Proposal: TML & Canucks

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/

Funk21

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,386
1,894
Toronto
If the Canucks management decides to pull the plug on the season and JT Miller is available the TML would have considerable interest in a player of his calibre. So here goes:

Canucks
JT Miller
Schenn

TML
Kerfoot
Dermott
Ritchie
2022 1st
2023 2nd


The way I see it Schenn for Dermott slightly favours the Canucks as they get a controlled PMD who can play bottom pairing minutes but can play the right side if needed. Schenn adds veteran leadership and a player that gone deep should somebody get injured or Liljegren is not able to handle the load.

Kerfoot and the picks even things out for JT Miller IMO and we’ll I’m not sure if we need to add a sweetener to take on Ritchie. It’s basically a wash Cap wise.

Flame Shields On!!!
 

Holymakinaw

Registered User
May 22, 2007
8,637
4,514
Toronto
If the Canucks management decides to pull the plug on the season and JT Miller is available the TML would have considerable interest in a player of his calibre. So here goes:

Canucks
JT Miller
Schenn

TML
Kerfoot
Dermott
Ritchie
2022 1st
2023 2nd


The way I see it Schenn for Dermott slightly favours the Canucks as they get a controlled PMD who can play bottom pairing minutes but can play the right side if needed. Schenn adds veteran leadership and a player that gone deep should somebody get injured or Liljegren is not able to handle the load.

Kerfoot and the picks even things out for JT Miller IMO and we’ll I’m not sure if we need to add a sweetener to take on Ritchie. It’s basically a wash Cap wise.

Flame Shields On!!!

LOL. I'm a Leaf fan and all, but........what exactly do the Canucks get from this deal? Other than Kerfoot, who is an okay but "not that special" 3rd liner, and a bunch of junk, that is.
 

PROUD PAPA

Registered User
Sep 20, 2021
2,610
2,954
Should leave Kerfoot out of proposals. I understand he's there to make the cap work but he's a very useful player in reality. Trouble is, hf previously decided he had negative value and despite his play proving the opposite there's no way to change the narrative here.
Basically a useful player who because of "reasons" lowers the value of any potential return. While in the real world there would certainly be teams not interested in how Kerfoot fits based on their current situation, actual GM's would realize he's not a negative value asset, just one they have no use for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadian Canuck

Funk21

Registered User
Mar 6, 2013
4,386
1,894
Toronto
Only on HF is Kerfoot a dump

31 points in 46 games playing on the second line and third line. Plays PK and is a plus 16 yet he is trash. Kid is worth a second IMO. So basically a 1st and 2 seconds for JT Miller. Maybe a B level prospect to take in Ritchie who can again be flipped if he sorts himself out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NHL WAR

Szechwan

Registered User
Sep 13, 2006
6,090
6,186
Kerfoot isn't a bad player, but when he's the best player coming back in a deal for a 1st line C you know something has gone terribly wrong.

31 points in 46 games playing on the second line and third line. Plays PK and is a plus 16 yet he is trash. Kid is worth a second IMO. So basically a 1st and 2 seconds for JT Miller. Maybe a B level prospect to take in Ritchie who can again be flipped if he sorts himself out.

So keep him. Nobody in the league values him as much as you guys seem to, no matter how unjust that might feel to you.

He can't be the centerpiece, sorry.
 

Empoleon8771

Registered User
Aug 25, 2015
84,389
84,620
Redmond, WA
31 points in 46 games playing on the second line and third line. Plays PK and is a plus 16 yet he is trash. Kid is worth a second IMO. So basically a 1st and 2 seconds for JT Miller. Maybe a B level prospect to take in Ritchie who can again be flipped if he sorts himself out.

A 1st and 2 2nds is what Jason Zucker goes for, not JT Miller.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
I crossed a line with my previous post in this thread, sorry gang.

