GDT: Trade Deadline Day

[TMLBlueandWhite]

In the grand scheme of things, is it a smart move to trade Marner at $14m, Cowan, Minten, and 2x 1st Round Picks for Rantanen at $13m?

Yes, absolutely.

Those prospects and picks aren't gonna contribute to a cup run any time soon. Rantanen is a far better player than Marner the playoffs choker. Now they've traded those picks and prospects for a couple chumps and run the risk of losing Marner for nothing in the summer anyway.

I'd rather they traded all those assets for Rantanen than for Laughton and Carlo.

 

[thewave]

Yes, absolutely.

Those prospects and picks aren't gonna contribute to a cup run any time soon. Rantanen is a far better player than Marner the playoffs choker. Now they've traded those picks and prospects for a couple chumps and run the risk of losing Marner for nothing in the summer anyway.

I'd rather they traded all those assets for Rantanen than for Laughton and Carlo.

Same here.

 

[Nineteen67]

The deal that Carolina wanted was Knies + 2x 1st Round Picks. The deal that the Leafs offered was Cowan + Minten + 2 x 1st Round Picks, Apparently. Maybe smaller additional pieces as well, but I don't believe the concept of Knies, Minten and Cowan was ever floated.

Obviously, the net result of Carolina not being willing to make that move is Cowan + Philly's 6th round pick.

Ultimately though, it's a bit more complicated than that.

- Carolina had what they felt is a better offer on the table, getting Stankoven, versus players that were not going to help them this year. You can't blame them for that.

- If I'm Treliving, and the deal has to be Knies + 2x 1st round picks, it's a no for me.

- By trading for, and likely immediately signing Rantanen for say $13m, you essentially close the door on a Mitch Marner extension. That may not bode well for team chemistry considering that Marner & Matthews seem to be the best of friends. It's one thing to trade a friend off the team, it's another to put him into a lame duck situation.

- While Marner signing is of course far from a certainty; even if you have to give him $14m.... I think you have to ask yourself:

In the grand scheme of things, is it a smart move to trade Marner at $14m, Cowan, Minten, and 2x 1st Round Picks for Rantanen at $13m?

Now, if Marner was willing to play ball and a 1-for-1 swap (or something resembling it) was available, then that's a different ballgame... as you can still go out and do the Carlo, Laughton deals, or other

The Leafs couldn’t trade Knies and then lose Marner in the summer and be left with only Rantanen. If Carolina didn’t want the prospects the other options were Nylander or Marner. But because they’ve mismanaged the contracts it’s very difficult to pull off these blockbuster trades in season.

 

[Suntouchable13]

Have to go on a run, or heads should roll. When will there be any accountability except for the head coach? So many assets have been pissed away for nothing to supplement this core. No excuses. If you gotta beat TB and Florida, then beat them. I don't care.

 

[Divine]

OK? That's a Dallas thing, not a Carolina thing.

If they never cared about having a rental, they keep Rantanen. But they very much cared, so they aren't trading for another guy who says he's testing the market.

Okay then give them a prospect who's under team control? Because they did not end up trading Rantanen for a player signed long term. Stankoven is a RFA after next year also.

If they were adamant they wanted a player with term, they wouldn't have traded for Stankoven and 1sts.

 

[seanlinden]

The Leafs couldn’t trade Knies and then lose Marner in the summer and be left with only Rantanen. If Carolina didn’t want the prospects the other options were Nylander or Marner. But because they’ve mismanaged the contracts it’s very difficult to pull off these blockbuster trades in season.

Completely agreed.

Ultimately, even if it was the Cowan/Minten/1st/1st deal; it probably would have turned out to be a mistake given the broader implications, substantial adverse effect on team chemistry, and the fact that it didn't address the need for a 3rd line C or defenceman.

 

[seanlinden]

Okay then give them a prospect who's under team control? Because they did not end up trading Rantanen for a player signed long term. Stankoven is a RFA after next year also.

If they were adamant they wanted a player with term, they wouldn't have traded for Stankoven and 1sts.

RFA and UFA are 2 very different things.

When a team says "they want term" -- it's an easier way of saying "we want control" (especially as most players traded in the deadline period are old enough that their contract expiry is UFA).

Stankoven is 22 years old. He's got 5 years of control left.

Yes, absolutely.

Those prospects and picks aren't gonna contribute to a cup run any time soon. Rantanen is a far better player than Marner the playoffs choker. Now they've traded those picks and prospects for a couple chumps and run the risk of losing Marner for nothing in the summer anyway.

I'd rather they traded all those assets for Rantanen than for Laughton and Carlo.

Honestly, It's hard for me to agree with you.

Yes, Rantanen is a better player. Yes, if the choice was Minten+Marner at $14m or Rantanen at $13m, I take Rantanen, but there is a limit to just "how much more preferable" Rantanen is.

 

[Nineteen67]

Completely agreed.

Ultimately, even if it was the Cowan/Minten/1st/1st deal; it probably would have turned out to be a mistake given the broader implications, substantial adverse effect on team chemistry, and the fact that it didn't address the need for a 3rd line C or defenceman.

I think management has decided they can’t win a championship with this core and are fiddling around the edges buying time.

 

[Stephen]

I think management has decided they can’t win a championship with this core and are fiddling around the edges buying time.

With the expanding cap I think they will really go after McDavid next if he becomes available.

The news about the cap going up seems to have destabilized the value of players around the league. Marginal assets seem quite pumped up, and when you compare the cost of a Rantanen to bit pieces like Carlo and Laughton, it seems like you're better off just splurging on the most bluechip thing possible.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

RFA and UFA are 2 very different things.

When a team says "they want term" -- it's an easier way of saying "we want control" (especially as most players traded in the deadline period are old enough that their contract expiry is UFA).

Stankoven is 22 years old. He's got 5 years of control left.



Honestly, It's hard for me to agree with you.

Yes, Rantanen is a better player. Yes, if the choice was Minten+Marner at $14m or Rantanen at $13m, I take Rantanen, but there is a limit to just "how much more preferable" Rantanen is.

Then don't complain when the team.goes out in the first round again and Laughton, Carlo, and Marner are all non-factors.

 

[Maple Leaf]

I think management has decided they can’t win a championship with this core and are fiddling around the edges buying time.

They don't need to make big changes as long as business is good and business seems pretty good