Go
I would consider it for good young players with term for sure but not for a playoff run only player. We really need to maintain a good pipeline and trading 1st and 2nd makes it much harder
The pick should absolutely be available this team is tied for 1st overall in the league they should be looking to add the final piece and if that means moving the 1st you move the 1st.
That being said if you can add the final piece without moving the 1st that's fine to I'm not against keeping it.
But those picks should be available 100%
That being said if you can add the final piece without moving the 1st that's fine to I'm not against keeping it.
But those picks should be available 100%
HEAVY DUTY
"Nobody ever suspects the butterfly."
not to be spent on rentals. tired of seeing rentals walking away after pissing away the season/playoffs.
if we're giving up our 1st or 2nd, it should be players with term (like muzzin trade or campbell trade).
if we're giving up our 1st or 2nd, it should be players with term (like muzzin trade or campbell trade).
Buds17
Registered User
- Nov 29, 2015
- 8,590
- 3,623
Is "better with them in the lineup" defined as winning a playoff round or more? I can be persuaded to think about it favourably if the answer to that question is 'yes'. 
I'm obviously well-aware that no such guarantees exist. Wouldn't be surprised if this - or something similar (ex. prospects in lieu of picks) - happens though as a team like the current Leafs will always look to improve and make a go of it in whatever manner is available to them. I imagine the initial aim might be for non-rentals though.
I'm obviously well-aware that no such guarantees exist. Wouldn't be surprised if this - or something similar (ex. prospects in lieu of picks) - happens though as a team like the current Leafs will always look to improve and make a go of it in whatever manner is available to them. I imagine the initial aim might be for non-rentals though.nothing is black and white ........
if you get a young contrable asset why not , you can revover those picks later.
if its to get a random 30+ yr old UFA , noooooooooooo ......... this never works and isnt worth the 20 to 30 games with that player
if you get a young contrable asset why not , you can revover those picks later.
if its to get a random 30+ yr old UFA , noooooooooooo ......... this never works and isnt worth the 20 to 30 games with that player
kk87
Registered User
This isn't really a yes/no question. Last year, it seemed like the mindset was "we have to move our first round pick since that's what contending teams do". That logic got us a guy who was already pretty clearly washed and probably shouldn't have fetched more than a 3rd - it was obvious at the time, and even more obvious in hindsight. First rounder should certainly be in play if the right player is available, but the notion that we need to trade it because we're a contender is ludicrous.
LeafalCrusader
Registered User
3rd to 6th picks are already gone. Management might as well not even show up to the draft this year if we move the 1st and 2nd lol.
TheGoldenJet
Registered User
lots of short-term memory going on up in this place
24 games in and we're talking about being real contenders, the best team in the league etc etc
there's still 3/4 of the season remaining and yet just like every other year here we are thinking this is gonna be the year lol
problem is everyone never looks at the bigger picture, they only look at the here and now. what were we all saying after the first 10 games of this season? yeah thats right....
and now after the next 14 games look at what everyone is saying...
so what happens when the next slump comes? 60 more games to go, we can bet there is another slump or two coming up.. and then what will we all be saying again...
the short-sightedness here is astounding
how many times have we been in this position of "this is the year" only to p*ss it all away in April... somehow this year is different though? haha right
wait it out... get a bigger sample size instead of claiming victory after just 24 games... but what the hell this is what happens in here every year lol
24 games in and we're talking about being real contenders, the best team in the league etc etc
there's still 3/4 of the season remaining and yet just like every other year here we are thinking this is gonna be the year lol
problem is everyone never looks at the bigger picture, they only look at the here and now. what were we all saying after the first 10 games of this season? yeah thats right....
and now after the next 14 games look at what everyone is saying...
so what happens when the next slump comes? 60 more games to go, we can bet there is another slump or two coming up.. and then what will we all be saying again...
the short-sightedness here is astounding
how many times have we been in this position of "this is the year" only to p*ss it all away in April... somehow this year is different though? haha right
wait it out... get a bigger sample size instead of claiming victory after just 24 games... but what the hell this is what happens in here every year lol
Torontonian
Registered User
Only if its two runs with the player, this year and next year. Trading a first for 25 games isn't worth it.
They can't really afford that. It is kind of a one and done situation only. They don't have the cap space to add anyone of significance on the books next year.
