Why though?... they have $43 million in cap space for next year.
They do technically have the space, but I sincerely doubt any team is going to want to eliminate more than $10M in cap space from a single trade. That said, using it on Marner for their team is a slam-dunk IMO.
That said, everything else about Utah is a fit. They do have the space, they'll want to make a splash given it's a new team, there's no pressure on Mitch to lead a team in the postseason immediately, his take-home pay is higher there, he's already married so the comparative lack of a (let's just call it) singles culture in the city isn't a problem, and he can go home afterwards and not feel like there's a ton of eyes on him.
In short it's a great fit for the player in my biased view. They have some low-cost assets we'd be interested in and we'd have leftover space to address other issues in the lineup afterwards as well. I think it's a good fit.
Friedman on 32 thoughts said the Leafs haven't even started entertaining the idea of a Marner trade until they speak to him and the agent first about contract demands.
If the contract demands are ridiculous, then all bets are off according to EF
I don't doubt that they haven't thought much about it yet. Theoretically you wouldn't normally want to lose a core player to UFA unless there are very significant extenuating circumstances.
However, in this case for this team and this player, there ARE very significant extenuating circumstances. It's time for a change and I think that (while they won't admit it publicly yet) both parties know this already. The chances of Marner's new deal coming in at well under his existing cap hit are next to nil, and the Leafs cannot afford to sign his new deal literally or figuratively. It's time.