LeBrun: TSN insider trading Keep an eye on Gourde as a fit for the Leafs if they don't land Schenn or Laughton.

[BigDaddyLurch]

Even that's fine Cowan, Minten, Danford and Grebenkin are all solid prospects with Minten and Grebenkin already having played NHL games.

I'm not saying It's the best prospect pool In the league It's not.

But the cupboard isn't empty like some would have you believe.

Considering where they are In the standings and the fact they are In full win now mode It's not actually looking to bad.

Now would I empty the cupboard over the next couple years? Absolutely I've said before I feel like the east is weaker then It's been In AT LEAST a decade and now It's time to strike.

But as of now the cupboard isn't empty like some would have you believe.

...the issue is what's "Swinging Big" with the assets available to the Leafs to move??...a late 1st next year...bottom 3rd prospect pool...moving a Knies would be foolish, imo...

 

[majormajor]

2nd + prospect should be able to get it done for Gorude, for both teams.. but it might take a 1st for Seattle to move him instantly.

Think his stock has dropped because of his down season & recent injury.

His stock has dropped a bit but from a very high starting point. This is a major piece from two recent Cup wins, who also racked up 13 pts in 14 playoff games for Seattle. He'll be back from the sports hernia surgery recovery before the deadline and if he's skating well, there will be more than enough interest for the Kraken to garner a 1st.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

No, it's factually true this year, and next year, which impacts long term depth and quality.

We have 9 picks out of a possible 14 in the next two years if we do nothing. But we're not talking about hypotheticals here, 9 out of 14 picks with no pick in the first round in this year is factually true; Anyone can consult Puck Pedia to verify. And it's this year's trade deadline we're addressing.

We have no 1st this year and no 2nd the next and no 4ths in either; So, we have 4 out of 8 picks in the first four rounds.

And you don't think that that's definitionally asset-poor?

I'm not concerned about missing a couple 4th round picks, or next years 2nd.

The reason I said they aren't actually asset poor is because as of today this is the only year they don't have a 1st which is OK because 2025 is not seen as a particularly strong draft..

Now I think they are going to become asset poor because I do think Treliving is going to do something fairly big at this deadline and I expect further moves to empty the cupboard over the next 3-6 seasons.

But as of today they have solid prospects in Cowan, Minten Danford and Grebenkin, they have their 1st next year, they have a full set of picks in 2027. 2025 is looking scarce in terms of draft capital but overall I feel like they are doing ok, the cupboards aren't empty.

They will be but as of today they aren't

 

[Golden_Jet]

They should go for some jam in the lineup for the playoffs,

 

[Mad Dog Tannen]

Am I the only one that would prefer gourde as a 3c over the other 2?

 

[34]

I don’t want neither of these players in Toronto. Absolutely no interest at all.

 

[Dead Coyote]

Gourde was *never* a point per game in the playoffs, and he has 42 points in 83 playoff games.

As for being a "solid contributor" for the Lightning, he hasn't played for Tampa in nearly five years, and his last playoff for Tampa saw him post 7 points in 23 games.

He was a good depth piece for those successful Lightning teams, but time marches on, and he's no longer that player and his lack of size and strength is absolutely an issue, especially in the bottom six.

He just had 13 pts in 14 games two years ago for the Kraken, so your post is completely wrong lol. He hasn't regressed at all in that time and still plays the exact same way.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

They should go for some jam in the lineup for the playoffs,

Agreed I think that's why they are looking at the Schenn brothers, and why I personally would look at Garnett Hathaway

 

[FerrisRox]

He just had 13 pts in 14 games two years ago for the Kraken, so your post is completely wrong lol. He hasn't regressed at all in that time and still plays the exact same way.

Not a single word of my post is wrong.

You claimed he was twice a point-a-game in the playoffs. He has never been a point-a-game in the playoffs.

It's absurd that you fabricate something completely false, get called on it, and the have the gall to actually respond and claim that I am completely wrong.

You're shameless.

 

[Dead Coyote]

Not a single word of my post is wrong.

You claimed he was twice a point-a-game in the playoffs. He has never been a point-a-game in the playoffs.

It's absurd that you fabricate something completely false, get called on it, and the have the gall to actually respond and claim that I am completely wrong.

You're shameless.

Lmao okay, you're right that I got it wrong but he was still a PPG and if you're really going to use semantics to declare that 13 in 14 isnt ppg than it really just shows you have an agenda and are sticking to it. Please, continue your agenda, I really don't care what you think. You obviously haven't watched Gourde as much as any Seattle fan and have no idea what you're referring to. Have a good one, I'll keep being shameless over here I guess lol.