My disgust remains, this is an absolutely awful trade. Three cap dumps, and a late first and second. Does anyone but the OP think this is a quality offer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canadian Canuck

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
1st
Kerfoot
Hirvonen/Abruzzese
Dermott

For

Miller
Schenn

A second tier prospect over a cap dump wasn't at all what was at issue here. Kerfoot would be a third line center for us and is 40 games removed from not breaking 30 points twice, Dermott holds no value as defenders generally on the side of their handedness here and we have Hughes and OEL locked up long term, and have Rathbone and 3 or 4 guys fighting for that last spot. We are not getting anything of interest here, as even the first round pick is likely outclassed by other teams, as would the prospects be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nucklehead Supreme

seanlinden

Registered User
Apr 28, 2009
25,279
1,707
Both of the deals proposed are substantially bad for the Canucks... failing to address short term needs, or adequately addressing longer term asset pool, and "toeing the middle of nowhere".

If the Leafs are trading for Miller, it's likely going to be a "torpedo 22-23, but set up really well for 23-24" approach for the Canucks.

To Van:
- Ritchie
- Robertson or Amirov (likely Robertson)
- 2022 1st Round Pick
- MAYBE Dermott
- Conditional 2024 pick depending on how far the Leafs go in the next 2 years or a prospect not named Niemla/Knies/Robertson/Amirov that the Canucks staff like.

To Toronto
- Miller @ 50% Retained
- Schenn if Dermott is in the deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DougGilmour93

Hockey 4 Life

Registered User
Feb 10, 2012
6,173
3,177
Canucks management is looking for 3 solid pieces for Miller. Thats with no cap dumps like Ritchie going back. Wether it seems like an overpay or not a deal like this is closer to what their looking for.
To
Toronto
Miller 50% retained
Schenn

To
Vancouver
Liljegren
Amirov/Robertson
2022 1st
2023 2nd
Ritchie

Its a large amount and as a leaf fan I wouldnt want the leafs to do it, but thats what it will probably cost.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
Both of the deals proposed are substantially bad for the Canucks... failing to address short term needs, or adequately addressing longer term asset pool, and "toeing the middle of nowhere".

If the Leafs are trading for Miller, it's likely going to be a "torpedo 22-23, but set up really well for 23-24" approach for the Canucks.

To Van:
- Ritchie
- Robertson or Amirov (likely Robertson)
- 2022 1st Round Pick
- MAYBE Dermott
- Conditional 2024 pick depending on how far the Leafs go in the next 2 years or a prospect not named Niemla/Knies/Robertson/Amirov that the Canucks staff like.

To Toronto
- Miller @ 50% Retained
- Schenn if Dermott is in the deal.

Scrap Dermott, we'll keep Schenn. Robertson isn't someone we covet especially either.

Amirov
Ritchie
2022 1st round pick
A conditional pick or prospect to named later

I like Amirov, but that's not a good return for us. We have a number of promising young wingers, and need a center prospect or D prospects, especially a big, defensively sound RHD prospect, of Amirov's calibre. So a valuable but unneeded prospect, a late first, a cap dump and a huge question mark. Your offer is miles ahead of the OP, but I feel it's still not a good fit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nucklehead Supreme

Hockey 4 Life

Registered User
Feb 10, 2012
6,173
3,177
Scrap Dermott, we'll keep Schenn. Robertson isn't someone we covet especially either.

Amirov
Ritchie
2022 1st round pick
A conditional pick or prospect to named later

I like Amirov, but that's not a good return for us. We have a number of promising young wingers, and need a center prospect or D prospects, especially a big, defensively sound RHD prospect, of Amirov's calibre. So a valuable but unneeded prospect, a late first, a cap dump and a huge question mark. Your offer is miles ahead of the OP, but I feel it's still not a good fit.
Amirov is a forward, it would be Liljegren you are thinking about. Hes been good this year and is on track to be a solid two way d man for many years. Didn't read your reply properly, my mistake.
 

Cogburn

Pretend they're yachts.
May 28, 2010
15,127
4,504
Vancouver
Amirov is a forward, it would be Liljegren you are thinking about. Hes been good this year and is on track to be a solid two way d man for many years. Didn't read your reply properly, my mistake.

If we can get Liljegren included with Amirov somehow, I don't see a way we'd say no. Liljegren isn't quite the bruiser, shutdown D we need, but he can play D just fine from what I've seen.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad