Trades & Free Agency Thread: 2024-2025 - Trade Deadline Approaches

[thusk]

David Kampf + Nicholas Robertson + Fraser Minten + FLA 2025 2nd

for

Dylan Cozens

Waive Holmberg. 21 man roster.

Trade Timmins and a pick for a defenseman that can fit under the cap at 1.15M

add knies and buffalo will start to think about it...

 

[Ianturnedbull]

Yesterday Seravelli says Sabres want somebody who makes them better today. Leafs do not have such a trade piece.

Maybe Steeves.

 

[thewave]

Maybe Steeves.

I want to see what he is all about on the big club. Why not?

 

[ToneDog]

I want to see what he is all about on the big club. Why not?

Steeves will get you the middle of a Tim Horton's doughnut in a trade so why not give the kid a real shot to see what he's got? I'm pretty sure it won't take long for him to catch Domi in goals.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But I think committing more money and time to this group, particularly if they don't do anything this spring, is silly, and I don't get the stubbornness to change. Especially after you still couldn't give me an example of a team winning with 3 or 4 forwards making this much.

I think committing more money and time to worse players instead is silly, and I don't get the stubbornness in thinking that what needs to change is one of the best players in the league being purged from our team. There are a million different ways to win the cup. There is no formula. History is littered with "cup winners haven't _____" , before exactly that wins a cup. The reason that there aren't an abundance of examples is because teams don't get the chance at this really specific scenario in the first place. That doesn't equate to it not being possible to win this way.

Well, you could've fooled me, it seems like you are and have been very interested in him. Anyway, even if they sign Manrer, it doesn't sound like you have much confidence in Treliving to fill the roster out anyway. So, perhaps they should be extra careful and not overpay Mitch

We're both talking about him, because he and what he did is relevant. How we built great teams through even the most difficult situations for this model is relevant. Treliving's track record and priorities do not give me much confidence in his ability to fill out the roster or replace Marner's impacts. That makes signing Marner even more critical, as he is a known quantity, and I can know that we will at least get significant and reliable positive impact from that cap space with really good potential for surplus value through most if not all of his contract.

and you can say it's misleading, but I think most would say it paints a pretty good picture of where he stands offensively.

But it doesn't. The stats I laid out for you do. There's a heck of a lot more to offensive impact than whether you hit the 100 point mark over an arbitrary 82 game sample or not.

And I'll keep going back to it; that level of performance is not replicated in the postseason

The production numbers aren't at the same level (most player's arent), but he still leads the team in the Matthews era, and the production drop is more about team situation than him specifically. And he still finds a way to bring a good portion of that overall impact; just in a different form. There are things he can work on, like any player, but his playoff struggles are wildly overblown.

O'Reilly didn't want to stay in a big market, so it's not really on Treliving is it?

He said that he preferred a smaller market, but I don't know if that means that there was no chance of getting him to stay. He clearly had some level of connection to the city, and Dubas showed himself to be pretty good at convincing people to choose Toronto, even when it meant personal sacrifice. Maybe it turns out the same, but it's hard to blame him for a rental that he didn't even get a chance to re-sign.

But these recurring jabs at him, particularly in contrast to how you view Dubas, are interesting; why so quick to defend one and not the other?

Because he's not doing a good job! I'm not "defending" anyone; I'm just stating the facts. But of course I'm going to view the person who did a good job more favourably than the person who is currently hurting my team. Why would anyone not?

Again, more anti-Tre, pro-Dubas stuff, interesting for someone who "doesn't care."
But no, Dubas got played. To say otherwise is certainly a choice. He lost on basically every main front. Term, AAV and signing bonuses. Most of this is due to the Tavares signing. However, Matthews' AAv relative to his term and Manrer's AAV were not good. Then, when you add that these guys got mostly paid in lumpsum signing bonuses as their "salary" to get around certain tax implications, the fact those deals weren't better is disappointing. His mishandling of Nylander was waiting until December to sign him, which basically made that season a write-off because he never caught up. Also, being dictated to by Manrer's agent by saying, "Mitch goes last," is another issue.

It's not anti-Tre, pro-Dubas to state facts. Their terms and cap hit percentages for what they did through their pre-signing periods were consistent with the history of high end post-ELC contracts. Signing bonuses are there to help counter tax disadvantages, not change AAV. Tavares was irrelevant. Marner was last because Nylander was due a year earlier and we couldn't risk Matthews getting to July 1st. I would have preferred to sign them all earlier, but you can't force a contract unilaterally. Nylander has a responsibility to be in game shape whenever he joins.

Then, I'll bring up what Mackinnon and Barkov made on their 2nd contracts...

Worse players get paid less. What a shock!

Based on?

Based on their average impacts and realistic alternative options.

Yes, because the moment Mackinnon jumped to $13.6m, they knew putting a team together would be difficult.

Mackinnon is 12.6m, and that's clearly not the reason. Especially with the cap skyrocketing. They wouldn't have exceeded a pretty normal range for their core. Either way, it doesn't work as an example to follow, because you don't even know that it was the right choice. They won the cup with their stars. They're 3-3 since the trade.

Also, you can have a positional/player downgrade and still have a net team gain if you are smart about how you build said team.

Theoretically possible. Practically unlikely, especially for a player like Marner who has such high two way impacts in every game situation.

Yes, of course, it does. Because it is a shorter yet more important format of playing

No, because the purpose of sample size is to smooth out the differences and context, but there are even greater situational differences in the playoffs, and even more things that you need to account for. It makes smaller samples even less representative.

As for the "outplaying" of the opposition - it hasn't manifested in much success, has it? And again, 36 games in the playoffs is not a small sample size; I'm sorry.

Not everything is Marner's fault. 36 games is a small sample size. It's not even his whole playoff sample.

Which player has been paid for the pace they scored at rather than the rough average of what they've put up in the past, particularly on a 3rd contract? You're paying for what they've done, not what they hypothetically/almost did a few times.

Every player ever, outside of rare instances where there is a massive injury concern. That doesn't apply here. The games he's missed are to random injuries, a pandemic, and resting for the playoffs. You're paying for the level they perform at when they play for your team.

 

[ULF_55]

So what happened to Cozens?

30 goals a couple years ago, 18 last year and on pace for 15 this year?

Ryan MeLeod has better stats and is $2.1 RFA.

 

[Americanadian]

So what happened to Cozens?

30 goals a couple years ago, 18 last year and on pace for 15 this year?

Ryan MeLeod has better stats and is $2.1 RFA.

Apparently he was knocked out by Hathaway and has never been the same.

 

[ULF_55]

Apparently he was knocked out by Hathaway and has never been the same.

Kulemin syndrome.

 

[nuck]

I don't see the fit with Cozens.

He's likely to put up 25 goals this year and should be expected better production than what he's currently providing. But to me that doesn't justify Knies at the additional assets the Leafs would need to give up. Even if you anticipate re-signing Knies at the end of this year, he doesn't get close to 7.1

The guy that I would try and get from the Sabres with some retention is Alex Tuch. 2nd line winger to play with Nylander and Tavares. Physical and can add in some scoring.

Its about how much better the production could be. In 22-23 he had 31g and 37a playing with 37pt Quinn and 32pt Peterka and he was 21 years old playing 16:30 a night. The most productive regular line mate he has played beside was the 50pt version of Peterka from last season. Always a gamble but if he is not underachieving you don't get a sniff of a player like that. He has not been set up to succeed in Buffalo

I don't think they have a shot unless Knies is on the table and as a bit of a Knies fan I am not thrilled about that. But a 6'3" center with big time offensive potential and some physicality is a rare package and JT isn't going to be around forever. I think Knies is around $6M on his next deal so the argument not to isn't really the money. Its whether they think the #2C spot is solvable for the next several years by FA or internal development. I think Tuch would cost more than Cozens if they would even deal him. He is a Buffalo success story on a team that has churned through players that save their best for other clubs.

 

[Maple Leaf]

Kulemin syndrome.

prime kulemin was real good

 

[ULF_55]

Its about how much better the production could be. In 22-23 he had 31g and 37a playing with 37pt Quinn and 32pt Peterka and he was 21 years old playing 16:30 a night. The most productive regular line mate he has played beside was the 50pt version of Peterka from last season. Always a gamble but if he is not underachieving you don't get a sniff of a player like that. He has not been set up to succeed in Buffalo

I don't think they have a shot unless Knies is on the table and as a bit of a Knies fan I am not thrilled about that. But a 6'3" center with big time offensive potential and some physicality is a rare package and JT isn't going to be around forever. I think Knies is around $6M on his next deal so the argument not to isn't really the money. Its whether they think the #2C spot is solvable for the next several years by FA or internal development. I think Tuch would cost more than Cozens if they would even deal him. He is a Buffalo success story on a team that has churned through players that save their best for other clubs.

