Toggle sidebar

Trades and Free Agency Thread - Push all the chips in?

  • Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.
Status
Not open for further replies.


I want Granlund more and more. He gets labeled as this pure skilled player but he's not. He is a strong defensive player and a top 6 forward. He also won't require a huge price to pay. If Dubas gets him as his impactful addition along with maybe a depth d man. Thats a good deadline for us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aingefan
Cor said:
I have decided I want Mattias Ekholm.

Imagine adding another Muzzin, another Brodie to this D corps. It makes sense expansion wise as well. Sure we might lose Holl or Dermott, but we are going to lose one anyway.

Rielly - Brodie
Muzzin - Ekholm
Dermott - Holl
Bogosian

Would be INCREDIBLE to have in the playoffs, and that’s a top 4 next season we could play in front of a Sandin-Liljegren pairing if we wanted.


Lets just freaking do it.
Click to expand...

100% with you on this. Ekholm can be insurance. If Rielly prices himself out of town or if Muzzin drops off quickly. If neither of these happen then we will have 7 good D for next year even if we lose one in the expansion draft. Experienced Swedish Dman could be good for Liljegren and Sandin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saint Blue
Leafs1991 said:
Same, it would be amazing, especially if he can be resigned the year after on a 4 year deal, be worth giving up potential cheap prospects
Click to expand...

err... letting Dubas negotiate Rielly and Ekholm extensions in one summer...
 
Griffin76 said:
100% with you on this. Ekholm can be insurance. If Rielly prices himself out of town or if Muzzin drops off quickly. If neither of these happen then we will have 7 good D for next year even if we lose one in the expansion draft. Experienced Swedish Dman could be good for Liljegren and Sandin.
Click to expand...
Your last point might be the lil perk that puts me over the hump endorsing this deal.
Not sure about Ek’s experience on the right side tho.
Ek and Granlund sets the team up pretty darn well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griffin76
Losing Holl/Dermott isn't nice but it's not a big deal if Ekholm is on the team.

Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, and Ekholm would be about as good as it gets. I can definitely see the appeal of bringing him in to stack the backend.
 
Who does everyone protect in expansion if they bring in a non-rental?

Just random suggestions:

Rakell
Ekholm

Namestnikov
Jankrok

Obviously two create less pause than others, but at what price point do you draw the line? These players that do indeed have more control will cost more to acquire. With that said, it leads to a domino effect which in turn creates another roster loss.

Do you acquire the lessers and hold your breath? Jankrok is the heavy debate here as he is an absolute fantastic fit for this team on good value. But he likely gets claimed over someone like Holl etc.

Internal debate in a risk/reward type of scenario which is why you’ve seen most scenarios focused on rental for this very specific reason.

Cheaper to acquire and you’re acquiring knowing you are likely losing them anyways. But your total losses likely are much easier to digest.

Rakell and Ekholm are fantastic fits who the Leafs CAN acquire, but the package you send out wont be your only loss as of result.
 
  • Like
Reactions: New Liskeard, geo25, Nylanderthal and 3 others
Cor said:
I have decided I want Mattias Ekholm.

Imagine adding another Muzzin, another Brodie to this D corps. It makes sense expansion wise as well. Sure we might lose Holl or Dermott, but we are going to lose one anyway.

Rielly - Brodie
Muzzin - Ekholm
Dermott - Holl
Bogosian

Would be INCREDIBLE to have in the playoffs, and that’s a top 4 next season we could play in front of a Sandin-Liljegren pairing if we wanted.


Lets just freaking do it.
Click to expand...

I’ve come to the same conclusion. Ekholm is #1 on my wish list and would be an amazing add.
 
ChuckWoods said:
Who does everyone protect in expansion if they bring in a non-rental?

Just random suggestions:

Rakell
Ekholm

Namestnikov
Jankrok

Obviously two create less pause than others, but at what price point do you draw the line? These players that do indeed have more control will cost more to acquire. With that said, it leads to a domino effect which in turn creates another roster loss.

Do you acquire the lessers and hold your breath? Jankrok is the heavy debate here as he is an absolute fantastic fit for this team on good value. But he likely gets claimed over someone like Holl etc.

Internal debate in a risk/reward type of scenario which is why you’ve seen most scenarios focused on rental for this very specific reason.

Cheaper to acquire and you’re acquiring knowing you are likely losing them anyways. But your total losses likely are much easier to digest.

Rakell and Ekholm are fantastic fits who the Leafs CAN acquire, but the package you send out wont be your only loss as of result.
Click to expand...


Ekholm is the only one I'm interested in so I would protect 4-4-1

Matthews
Marner
Tavares
Nylander

Rielly
Brodie
Ekholm
Dermott (Because he's younger. He still has a higher ceiling. Cheaper. And is capable of playing both sides)

Campbell

Not going to be popular but I'll explain. I think that would leave exposed Muzzin, Holl, Kerfoot and Engvall.

Muzzin because I don't think they would want to touch his contract. Great guy for a new franchise but could be a bad contract in a couple of years. Risky. If they take him it clears 5.6m.

Holl because I think he's overachieved early this year and I think we're starting to see the norm with him now. If they take him it clears 2m.

Kerfoot because he won't be protected over any of the big 4. If they take him that clears 3.5m.

Engvall it would suck to lose him but I'm thinking they would take Holl or Kerfoot anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nylanderthal, dethszn and ChuckWoods
Cor said:
I have decided I want Mattias Ekholm.

