Proposal: Tor-ana
- Thread starter Willy Styles
- Start date
Willy Styles
Registered User
If the contract is a problem and there gonna trade him that's top value you'll get. I could understand if you want more of a one for one, rather than quality for quantity . But that's top value for
quantity and probably makes ANA a better team
KaseMeOutside
Based
- Oct 18, 2011
- 44,273
- 10,187
dubplatepressure
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2007
- 15,979
- 3,627
As a leaf fan I don't think we shouldn't be trading 1sts, period. Would rather trade JVR @ 2m for another 1st and a very good prospect.
Willy Styles
Registered User
There is very little chance that we pick anyone close to Lindholm in he 5-15 range
Ducks in a row
Go Ducks Quack Quack
Maple Leafs get Lindholm and that 1st becomes less valuable. JVR is UFA after 2 seasons. Nope we ain't trading Lindholm like this.
dubplatepressure
Registered User
- Jul 10, 2007
- 15,979
- 3,627
Ok, we agree to disagree then. Not like we are just giving up our 1st rounder this year either.
WhatTheDuck
9 - 20 - 8
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
I think you're overestimating the Leafs. Even with him, they're still a bottom team. The Leafs would be stupid to deal that pick prior to knowing where it'll be in the draft bevause there's a good chance it's in the bottom 5.
RomanianLeafs
Registered User
Haha I see zero chance of Anaheim getting near this kind of value let alone turning this down. With their conundrum on d right now (albeit a somewhat envious one in terms of so many good players it creates a logjam) they won't reach that type of value and if they genuinely think he's worth a package greater than a 50+ point power forward lw, a top 10-15 pick (possibly top 5 even?) a second rounder and a decent prospect then they need to reevaluate priorities
TopShelfWaterBottle
Registered
- Mar 16, 2014
- 3,432
- 1,452
LeafingTheWay
Registered User
- May 31, 2014
- 6,726
- 1,855
Matthews is much more valuable. I could see an argument for Nylander or Marner though.
Anyways, Leafs shouldn't trade first rounders IMO. Let's just stick with the plan and see where we end up.
dracom
Registered User
I'm curious how does adding Lindholm keep the Leafs a bottom 5 team? You add Lindholm and either put him with Rielly or Gardiner, then that top 4 becomes one of the best if not the best in the league. Bottom 6 isn't the worst either. You lose JVR, sure, but with Mathews, Nylander, Marner (who some Leafs fans seem to think he's already the next Gretzky), and the rest of the forward core isn't too bad (even without JVR).
Man Bear Pig
Registered User
You're giving a bunch of rookies far too much credit here. The Leafs are rolling out a roster full of inexperienced players. I don't see how people can realistically think by adding one good D can somehow vault them up in the standings. It certainly would be a better team with Lindholm but this is a roster that's going to see alot of growing pains over the season. Lindholm alone isn't enough to keep this team from another high pick.
dracom
Registered User
Well based off how Leafs fans on here talk about some of their younger players as if they are already high quality NHLers who have top 6 potential, I guess I'm not the only one who gives them too much credit.
And adding a good player like Lindholm will help the team. Won't make them cup contenders, but they wouldn't be a bottom 5 team. Which is were the value of 1st round picks come from, but when you're adding Lindholm, those 1sts just won't be that valuable.
eternalbedhead
Let's not rebuild and say we did
In absolutely no remote utter sense does trading their #1 defenseman and #1 overall player of the future for futures and JVR "make them a better team".
It makes them a significantly worse team. It makes them a lot worse in both the present and the future.
What an awful thing to consider
Willy Styles
Registered User
As far as I know Lindholm isn't on the roster right now and I started my post off by saying if the context is a problem....