Really liked the Tuch I saw in Vegas.

Doesn't seem like the same player today.

 

[Gabriel426]

Just send MM and get Cozens and Tuch, lol.

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

It’d hurt but I’d include Minten in a deal for Cozens. Not Cowan.

 

[Americanadian]

It’d hurt but I’d include Minten in a deal for Cozens. Not Cowan.

I don't think the 20 year old C with a career high of 67 points in the WHL gets you close to the 23 year old C with a career high of 68 points in the NHL.

 

[Rare Jewel]

I think committing more money and time to worse players instead is silly, and I don't get the stubbornness in thinking that what needs to change is one of the best players in the league being purged from our team. There are a million different ways to win the cup. There is no formula. History is littered with "cup winners haven't _____" , before exactly that wins a cup. The reason that there aren't an abundance of examples is because teams don't get the chance at this really specific scenario in the first place. That doesn't equate to it not being possible to win this way.

Well, you did reference a model, So I thought some prior team could be given as an example.

"Committing money to worse players." That idea, in a vacuum, may sound right. But that completely ignores the context of a team. and again, it's not like this group has been successful.

We're both talking about him, because he and what he did is relevant. How we built great teams through even the most difficult situations for this model is relevant. Treliving's track record and priorities do not give me much confidence in his ability to fill out the roster or replace Marner's impacts. That makes signing Marner even more critical, as he is a known quantity, and I can know that we will at least get significant and reliable positive impact from that cap space with really good potential for surplus value through most if not all of his contract.

You've got a very low bar for using the term "great." Being handed all the core pieces to a team and failing to get out of 1st round in all but one time is not what I would describe as "great."

And the rest is opinion., mostly influenced by the 'we can, we will" BS

But it doesn't. The stats I laid out for you do. There's a heck of a lot more to offensive impact than whether you hit the 100 point mark over an arbitrary 82 game sample or not.

But I thought scoring at a 100-point pace was important? Anyway, I'll agree with this even though I think you're discrediting other players too much and not taking the goal-scoring into account enough.

$14m x 8, though is still too much.

He said that he preferred a smaller market, but I don't know if that means that there was no chance of getting him to stay. He clearly had some level of connection to the city, and Dubas showed himself to be pretty good at convincing people to choose Toronto, even when it meant personal sacrifice. Maybe it turns out the same, but it's hard to blame him for a rental that he didn't even get a chance to re-sign.

Sure, only Dubas could've done it....

Because he's not doing a good job! I'm not "defending" anyone; I'm just stating the facts. But of course I'm going to view the person who did a good job more favourably than the person who is currently hurting my team. Why would anyone not?

It's not anti-Tre, pro-Dubas to state facts. Their terms and cap hit percentages for what they did through their pre-signing periods were consistent with the history of high end post-ELC contracts. Signing bonuses are there to help counter tax disadvantages, not change AAV. Tavares was irrelevant. Marner was last because Nylander was due a year earlier and we couldn't risk Matthews getting to July 1st. I would have preferred to sign them all earlier, but you can't force a contract unilaterally. Nylander has a responsibility to be in game shape whenever he joins.

C'mon now... as the other quote you constantly deflect, it's never him, even though he's the boss and they didn't win anything. Can you give me one example of a move you didn't like that he made?

And I'll say this as not an advocate of Treliving, but what different should he have done? because it sure seems like you've passed judgment on Treliving a lot sooner in his tenure.

As for the contract stuff. Utterly disagree. If you, as a GM, aren't using the wealth of the Toronto Maple Leafs to your advantage to actually compete against non-tax teams, which means getting AAVs nearer to what your competitors are paying. Then you're not doing it right. Why are you paying lump sums to that degree?

He capitulated on all fronts. And gave the $15m signing bonuses to these guys despite not winning anything and giving no advantage/break to the team. I'm sorry, but that's not good GMing.

But I'm sure you'll say, "Well, that's not how contracts are done." Right. Well, I guess not if you're a rookie who got taken to the shed.


Also, of course, Tavares factors in because Matthews was always going to be the highest-paid player. The moment JT's $11m is there, the precedent is set. Without John, Matthews' 2nd deal is either under Eichel's AAV (giving the team more cap space in those years) for shorter or possibly over ($11.6m) but for 7 or 8 seasons.

Worse players get paid less. What a shock!

Who's a worse player? You're not saying Mackinnon and Barkov are worse than Manrer, are you?

Based on their average impacts and realistic alternative options.

You don't know what is available, really. And if three players across three different positions cover for Marner, then they may be better off for it. I know you likely won't think so because you tend to view things as straight swaps. But it is possible, dear, particularly if it's a C and D.

Who knows, the loss of Manrer may actually inspire a big trade or offer sheet.

I know one thing that won't be inspiring is locking into this core for another, however many years if they do flame out early in the playoffs.

Mackinnon is 12.6m, and that's clearly not the reason. Especially with the cap skyrocketing. They wouldn't have exceeded a pretty normal range for their core. Either way, it doesn't work as an example to follow, because you don't even know that it was the right choice. They won the cup with their stars. They're 3-3 since the trade.

Yes, but that was with Mackinnon @ $6.3. You can have 3 of them if one of them is on a sweat deal like that. But they're projecting Mac @ 12.6 , Rantanen @ $13-$14m, and then Makar eventually @ $15m

That you can't do, and that's what the Leafs may be signing up for with a group that consists of 3 forwards who, again, haven't won anything close to what the Avalanche boys have.

No, because the purpose of sample size is to smooth out the differences and context, but there are even greater situational differences in the playoffs, and even more things that you need to account for. It makes smaller samples even less representative.

Not everything is Marner's fault. 36 games is a small sample size. It's not even his whole playoff sample.

That's just excuse-making at this point. The playoffs are a more intense and condensed format of playing; 36 games represent the last 5 seasons' worth of playoff games for Mitch, and he and Matthews, in particular, have been pretty disappointing. How else are we supposed to judge them?

So, I'm sorry if I take this into account before accessing his value to the team and contractually. I also don't mean to put it all on Mitch because he has had company at times, but when you're already on 11m, being a mildly ineffectual perimeter player during the most important games of the season is not a feather in his cap.

Every player ever, outside of rare instances where there is a massive injury concern. That doesn't apply here. The games he's missed are to random injuries, a pandemic, and resting for the playoffs. You're paying for the level they perform at when they play for your team.

Yes, which is a 90ish point player.

An example would be nice. A player who's paid on his 3rd contract based on the pace rather than the actual numbers put up.

I mean, it is probably the biggest issue of the Shanahan era, paying players for what they may do rather than what they've done.

And what has been accomplished?

 

[IrishInOntario]

I like Dylan Cozens and I think he still has upside as a 3C that could develop into a 2C and flip spots with Tavares as he ages, but I wouldn't rush to make a deal for him that sees Toronto overpay significantly. That is a big contract, even with a rising cap and in order to make it work over the coming years Toronto still needs some quality ELCs to round out it's roster.

Something like....

To Buffalo
David Kampf
Fraser Minten
Ben Danford OR Nikita Grebenkin OR Nick Robertson
1st round pick

To Toronto...
Dylan Cozens

If Buffalo is looking for substantially more than that I'd probably pass. I'm not trading a prospect the likes of Cowan, along with 3-4 other pieces. If they'd to some like Cowan, Kampft and a 1st I'd be interested, but I wouldn't trade the farm for a guy whose had multi years of regression, with a big cap hit and a big'ish contract.

 

[showtime8]

It’d hurt but I’d include Minten in a deal for Cozens. Not Cowan.

I think it's fairly simple from an optic standpoint. Where do you project Minten and Cowan long term & then whose job is Cozens taking?

Do you see Cozens as your #2 centre moving forward? If that's the case, you've got your 1-2 centres for the forseeable future (Matthews & Cozens) and you could use JT for a couple years and look to replace him as your #3... so to me that's when you trade Minten.

If you're moving Cozens into a wing position, then you trade Cowan.

That's how I would look at it.

 

[LeafEgo]

I don't think the 20 year old C with a career high of 67 points in the WHL gets you close to the 23 year old C with a career high of 68 points in the NHL.

Probably gets you 30-40% of the way, dollar for dollar.

Perhaps Buffalo wants to make a push in the 2-5 year time frame and support their wide array of younger players as they develop into their mid twenties - they have about a dozen of them.

So the targeted return would be a better but older player, like an established top six that's 27 or 28. You'd think they'd keep the 2C and move off 3 or 4 of the others to teams that need youth, but either way Leafs seem unlikely as a trade partner.

 

[WTFMAN99]

I think that's the best we could offer right now

That offer is more future based but not all that off what NYR paid for JT Miller and he's got a more proven track record in terms of production, it's just age.

If they were hell bent on getting a roster piece for today, that is Knies...

 

[showtime8]

Its about how much better the production could be. In 22-23 he had 31g and 37a playing with 37pt Quinn and 32pt Peterka and he was 21 years old playing 16:30 a night. The most productive regular line mate he has played beside was the 50pt version of Peterka from last season. Always a gamble but if he is not underachieving you don't get a sniff of a player like that. He has not been set up to succeed in Buffalo

I don't think they have a shot unless Knies is on the table and as a bit of a Knies fan I am not thrilled about that. But a 6'3" center with big time offensive potential and some physicality is a rare package and JT isn't going to be around forever. I think Knies is around $6M on his next deal so the argument not to isn't really the money. Its whether they think the #2C spot is solvable for the next several years by FA or internal development. I think Tuch would cost more than Cozens if they would even deal him. He is a Buffalo success story on a team that has churned through players that save their best for other clubs.

You're right about not being set up to succeed. So if he's coming in to be the 2nd line centre and playing him with Nylander, he would look a lot better and put up more points.

It would be hard to find a #2 centre like that. But I just don't see why the Sabres would want to do it. They're going to miss the playoffs again and seemingly it looks like they've taken a step behind. But adding younger pieces kicks the can down the road even more and I don't see the Pegulas putting up with that for much more.

 

[LeafChief]

Cozens would be a really interesting get but I just don't see it happening. I don't imagine Buffalo wants to even consider the bad press and fan reaction of Cozens suddenly turned it around in Toronto.

Someone under the radar that I would have interest in is Nick Schmaltz from Utah. Listed as a centreman (although I have to admit I don't know if he has played much centre this year). He has a contract for this year and next at 5.8 million. You might be able to work out some retention.

He is a childhood friend of Nylander. Perfect way to split the stars up amongst three lines by giving Willie someone to play with. Kampf would have to go for cap purposes. Reaves to the minors.

You may be able to swing something where we grab another piece from them as well (maybe Kesselring)?

Knies - Matthews - Domi
McMann - Tavares - Marner
Jarnkrok - Schmaltz - Nylander
Lorentz - Dewar - Pacioretty

 

[All Mod Cons]

David Kampf + Nicholas Robertson + Fraser Minten + FLA 2025 2nd

for

Dylan Cozens

Waive Holmberg. 21 man roster.

Trade Timmins and a pick for a defenseman that can fit under the cap at 1.15M

Do you think Buffalo want David Kampf + Nicholas Robertson + Fraser Minten + FLA 2025 2nd?

 

[Ianturnedbull]

I don't understand the comments about Steeves.

You'll get nothing for him in a trade, yet you want to see what he does in this organization?

I'm always support the idea that if you want a player of quality in a trade, you have to give up something of value.

We can count 4 or 5 players you'd like to see gone from our bottom 6. I think Steeves should be playing, but he's not due to probably a long Robertson showcase.

Steeves is doing quite well on the Marlies, and Robertson is getting recognition for staying on his skates on the Leafs.

 

[LaPlante94]

Only way Buffalo is trading with Toronto is if Marner is involved. I doubt they'd want to give us a young guy like Cozens just for prospects and some cap fillers. Obviously they'd have to give up more than Cozens for that but I think they'd feel much better and wouldn't get crucified by their fanbase. I'd say I doubt it happens but seeing the Rantanen deal I guess anything's possible if Marner agrees to it.

 

[Enniskillen]

It’s boring to watch marner’s timid attempts at playing hockey in all recent series clinching games, his wilted mojo is no good for this team anyway. They haven’t won s.t with Marner, why not try smth else?