Imagine adding another Muzzin, another Brodie to this D corps. It makes sense expansion wise as well. Sure we might lose Holl or Dermott, but we are going to lose one anyway.

Rielly - Brodie
Muzzin - Ekholm
Dermott - Holl
Bogosian

Would be INCREDIBLE to have in the playoffs, and that’s a top 4 next season we could play in front of a Sandin-Liljegren pairing if we wanted.


Lets just freaking do it.
Click to expand...

I am almost certain it means Dermott will be going the other way. Just a feeling though.

Granlund and Ekholm for Dermott, 1st rounder, probably another pick and then a prospect... not sure which one though.

Weird that Johnston and Friedman are getting conflicting report.

 
  • Like
Reactions: aingefan
Griffin76 said:
Ekholm is the only one I'm interested in so I would protect 4-4-1

Matthews
Marner
Tavares
Nylander

Rielly
Brodie
Ekholm
Dermott (Because he's younger. He still has a higher ceiling. Cheaper. And is capable of playing both sides)

Campbell

Not going to be popular but I'll explain. I think that would leave exposed Muzzin, Holl, Kerfoot and Engvall.

Muzzin because I don't think they would want to touch his contract. Great guy for a new franchise but could be a bad contract in a couple of years. Risky. If they take him it clears 5.6m.

Holl because I think he's overachieved early this year and I think we're starting to see the norm with him now. If they take him it clears 2m.

Kerfoot because he won't be protected over any of the big 4. If they take him that clears 3.5m.

Engvall it would suck to lose him but I'm thinking they would take Holl or Kerfoot anyway.
Click to expand...


Well articulated and a great example of the extra “loss” this team would accumulate on-top of the immediate trade package.

Essentially you have dealt:

Muzzin + 1st + Top Prospect + Additional Key Asset + The Salary “dump” to make it work if required.

Thats pretty rich IMO despite how good Ekholm is.

I personally take the UFA route as the piece we currently have that SHOULD be protected are all key pieces to this franchise currently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: New Liskeard
ChuckWoods said:
Well articulated and a great example of the extra “loss” this team would accumulate on-top of the immediate trade package.

Essentially you have dealt:

Muzzin + 1st + Top Prospect + Additional Key Asset + The Salary “dump” to make it work if required.

Thats pretty rich IMO despite how good Ekholm is.

I personally take the UFA route as the piece we currently have that SHOULD be protected are all key pieces to this franchise currently.
Click to expand...

If I'm trading for Ekholm, I'm moving Rielly after the playoffs, before expansion. It's a reality that Ekholm will come in cheaper than Rielly in the next contract, and I'm just not sure that Rielly is they guy we should be giving a $7-8 mil contract to, with a flat cap for the next four years.

Then you protect Ekholm, Brodie, Muzzin, your choice of Holl/Dermott
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25 and aingefan
Fogelhund said:
If I'm trading for Ekholm, I'm moving Rielly after the playoffs, before expansion. It's a reality that Ekholm will come in cheaper than Rielly in the next contract, and I'm just not sure that Rielly is they guy we should be giving a $7-8 mil contract to, with a flat cap for the next four years.
Click to expand...

Rielly likely gets a contract similar to Krug, especially if we give him 8 years.
 
Fogelhund said:
If I'm trading for Ekholm, I'm moving Rielly after the playoffs, before expansion. It's a reality that Ekholm will come in cheaper than Rielly in the next contract, and I'm just not sure that Rielly is they guy we should be giving a $7-8 mil contract to, with a flat cap for the next four years.

Then you protect Ekholm, Brodie, Muzzin, your choice of Holl/Dermott
Click to expand...

For sure another option.

But that wont be a market I would want to “sell” in personally, considering many teams will also be looking to “sell” prior to expansion, as many will want to try to accumulate something before they get nothing.

We saw how that went last time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: geo25
ChuckWoods said:
Who does everyone protect in expansion if they bring in a non-rental?

Just random suggestions:

Rakell
Ekholm

Namestnikov
Jankrok

Obviously two create less pause than others, but at what price point do you draw the line? These players that do indeed have more control will cost more to acquire. With that said, it leads to a domino effect which in turn creates another roster loss.

Do you acquire the lessers and hold your breath? Jankrok is the heavy debate here as he is an absolute fantastic fit for this team on good value. But he likely gets claimed over someone like Holl etc.

Internal debate in a risk/reward type of scenario which is why you’ve seen most scenarios focused on rental for this very specific reason.

Cheaper to acquire and you’re acquiring knowing you are likely losing them anyways. But your total losses likely are much easier to digest.

Rakell and Ekholm are fantastic fits who the Leafs CAN acquire, but the package you send out wont be your only loss as of result.
Click to expand...
Probably not a popular opinion but for me the expansion draft isnt a big concern because I'm fine with exposing one, or both, of Muzzin and Brodie.

This isnt a criticism of either player, I like both. Brodie has been a great fit and Muzzin brings a hard nosed element we definitely need. That said they're both over 30 and making over 5 million a year. In a flat cap world I think they can be replaced with minimal to no down grade.

If we lost Muzzin, use that money to sign a guy like Savard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aingefan
LeafChief said:
I believe we got a 5th from Vegas last year when we retained on Lehner. All depends on how much money we have that third team retain obviously.
Click to expand...

To add to this, we got a fifth to retain about 1.1 AAV and 880k salary.

I figure Chicago would be our cheapest avenue towards retention given our rapport and their willingness. A team like Nashville or Columbus would probably charge more for the same retention.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom