Proposal: TML & Canucks

[Boondock]

Only on HF is Kerfoot a dump

I tend to agree, but until this season Kerfoot was treated like a dump. However in a trade for a first line player like Miller, Kerfoot is an adder meant to make the cap work for the Leafs, he isn't in there to add value to the Canucks.

 

[Cogburn]

Kerfoot isn't a dump

He absolutely is to us. We don't need him, as even with Miller leaving, he's a 3C and will no longer be able to boost his stats with secondary assists (13 so far by the way, both secondary assists and assists drawn from the big 4). We're already unhappy with our teams lack of depth going to our third line, so he won't have Boeser or Horvat or Pettersson to pull from either.

 

[seanlinden]

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.

This is a "rebuilding", or at least "substantially retooling" trade considering that it converts JT Miller to Nick Ritchie next year, with essentially 0 cap savings. The Canucks will be substantially worse in 2022-23 as a result of this deal (if dealing with Toronto). The focus would be long term.

With these types of trades-- you don't look and say, "I'm going to turn down a high-end prospect because he plays wing, and I might have some other wingers." Teams look for the best package of assets, period. You figure out how they all fit together once they've developed and the team is half-decent.

To turn down the best available package of picks and prospects, betting your hopes on a "defensive RHD" that has likely never played an NHL game, because that's what your team needs today is nonsensical.

Obviously, every team has pro scouts... and if they think Robertson has little NHL upside, then maybe he doesn't work... but you're not a pro scout for the Vancouver Canucks, so aren't really entitled to provide their perspective, and again, turning down the best player(s) available because they play the wrong position for a future projected team is a horrible idea.

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.

You might get Liljegren in substitution of a Robertson/Amirov; but I highly doubt the Leafs are willing to part with 2 of them.

As well, Liljegren does pose an additional challenge from Toronto's perspective -- he's waiver exempt. Let's say the Leafs go out and want to add a defenceman (as they most certainly would do if Liljegren was gone), it would put them back with 7 NHL defencemen, but only Sandin that can be demoted. Liljegren holds a decent amount of value for the Leafs as a guy that they can stash in the minors between the deadline and be an NHL-calibre injury replacement in the playoffs.

 

[Cogburn]

This is a "rebuilding", or at least "substantially retooling" trade considering that it converts JT Miller to Nick Ritchie next year, with essentially 0 cap savings.

With these types of trades-- you don't look and say, "I'm going to turn down a high-end prospect because he plays wing, and I might have some other wingers." Teams look for the best package of assets, period. You figure out how they all fit together once they've developed and the team is half-decent.

To turn down the best available package of picks and prospects, betting your hopes on a "defensive RHD" that has likely never played an NHL game, because that's what your team needs today is nonsensical.



You might get Liljegren in substitution of a Robertson/Amirov; but I highly doubt the Leafs are willing to part with 2 of them.

As well, Liljegren does pose an additional challenge from Toronto's perspective -- he's waiver exempt. Let's say the Leafs go out and want to add a defenceman (as they most certainly would do if Liljegren was gone), it would put them back with 7 NHL defencemen, but only Sandin that can be demoted. Liljegren holds a decent amount of value for the Leafs as a guy that they can stash in the minors between the deadline and be an NHL-calibre injury replacement in the playoffs.

We do turn down that trade if there are other trade offers that fill our needs better and/or beat the value. Amirov and Toronto's 1st isn't the best offer on the table however, at least according to what "insiders" are reporting. I never said no, just that we'd need to tweak the offer.

If the offer was Liljegren and Amirov (+what ever cap dump), we don't really have a standing to turn down the offer. I don't want to make people think that's the expected offer, just that that would fit us like a glove for team needs and value. However Liljegren+1st+what ever prospect/pick we settle on runs into the same problem the original offer did as well, where rumours and other fanbases are already pulling ahead.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

He absolutely is to us. We don't need him, as even with Miller leaving, he's a 3C and will no longer be able to boost his stats with secondary assists (13 so far by the way, both secondary assists and assists drawn from the big 4). We're already unhappy with our teams lack of depth going to our third line, so he won't have Boeser or Horvat or Pettersson to pull from either.

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

 

[seanlinden]

We do turn down that trade if there are other trade offers that fill our needs better and/or beat the value. Amirov and Toronto's 1st isn't the best offer on the table however, at least according to what "insiders" are reporting. I never said no, just that we'd need to tweak the offer.

If the offer was Liljegren and Amirov (+what ever cap dump), we don't really have a standing to turn down the offer. I don't want to make people think that's the expected offer, just that that would fit us like a glove for team needs and value. However Liljegren+1st+what ever prospect/pick we settle on runs into the same problem the original offer did as well, where rumours and other fanbases are already pulling ahead.

The "need" in that deal is "Futures", or "good futures" -- nothing more specific than that. Teams shopping for futures look for the best possible players, they don't focus on creating imaginary lineups 2-3 years down the road.

I believe the "offer" was Kravtsov & a 1st -- so maybe New York's is better, especially if there's no retention involved. I guess it comes down to whether you think Kravtsov is going otbe an NHL player that can be "groomed" -- a problem like the Rangers seemingly had.

 

[Cogburn]

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

Everything is relative. Are you going to go out and pay full price for another top line, 10+million dollar a year center? Of course not.

He is being used to offset cap from a returning player.

He is a dump, regardless of what he is to you.

 

[Cogburn]

The "need" in that deal is "Futures", or "good futures" -- nothing more specific than that. Teams shopping for futures look for the best possible players, they don't focus on creating imaginary lineups 2-3 years down the road.

I believe the "offer" was Kravtsov & a 1st -- so maybe New York's is better, especially if there's no retention involved. I guess it comes down to whether you think Kravtsov is going otbe an NHL player that can be "groomed" -- a problem like the Rangers seemingly had.

I do subscribe to the "best player available" mindset when it comes to drafting, but if we're shopping a top line talent to an open market, we can definitely be a little more discerning, as these players after a year or two or three of stewing are more known quantities.

If it's Kravtsov+1st, then Amirov+1st+what ever wins hands down. We already have a disgruntled Russian playing overseas. Pagniotta had the most "detail" with Laf/Kak being off the table, Miller/Schneider being in play, Kravtsov being offered and at least 3 pieces being on the board. Both the source and information leave a lot to be desired, but it's something.

 

[Mersss]

Kerfoot isn't a dump

yes he is. 3rd liner with a caphit of 3.5M$ getting paid 4.5M$ next year, his value is terrible

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

yes he is. 3rd liner with a caphit of 3.5M$ getting paid 4.5M$ next year, his value is terrible

Maybe watch him play

 

[Peter Griffin]

I believe the "offer" was Kravtsov & a 1st -- so maybe New York's is better, especially if there's no retention involved. I guess it comes down to whether you think Kravtsov is going otbe an NHL player that can be "groomed" -- a problem like the Rangers seemingly had.

The “offer” Pagnotta said New York has made? He specifically said he feels it’s larger than that.

 

[jackjohnson]

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

The Canucks dont need or want Kerfoot. Are they putting a gun to JR's head to take the deal? O dont care what leafs fan think of Kerfoot but Canucks dont want or need him at all, thats like the last thing they want. If its not a top RHD prospect with top 4 potential then you can forget about a trade involving Leafs and Canucks. Leafs have their own self interest, so do the Canucks and they arent forced to trade miller. In fact I rather have Miller walk versus taking a bad trade with a cap dump that handcuffs them in the future.

 

[jackjohnson]

The "need" in that deal is "Futures", or "good futures" -- nothing more specific than that. Teams shopping for futures look for the best possible players, they don't focus on creating imaginary lineups 2-3 years down the road.

I believe the "offer" was Kravtsov & a 1st -- so maybe New York's is better, especially if there's no retention involved. I guess it comes down to whether you think Kravtsov is going otbe an NHL player that can be "groomed" -- a problem like the Rangers seemingly had.

JR wont take a project and late 1st for Miller. There has to be some guaranteed value in it. I even take 2 1sts versus taking someone like Kravatsov who can just ditch the Canucks and not sign similar to Tryamkin. Seriously, NYR needs to step up and offer something of a value.

 

[Boondock]

This is a "rebuilding", or at least "substantially retooling" trade considering that it converts JT Miller to Nick Ritchie next year, with essentially 0 cap savings. The Canucks will be substantially worse in 2022-23 as a result of this deal (if dealing with Toronto). The focus would be long term.

With these types of trades-- you don't look and say, "I'm going to turn down a high-end prospect because he plays wing, and I might have some other wingers." Teams look for the best package of assets, period. You figure out how they all fit together once they've developed and the team is half-decent.

To turn down the best available package of picks and prospects, betting your hopes on a "defensive RHD" that has likely never played an NHL game, because that's what your team needs today is nonsensical.

Obviously, every team has pro scouts... and if they think Robertson has little NHL upside, then maybe he doesn't work... but you're not a pro scout for the Vancouver Canucks, so aren't really entitled to provide their perspective, and again, turning down the best player(s) available because they play the wrong position for a future projected team is a horrible idea.



You might get Liljegren in substitution of a Robertson/Amirov; but I highly doubt the Leafs are willing to part with 2 of them.

As well, Liljegren does pose an additional challenge from Toronto's perspective -- he's waiver exempt. Let's say the Leafs go out and want to add a defenceman (as they most certainly would do if Liljegren was gone), it would put them back with 7 NHL defencemen, but only Sandin that can be demoted. Liljegren holds a decent amount of value for the Leafs as a guy that they can stash in the minors between the deadline and be an NHL-calibre injury replacement in the playoffs.

If this is the best package offered, you keep Miller and hope to get something out of him down the road. THe proposed packages are not good value when teams like the Rangers are clearly interested.

 

[Boondock]

The "need" in that deal is "Futures", or "good futures" -- nothing more specific than that. Teams shopping for futures look for the best possible players, they don't focus on creating imaginary lineups 2-3 years down the road.

I believe the "offer" was Kravtsov & a 1st -- so maybe New York's is better, especially if there's no retention involved. I guess it comes down to whether you think Kravtsov is going otbe an NHL player that can be "groomed" -- a problem like the Rangers seemingly had.

As of yesterday the offer was believed to be Kravtsov, 1st plus another significant piece.....so yeah, significantly better than Dermott, Ritchie, etc.

 

[Boondock]

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

Yet you are saying the sky is red and we shouldn't argue that at all. Kerfoot isn't a value add to a trade for Miller. Kerfoot exists in this trade to reduce the cap implications on the Leafs. Take Kerfoot out of the deal completely. Keep him, not one Canucks fan has said Kerfoot needs to be included in a Miller trade. Remove him. Simple, now he's definitely not a dump. Ritchie, Robertson and a 1st isn't going to get it done either.

 

[Zarpan]

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

Kerfoot doesn't have any value to the Canucks though. If he's included in a deal with the Canucks, it would have to be a three-way deal with Kerfoot going to another team and the Canucks getting a pick/prospect from that team.

 

[notbias]

He absolutely is to us. We don't need him, as even with Miller leaving, he's a 3C and will no longer be able to boost his stats with secondary assists (13 so far by the way, both secondary assists and assists drawn from the big 4). We're already unhappy with our teams lack of depth going to our third line, so he won't have Boeser or Horvat or Pettersson to pull from either.

61.29% of Kerfoot's points are primary and he is outproducing Miller at even strength.

I don't think the Canucks need Kerfoot because they are a bottom feeder (especially without Miller), so just load up on prospects.

There is no doubt he is the 3rd best player on his line, but to act like he is just putting up points because of Nylander/Tavares is funny and wrong.

He has also been primarily playing LW and excelling, he'd probably be your 1LW if there was a trade.

 

[Boondock]

61.29% of Kerfoot's points are primary and he is outproducing Miller at even strength.

I don't think the Canucks need Kerfoot because they are a bottom feeder (especially without Miller), so just load up on prospects.

There is no doubt he is the 3rd best player on his line, but to act like he is just putting up points because of Nylander/Tavares is funny and wrong.

He has also been primarily playing LW and excelling, he'd probably be your 1LW if there was a trade.

This was so easy, Canucks and Leafs fans are in agreement - No Kerfoot in any Miller trade proposals!
Win - Win!

 

[Cogburn]

61.29% of Kerfoot's points are primary and he is outproducing Miller at even strength.

I don't think the Canucks need Kerfoot because they are a bottom feeder (especially without Miller), so just load up on prospects.

There is no doubt he is the 3rd best player on his line, but to act like he is just putting up points because of Nylander/Tavares is funny and wrong.

He has also been primarily playing LW and excelling, he'd probably be your 1LW if there was a trade.

If he's out pacing Miller in any category, why is there such fervent interest in acquiring him? Can we just let sleeping dogs lay then?

Agreed, we don't need Kerfoot at all.

His previous two seasons, away from those players five-on-five, indicates otherwise.

And also incorrect, as between Dickinson, Miller and Pettersson, our centers are often mixed in to LW when our center position is overstocked, exactly like what has been happening with Kerfoot I'm sure. Out pacing Pearson isn't exactly an accomplishment, he's why we don't want Kerfoot and his 3.5 million a season.

 

[Knies iT]

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.

Yup. HF mains just parrots that he has negative value with zero rationale to instigate. Compare guys league-wide that can play C, 2nd/3rd line, PK and are pacing for 60+ points, with multiple 40+ point seasons in their career. None are making in the 3m bracket.

Kerfoot's easily worth a 2nd +. In actuality, the Leafs probably wouldn't settle for that considering how important he's been.

He's obviously not worth being the centrepiece in a blockbuster, though.

 

[Cogburn]

This was so easy, Canucks and Leafs fans are in agreement - No Kerfoot in any Miller trade proposals!
Win - Win!

Seconded.

 

[Mersss]

Maybe watch him play

Yah... I have actually, and he isn't worth 3.5M$

 

[Canuck Luck]

It doesn't matter what he is to you, to you the sky might be green, that doesn't make the sky green.

He's not a dump no matter what he is to you

Lolol you realize you’re trying to trade him to a team saying he should have value to that team right?

why don’t we give you tucker poolman. It doesn’t matter that you think he has 0 value or even negative value. We think he has value so you have to take him on your team at our evaluation. that’s what you sound like right now

I’ll make this simple. If you feel kerfoot has value, great then keep him or trade him to a team that feels the same way. The Canucks are not that team. Now just replace kerfoot with the picks and prospects youd value him at instead if you want to make a deal for miller

 

[notbias]

If he's out pacing Miller in any category, why is there such fervent interest in acquiring him? Can we just let sleeping dogs lay then?

Agreed, we don't need Kerfoot at all.

His previous two seasons, away from those players five-on-five, indicates otherwise.

And also incorrect, as between Dickinson, Miller and Pettersson, our centers are often mixed in to LW when our center position is overstocked, exactly like what has been happening with Kerfoot I'm sure. Out pacing Pearson isn't exactly an accomplishment, he's why we don't want Kerfoot and his 3.5 million a season.

He is also outpacing Dickinson and Pettersson, he is a really solid complementary piece, especially at 3.5 million, not sure why you are acting like that is a lot for what he brings.

"5v5 away from those players" the previous two seasons he is ranked 176th in the NHL, 154th amongst forwards, this is while he plays a defensive role as a C (he looks much better at wing, this was being said before this season).
He is right around the Getzlaf, Pageau, Goodrow, Nichuskin, Zucker, Coyle, Silfverberg, Hintz, Duchene, Bratt, Dvorak, Kreider, etc... level

This season he is ranked 37th, just ahead of Pastrnak, Svechnikov, Kuznetsov, Kane, Zibanajed, Miller, etc..