 

[FerrisRox]

Lmao okay, you're right that I got it wrong but he was still a PPG and if you're really going to use semantics to declare that 13 in 14 isnt ppg than it really just shows you have an agenda and are sticking to it. Please, continue your agenda, I really don't care what you think. You obviously haven't watched Gourde as much as any Seattle fan and have no idea what you're referring to. Have a good one, I'll keep being shameless over here I guess lol.

You said he was a point a game twice. You're counting 13 in 14 as a point game for one. What was the second time he was a point-a-game in the playoffs, according to you?

Was it when he posted 7 points in 17 games in 2018? Was it when he had 1 point in 4 games in 2019? Was it when he had 14 points in 25 games the next year? Or was it when he posted 7 points in 23 games in 2021?

Cause that's it. There are no other playoff seasons, so please, excuse my semantics and let me know which one of those other seasons you're pretending are a point-a-game?

 

[avsfan9]

Everyone to the leafs per insiders…

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

I would take Schenn over Gourde but Gourde makes quite a bit less.

 

[ITM]

I'm not concerned about missing a couple 4th round picks, or next years 2nd.

The reason I said they aren't actually asset poor is because as of today this is the only year they don't have a 1st which is OK because 2025 is not seen as a particularly strong draft..

Now I think they are going to become asset poor because I do think Treliving is going to do something fairly big at this deadline and I expect further moves to empty the cupboard over the next 3-6 seasons.

But as of today they have solid prospects in Cowan, Minten Danford and Grebenkin, they have their 1st next year, they have a full set of picks in 2027. 2025 is looking scarce in terms of draft capital but overall I feel like they are doing ok, the cupboards aren't empty.

They will be but as of today they aren't

You might not be concerned, but perhaps that lack of concern isn't seeing what we have by way of trade chips. Your reason for saying we're not asset poor doesn't reconcile our numeric disadvantage.

As for "solid prospects", I think we might have two in Cowan and Minten and even then, we're not a club with prospects where our consensus is screaming not to trade anyone. Again, by definition, we don't have a surplus to draw from, in fact, we don't have a baseline to draw from, and how much we need vs how much we can get is sorely taxed from either side.

Clubs like Chicago and Detroit, Buffalo...They're asset rich: Pipeline is humming, picks to play with, assets to sell because their trajectory isn't in line with maximizing a group in its prime.

We had a small window with Hildeby and Aktyamov, but I think perception has reset. Grebenkin; HIghly quotable and seems a great dude, but he's not a "trade chip". Neither is Niemela. And Danford...Does he feel like a Matt Finn-Stuart Percy-Karel Pilar special.

We've got Minten and Cowan, a '26 1st, a '25 2nd, our 3rds and maybe Nick Robertson for support pieces, and some other depth that might yield replenishing some middle round picks. But we aren't trading from prospect depth or pick depth and we have no excess in either, like the clubs mentioned above.

We are presently, definitionally, in terms of traditional trade assets, asset-poor. That full set of picks in 2027 might as well be in 2037. No club is looking at Maple Leafs picks beyond 1sts, three drafts away and beyond, when considering their valuation models for pieces they're willing to move.

Treliving and Co. are going to have to get creative. That said, our core has to lead the way. What little we have to acquire with, has the right profile to yield good support parts with term control. Any move we make, has to be for controllable assets. Come July 1 2025, we'll know where we stand. And if we had made better decisions under Dubas, those assets dispensed like free candy might have had a positive effect on today's needs.

 

[LEAFANFORLIFE23]

You might not be concerned, but perhaps that lack of concern isn't seeing what we have by way of trade chips. Your reason for saying we're not asset poor doesn't reconcile our numeric disadvantage.

As for "solid prospects", I think we might have two in Cowan and Minten and even then, we're not a club with prospects where our consensus is screaming not to trade anyone. Again, by definition, we don't have a surplus to draw from, in fact, we don't have a baseline to draw from, and how much we need vs how much we can get is sorely taxed from either side.

Clubs like Chicago and Detroit, Buffalo...They're asset rich: Pipeline is humming, picks to play with, assets to sell because their trajectory isn't in line with maximizing a group in its prime.

We had a small window with Hildeby and Aktyamov, but I think perception has reset. Grebenkin; HIghly quotable and seems a great dude, but he's not a "trade chip". Neither is Niemela. And Danford...Does he feel like a Matt Finn-Stuart Percy-Karel Pilar special.

We've got Minten and Cowan, a '26 1st, a '25 2nd, our 3rds and maybe Nick Robertson for support pieces, and some other depth that might yield replenishing some middle round picks. But we aren't trading from prospect depth or pick depth and we have no excess in either, like the clubs mentioned above.

We are presently, definitionally, in terms of traditional trade assets, asset-poor. That full set of picks in 2027 might as well be in 2037. No club is looking at Maple Leafs picks beyond 1sts, three drafts away and beyond, when considering their valuation models for pieces they're willing to move.

Treliving and Co. are going to have to get creative. That said, our core has to lead the way. What little we have to acquire with, has the right profile to yield good support parts with term control. Any move we make, has to be for controllable assets. Come July 1 2025, we'll know where we stand. And if we had made better decisions under Dubas, those assets dispensed like free candy might have had a positive effect on today's needs.

You know what the difference between us and the teams you mentioned in Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit is?

Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit suck of course they have more because they suck that's how that works you suck you draft higher.

Detroit MIGHT be coming out of that we will see, but Chicago and Buffalo are a long way off and that's actually kind of scary in Buffalo case because It's already been 14 years for them, or at least will be when this season ends.

Regardless I've never claimed the Leafs prospect pool was near the top of the NHL, of course they aren't because the team is near the top of the NHL standings and when you are in that position you sell picks, that's what top teams do.

But when I see the prospect pool ranked bottom 3, or even bottom 5, I know It's bullshit, and I know It's bullshit because I see Cowan and Minten and Grebenkin and Danford and they all look like they they have NHL futures and for the record I'm not even all that high on Danford, I never have been.

In the case of Minten and Grebenkin I know they have NHL futures because they have already played NHL games and looked pretty good.

I'll even throw in Hildeby because he's played a a few NHL games too, although admittedly his results are mixed so far because he CAN NOT play against Columbus they smashed him twice.

Point is no, I don't see the cupboard as being empty, It's not overly flowing, I never claimed it was, but there are players coming.

 

[ITM]

You know what the difference between us and the teams you mentioned in Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit is?

Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit suck of course they have more because they suck that's how that works you suck you draft higher.

Detroit MIGHT be coming out of that we will see, but Chicago and Buffalo are a long way off and that's actually kind of scary in Buffalo case because It's already been 14 years for them, or at least will be when this season ends.

Regardless I've never claimed the Leafs prospect pool was near the top of the NHL, of course they aren't because the team is near the top of the NHL standings and when you are in that position you sell picks, that's what top teams do.

But when I see the prospect pool ranked bottom 3, or even bottom 5, I know It's bullshit, and I know It's bullshit because I see Cowan and Minten and Grebenkin and Danford and they all look like they they have NHL futures and for the record I'm not even all that high on Danford, I never have been.

In the case of Minten and Grebenkin I know they have NHL futures because they have already played NHL games and looked pretty good.

I'll even throw in Hildeby because he's played a a few NHL games too, although admittedly his results are mixed so far because he CAN NOT play against Columbus they smashed him twice.

Point is no, I don't see the cupboard as being empty, It's not overly flowing, I never claimed it was, but there are players coming.

Buffalo and Detroit are not the same as Chicago in terms of point of development. The emphasis is, that's what an asset-rich team looks like, reiterating the point that by comparison we are asset-poor.

Of course, where we are in terms of our maturation matters, but if you look at clubs like Carolina and Florida who have managed to keep and then maximize their assets from their surplus, that's what an organization running on all cylinders looks like.

Our cupboard isn't empty. But that's not what asset-poor means. Being asset-poor means we don't have a baseline in prospects and picks never mind a surplus in prospects and picks, and of the prospects and picks of value we have to move, we objectively have less to move (i.e 9 of 14 total picks in the next two rounds, and only 4 of 8 total picks in the first four rounds where value and likelihood of success reside). Again, Carolina was a great example of having stewarded its picks/prospects/budget as an asset-rich club; And for the record, you can do both. They've been Conference Finalists or Semi-Finalists for the last six years.

And for assessments saying we're bottom 5...Its believable; Knies and Wool have graduated, leaving Cowan, Minten, and maybe a few others. I think Sam McCue is interesting but he needs a more visible showing to prove he's of real promise. Hildeby having played some games means nothing. Hildeby coming in and being consistently very good is what would qualify him as an asset of worth, but as I mentioned in the previous post, I think the positive apprehension of our Marlies goalies depth has reset. We missed our window to maximize perception there.

I hope I'm wrong and that the future surprises me. At present, we ARE asset poor and have to offset that disadvantage by free agency and creative trading. It can be done, and we have the organizational resources to be that granular mining club (And I'm especially eager to see us get Mark Leach more picks), but right now, I just don't see what you do...I'd like to though.