Tavares a Financial mistake for Leafs?

[JB7]

So, if Matthews is as important to the Leafs as you state, when they knew they would have letter (C or A) available because they are not going to re-sign Komarov, why would the Leafs give the A to Tavares, rather than Matthews? Especially if they are trying to convince Matthews of his importance to the team, and are trying to sign him.

They are not taking an A off Rielly or Marleau.

Edmonton gave McDavid the C at 19 after his 1st season.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Maybe they don't think the letter matters to Matthews and will have no influence on whether they can sign him or not. Marner and Nylander don't have letters either.

[whysoserious]

So, if Matthews is as important to the Leafs as you state, when they knew they would have letter (C or A) available because they are not going to re-sign Komarov, why would the Leafs give the A to Tavares, rather than Matthews? Especially if they are trying to convince Matthews of his importance to the team, and are trying to sign him.

They are not taking an A off Rielly or Marleau.

Edmonton gave McDavid the C at 19 after his 1st season.

What the hell are you going on about now? Let me ask you something, how good is that letter on McDavid working out for the Oilers?

There’s an argument that giving Matthews the letter shows him how valuable he is, but the leafs are trying to bring him along slowly to learn and they are setting a culture in place that winning is the core of everything, not some letter or personal stats. Matthews is the best player on the team, hands down and nothing the leafs have done has been anything short of showing him that.

But all this talk still has no bearing on your original arguments here.

[JB7]

So, if Matthews is as important to the Leafs as you state, when they knew they would have letter (C or A) available because they are not going to re-sign Komarov, why would the Leafs give the A to Tavares, rather than Matthews? Especially if they are trying to convince Matthews of his importance to the team, and are trying to sign him.

They are not taking an A off Rielly or Marleau.

Edmonton gave McDavid the C at 19 after his 1st season.

What the hell are you going on about now? Let me ask you something, how good is that letter on McDavid working out for the Oilers?

There’s an argument that giving Matthews the letter shows him how valuable he is, but the leafs are trying to bring him along slowly to learn and they are setting a culture in place that winning is the core of everything, not some letter or personal stats. Matthews is the best player on the team, hands down and nothing the leafs have done has been anything short of showing him that.

But all this talk still has no bearing on your original arguments here.

Actually this argument does link into my original comments. If in the summer discussions with Matthews, they got the indication that he was not going to sign at a price they could manage within their cap, they went out and got Tavares as the back-up plan, and they are treating him like their #1 Center.

They gave him the A (could not give him the C, it would be too obvious), then put Marner on his wing.

The McDavid comparison is also very appropriate. What it shows is one player, even as great as McDavid (probably considered one of the top 5 players in the game), cannot will a team to win. If the other talent is not around them, it does not matter having such high end talent. If giving Matthews a max contract means they are limited in who they can sign on their roster, having talent like Matthews, Tavares and Marner, if all they are playing with are scrubs, will have a difficult time winning.

During the 2nd intermission of last night’s game, Kypreos stated his ‘sources’ were saying Matthews camp might be looking for a shorter deal, one that takes him to his UFA. Again, more messaging coming out that Matthews is not interested in committing to the team long-term.

[ATLTimekeeper]

One star isn't enough, but three stars? If one star isn't enough, he's not signing for 16 in Vegas or Phoenix, either.

The captaincy argument is weird. Babcock has given letters to vets, historically. Zetterberg became captain at 32 after Lidstrom had it forever. They don't just hand them out to kids because they think it will help them get a good contract.

[whysoserious]

Actually this argument does link into my original comments. If in the summer discussions with Matthews, they got the indication that he was not going to sign at a price they could manage within their cap, they went out and got Tavares as the back-up plan, and they are treating him like their #1 Center.

They gave him the A (could not give him the C, it would be too obvious), then put Marner on his wing.

The McDavid comparison is also very appropriate. What it shows is one player, even as great as McDavid (probably considered one of the top 5 players in the game), cannot will a team to win. If the other talent is not around them, it does not matter having such high end talent. If giving Matthews a max contract means they are limited in who they can sign on their roster, having talent like Matthews, Tavares and Marner, if all they are playing with are scrubs, will have a difficult time winning.

During the 2nd intermission of last night’s game, Kypreos stated his ‘sources’ were saying Matthews camp might be looking for a shorter deal, one that takes him to his UFA. Again, more messaging coming out that Matthews is not interested in committing to the team long-term.

Except that it doesn't make any sense at all. The Leafs were targetting Tavares long before any discussions around Matthews contract and there's not a single indication of anything going poorly so far in negotiations. Tavares was not signed as a backup, he was not given the A because he's the guy they think will carry the team. He was signed as a high end player to add to a very young core. He was given the A over Matthews because our coach likes his veterans and Tavares is older, known as a good leader and has been in the league for a while. This was not some indication of negotiations going poorly with Matthews. Also, they put Marner on his wing cause he's pretty much been on the second line, not with Matthews even last year. This is you trying to align things to the narrative you believe is going on because of a one liner out of the mouth of Kypper.

The McDavid comparison doesn't make sense because you've completely disregarded all the factors around why Edmonton has to rush to sign a top player like him, why they have to max him out early and why the pieces aren't around him to be successful so far. Whereas the Leafs situation is completely different because they've drafted all these good young guys and they are proving to be more successful than Edmonton with Matthews leading the way.

The segment your referencing is Kypper doubling down. Elliott laughed him off and if you listed to the rest of the panel, everyone agreed that you pay Matthews and move on. You figure out the rest later. Yes, Kypper may be right that there's been discussions of a shorter deal, that's not some indication of his unwillingness to commit. For all you know the Leafs may have presented that as a way to work the numbers.

Regardless of all these things, you still haven't presented a valid case at all trading a potential HOF talent who will carry this team for the next 15+ years.

[JB7]

One star isn't enough, but three stars? If one star isn't enough, he's not signing for 16 in Vegas or Phoenix, either.

The captaincy argument is weird. Babcock has given letters to vets, historically. Zetterberg became captain at 32 after Lidstrom had it forever. They don't just hand them out to kids because they think it will help them get a good contract.

One star isn’t enough (McDavid) when you have questionable goaltending, defence, and very few other supporting forwards (Draisaitl, Nugent-Hopkins).

In Vegas’ case, they made it to the finals last year, and were dominant all year long. Of that team, they have there goaltending locked up, top 3 D, and a supporting cast up front (Marchessault, Pacioretty, Haula, + they added Stastny, and have Glass in the minors as a future C). And again they made it to the finals last year. That is more than the Leafs have done in decades.

I doubt he would go to Arizona, unless he really just wanted to be closer to home.

On the C argument, I can completely see why Babcock would give Tavares the A as a veteran leader. But also, if you are trying to convince Matthews of staying and taking less to win, and he has expressed an interest in the C or A, why not offer it to him. The Leafs have enough veterans around him, that it should not be a problem. It costs you pretty much nothing to do. And Tavares could get the A the following year when they need to move Marleau to free up cap room.

[JB7]

Actually this argument does link into my original comments. If in the summer discussions with Matthews, they got the indication that he was not going to sign at a price they could manage within their cap, they went out and got Tavares as the back-up plan, and they are treating him like their #1 Center.

They gave him the A (could not give him the C, it would be too obvious), then put Marner on his wing.

The McDavid comparison is also very appropriate. What it shows is one player, even as great as McDavid (probably considered one of the top 5 players in the game), cannot will a team to win. If the other talent is not around them, it does not matter having such high end talent. If giving Matthews a max contract means they are limited in who they can sign on their roster, having talent like Matthews, Tavares and Marner, if all they are playing with are scrubs, will have a difficult time winning.

During the 2nd intermission of last night’s game, Kypreos stated his ‘sources’ were saying Matthews camp might be looking for a shorter deal, one that takes him to his UFA. Again, more messaging coming out that Matthews is not interested in committing to the team long-term.

Except that it doesn't make any sense at all. The Leafs were targetting Tavares long before any discussions around Matthews contract and there's not a single indication of anything going poorly so far in negotiations. Tavares was not signed as a backup, he was not given the A because he's the guy they think will carry the team. He was signed as a high end player to add to a very young core. He was given the A over Matthews because our coach likes his veterans and Tavares is older, known as a good leader and has been in the league for a while. This was not some indication of negotiations going poorly with Matthews. Also, they put Marner on his wing cause he's pretty much been on the second line, not with Matthews even last year. This is you trying to align things to the narrative you believe is going on because of a one liner out of the mouth of Kypper.

The McDavid comparison doesn't make sense because you've completely disregarded all the factors around why Edmonton has to rush to sign a top player like him, why they have to max him out early and why the pieces aren't around him to be successful so far. Whereas the Leafs situation is completely different because they've drafted all these good young guys and they are proving to be more successful than Edmonton with Matthews leading the way.

The segment your referencing is Kypper doubling down. Elliott laughed him off and if you listed to the rest of the panel, everyone agreed that you pay Matthews and move on. You figure out the rest later. Yes, Kypper may be right that there's been discussions of a shorter deal, that's not some indication of his unwillingness to commit. For all you know the Leafs may have presented that as a way to work the numbers.

Regardless of all these things, you still haven't presented a valid case at all trading a potential HOF talent who will carry this team for the next 15+ years.

Yes the Leafs had been targeting Tavares for awhile. They target any top-end player they could have a chance to acquire, if necessary. However, if you know that signing Matthews is going to cost you $12M+, why bring in an $11M dollar player to be your 2nd line center, when you already have a cost-effective 2nd line center in Kadri, and multiple young wingers you need to sign (Marner, Nylander and Kapanen).

I like how the Leafs also played it off as Tavares taking less to come here. According to the average annual value of his contract, he is the 2nd highest paid player in the league.

In terms of Marner, the rationale for playing him on the 2nd line last year was Babcock wanted to spread out his stars, because they are both dominant puck possession players, but when you just added Tavares, that rationale goes out the window. Matthews was demanding to play with more talented players this off season (reason why Marleau ended up on his wing, rather then Hyman), however Matthews and Marner seemed to be hinting throughout the summer that they wanted the chance to player together.

So again, if you are trying to keep Matthews happy, why not put Marner on his wing?

And like I have said previously, anything that comes out of Kypreos' mouth, if pertaining to the Leafs, I consider a message from Leafs management, and Kypreos is just the delivery agent.

So again, how productive do you think Matthews will be if his wingers are Grundstrom and Kapanen, because they won't be able to sign Nylander if Matthews and Marner get big deals, and Marner is playing with Tavares. Also, Marleau would probably have to be jettison to help manage the cap. And that assumes they would be able to keep Matthews around $12M. If he goes higher, does it eat into what they could offer Kapanen, who is also an RFA this summer. I'm sure Matthews productivity drops significantly if his linemates are Grundstrom and Brown.

[whysoserious]

Yes the Leafs had been targeting Tavares for awhile. They target any top-end player they could have a chance to acquire, if necessary. However, if you know that signing Matthews is going to cost you $12M+, why bring in an $11M dollar player to be your 2nd line center, when you already have a cost-effective 2nd line center in Kadri, and multiple young wingers you need to sign (Marner, Nylander and Kapanen).

I like how the Leafs also played it off as Tavares taking less to come here. According to the average annual value of his contract, he is the 2nd highest paid player in the league.

In terms of Marner, the rationale for playing him on the 2nd line last year was Babcock what to spread out his stars, because they are both dominant puck possession players, but when you just added Tavares, that rationale goes out the window. Matthews was demanding to play with more talented players this off season (reason why Marleau ended up on his wing, rather then Hyman), and through what Matthews and Marner seemed to be hinting was they wanted the chance to player together.

So again, if you are trying to keep Matthews happy, why not put Marner on his wing?

And like I have said previously, anything that comes out of Kypreos' mouth, if pertaining to the Leafs, I consider a message from Leafs management, and Kypreos is just the delivery agent.

So again, how productive do you think Matthews will be if his wingers are Grundstrom and Kapanen, because they won't be able to sign Nylander if Matthews and Marner get big deals, and Marner is playing with Tavares. Also, Marleau would probably have to be jettison to help manage the cap. And that assumes they would be able to keep Matthews around $12M. If he goes higher, does it eat into what they could offer Kapanen, who is also an RFA this summer. I'm sure Matthews productivity drops significantly if his linemates are Grundstrom and Brown.

The reason you get Tavares is because he's a star player. Simple as that. You're trying to read in to things a certain way. Kadri is not a second line C. He's ideally slotted in as third line C, which is perfect for him and the team. The cost savings you got on his deal is why you go after Tavares. This is not some conspiracy theory move because they were fearful of Matthews. Don't get me wrong, it works out as a hedge if someone like Matthews does leave but this move wasn't made in fear of Matthews leaving or not paying him, it was made to make the team better.

The Marner situation you're describing also doesn't hold water. The guy struggled last year which is why he was lower on the depth chart and he worked his way out all season all the way to the second line. Sure, he's talented and could be up on Matthews wing and the team would still do well. But Babcock put him with Tavares, that was part of the sell to Tavares to come here because the hope was to have Nylander signed playing with Matthews and Tavares/Marner combo. WIth Nylander unsigned, they aren't keepign Marner away from Matthews because of fear of him leaving too.

You can have whatever belief you want about Kypper and his connections to Toronto, there may be some messaging going on about guys taking less and the greater good. But it's not like they need Kypper as the mouth piece for that, they've come out and said it outright. They know it's going to cost them a ton to keep their team together. They are trying to work it all out. But you're inferences around what these messages mean and somehow the Leafs are trying to deal Matthews or should because he wants 16 million or to be fearful of some RFA offer sheet are a ridiculous jump.

Matthews has shown he can play with anyone and Kapanen is already showing to be a pretty good fit. Nylander obviously better. Matthews is doing anything he wants out there with anyone you put him with. The PP is loaded with Matthews, Tavares, Marner and Kadri. What more do you want? You seem to want to make this in to a thing that just isn't there so either you're just trolling at this point or you've gone in to a dark place of thought and won't believe any counter. You're operating like a Leafs fan during the down years, not as one with the best team on the ice and best chance at a Cup talking about trading your best player to balance a roster out.

The entire premise of trading Matthews is one of the dumbest things the Leafs could do and the fact that you're actually suggesting this would be the right move is just ridiculous.

[ATLTimekeeper]

One star isn’t enough (McDavid) when you have questionable goaltending, defence, and very few other supporting forwards (Draisaitl, Nugent-Hopkins).

In Vegas’ case, they made it to the finals last year, and were dominant all year long. Of that team, they have there goaltending locked up, top 3 D, and a supporting cast up front (Marchessault, Pacioretty, Haula, + they added Stastny, and have Glass in the minors as a future C). And again they made it to the finals last year. That is more than the Leafs have done in decades.

I doubt he would go to Arizona, unless he really just wanted to be closer to home.

I made the argument earlier. A lot of their talent is on the wrong side of 30 they'll have to give Karlsson stupid money, or he'll regress and they won't be nearly as good. It's not a good landing spot for him.

On the C argument, I can completely see why Babcock would give Tavares the A as a veteran leader. But also, if you are trying to convince Matthews of staying and taking less to win, and he has expressed an interest in the C or A, why not offer it to him. The Leafs have enough veterans around him, that it should not be a problem. It costs you pretty much nothing to do. And Tavares could get the A the following year when they need to move Marleau to free up cap room.

Or Matthews could get the "A" when Marleau is gone. If he said it was that important to him they would have given it to him, I'm sure. They know the situation better than Kypreos.

[JB7]

I made the argument earlier. A lot of their talent is on the wrong side of 30 they'll have to give Karlsson stupid money, or he'll regress and they won't be nearly as good. It's not a good landing spot for him.

C - Stastny (yes 32, but they have Cody Glass, 19, waiting in the wings)
W - Marchessault 27, Pacioretty 29, Haula 27, Smith 27
D - Theodore 23, Miller 25, McNabb 27
G - Fleury (yes 33, but they have Malcolm Subban, 24, next in line)

And the most important players: Glass, Theodore, Miller and Subban are all 25 or under. You add Matthews to that core, and those 5 look decent.

In the case of William Karlsson, they could trade his rights to recoup some lost draft picks.

[JB7]

The entire premise of trading Matthews is one of the dumbest things the Leafs could do and the fact that you're actually suggesting this would be the right move is just ridiculous.

What if he only wants to sign a 4 yr deal, that takes him to his UFA? Elliotte Friedman mentioned on Saturday that he could sign a shorter deal. Friedman mentioned 5 yrs, but why wouldn't Matthews just go 4yrs and get to UFA as quick as possible.

If he signs a 4 yr deal that would potentially leave him to walk, with the Leafs getting nothing 4 yrs from now. And the moment he signs that deal, his value drops every day he gets closer to his UFA.

However, if it means he would be happy with $12M per for 4yrs, it aligns with Andersen's 3 remaining yrs. They could at least contend for the next 3 years, because it would leave some room for other contracts.

[GoRapstheoriginal]

So uh, I'd like to direct all of your attention to over here ===========>: viewtopic.php?f=231&t=1749836 Leafs are #1 team in the league atm (yes, yes only 7 games in so small sample size).

Why don't we enjoy it while we can? Just saying! ! Cheers!
(would be great/nice to have some more discussion/activity in the regular season thread!)

[North_of_Border]

Based on Kypreos' comments that other day about Nashville being a potential target, possibly considering moving Subban (Kypreos' was talking in the context of Nylander; but no way Nashville moves Subban for Nylander), my guess is the Leafs management is floating the idea of trying to go after Subban (because there is probably nothing that comes out of Kypreos' mouth that is not spoon fed to him by Leafs management).

Nashville presents an interesting scenario:
- Matthews, Nylander and Gardiner for Subban, Johansen and two 1st round picks (to help account for the age difference)

Subban is locked into 4 remaining years at a respectable number $9M (which takes him through age 29 to 33). His deal comes up the same year Rielly's deal comes up. So you could see a shift in the cap hit from Subban to Rielly, as Rielly gets paid more for his prime years (age 28+), while Subban could sign an extension that front ends the money, and lowers the cap hit, keeping him around for age 33+ and beyond, until he develops a long-term injury, to get him off the books in the final years of his deal.

Johansen's deal is also fairly reasonable for a 2nd line center at $8M per year for 7 more years, taking him to age 33 (ends the same year as Tavares' deal, who would be 35 at the end of his deal). So for the next 7 years your 1st and 2nd line centers are locked up. The 3rd line center (Kadri) is locked up for another 4 years, at which time they would not extend him - Kadri will be looking for a huge pay day at age 32 to make up for his current under value contract.

This would leave money available to give Marner and Kapanen long-term deals, and possibly keep Marleau for next year, as well as extend him another year or two, if healthy enough. Or they could look to another veteran looking to win a cup in the back-end of his career.

Essentially, the core would be locked up: Tavares, Marner, Johansen, Subban and Rielly for a long time, and hopefully they can find another goaltender after Andersen's deal expires in 3 years, to continue the contender status (maybe Malcolm Subban might find himself a UFA 3 years from now?).

There would be no drop-off in the powerplay, as Subban slots in beside Rielly, with Tavares, Marner and Kadri up front.

Who knows.....

That trade keeps the Leafs as title contenders True. But long term it’s the kind of trade a team like Nashville will remember in folklore.

It will be like the Flyers trading Peter Forsberg plus MUCH more for Eric Lindros. Flyers got a superstar, but Avalanche built a powerhouse.

[bluerap23]

Based on Kypreos' comments that other day about Nashville being a potential target, possibly considering moving Subban (Kypreos' was talking in the context of Nylander; but no way Nashville moves Subban for Nylander), my guess is the Leafs management is floating the idea of trying to go after Subban (because there is probably nothing that comes out of Kypreos' mouth that is not spoon fed to him by Leafs management).

Nashville presents an interesting scenario:
- Matthews, Nylander and Gardiner for Subban, Johansen and two 1st round picks (to help account for the age difference)

Subban is locked into 4 remaining years at a respectable number $9M (which takes him through age 29 to 33). His deal comes up the same year Rielly's deal comes up. So you could see a shift in the cap hit from Subban to Rielly, as Rielly gets paid more for his prime years (age 28+), while Subban could sign an extension that front ends the money, and lowers the cap hit, keeping him around for age 33+ and beyond, until he develops a long-term injury, to get him off the books in the final years of his deal.

Johansen's deal is also fairly reasonable for a 2nd line center at $8M per year for 7 more years, taking him to age 33 (ends the same year as Tavares' deal, who would be 35 at the end of his deal). So for the next 7 years your 1st and 2nd line centers are locked up. The 3rd line center (Kadri) is locked up for another 4 years, at which time they would not extend him - Kadri will be looking for a huge pay day at age 32 to make up for his current under value contract.

This would leave money available to give Marner and Kapanen long-term deals, and possibly keep Marleau for next year, as well as extend him another year or two, if healthy enough. Or they could look to another veteran looking to win a cup in the back-end of his career.

Essentially, the core would be locked up: Tavares, Marner, Johansen, Subban and Rielly for a long time, and hopefully they can find another goaltender after Andersen's deal expires in 3 years, to continue the contender status (maybe Malcolm Subban might find himself a UFA 3 years from now?).

There would be no drop-off in the powerplay, as Subban slots in beside Rielly, with Tavares, Marner and Kadri up front.

Who knows.....

That trade keeps the Leafs as title contenders True. But long term it’s the kind of trade a team like Nashville will remember in folklore.

It will be like the Flyers trading Peter Forsberg plus MUCH more for Eric Lindros. Flyers got a superstar, but Avalanche built a powerhouse.

I could definitely see the leafs moving Matthews for an elite defensemen but this trade is bad. Would have to be for a top 5 defender.

[whysoserious]

The Leafs are not moving Matthews for anything. They didn't put up with 10 years of horrendous hockey and missed playoffs, rebuild and actually land a star like Matthews at 19 only to trade him for some perceived need on defense.

[JB7]

The Nylander deal was clearly structured to be moved this offseason ($20.3M of $45M he is owed will be paid by this July 1st - any team that trades for him is only paying him on average $4.94M for the next 5 years - cap hit would be almost $7M though).

I'm beginning to wonder, the way the Leafs let Nylander's situation play out, if they might just be taking their run at the cup this year, and then letting Matthews sign an offer sheet and taking the picks this offseason. That way the public messaging is Matthews would not take the pay cut to win, and they could not afford to match a max deal and still compete.

Marner might be the only one willing to take a slight discount to play at home, but the way he is playing and the numbers he is putting up, a slight discount will still result in a huge deal. With the numbers he is now producing, there is also the risk now of another team putting in an offer sheet on Marner as well, if he makes it to RFA (the Isles might try to screw the Leafs for signing Tavares).

And there is also Kapanen to sign this offseason as well, and with him producing more than Kadri, what might he expect?

[whysoserious]

If i put my money on it, Nylander isn't going anywhere. They signed him and structured it so that the other guys big hits aren't as impacted by his deal. But if they do deal him, it won't be until Matthews/Marner are signed.

You keep pushing this agenda that Matthews is going, that he's going to get offer-sheeted, that we need to proactive and trade him but it's not happening. The Leafs didn't spend 10 years sucking, finally rebuild only to trade/let him walk at 21/22 years old.

You sign your best players, you let the others walk. Matthews/Marner will be signed. It may cost us Gardiner walking, we may have to trade Kadri at some point despite his uber cheap deal. It will be similar to the Pens trading Staal. They didn't trade Crosby/Malkin, they traded the other guys. The Blackhawks traded the other guys, not the main pieces.

Just stop with this narrative. Nothing you've said on this is factually accurate, no trade you've proposed makes any sense for the Leafs. You're posting this out of fear of Matthews leaving, it's just not going to happen. And if for whatever reason it does, it will be an utter failure on the part of Leafs management to let a player like Matthews leave to keep Nylander, Marner, Gardiner, Kapanen and others plus get some middling first round picks.

[JB7]

The only way Nylander is not going anywhere, is if the Leafs are not able to get Marner signed. If Marner signs a big deal (as expected), Nylander would most likely be moved.

Nylander's deal was structured to be attractive to teams that have the cap room, but don't want to pay a big number (e.g. Carolina). His cap hit is almost $7M, but after July 1st, his average cost per year for the next 5 years is under $5M.

Provided the cap (currently $79.5M) does not go up dramatically, the Leafs cap situation for 2019-20 is this:
- 12 players of 23 man roster currently signed, with $23.2M remaining to sign RFA's & FA's (as per capfriendly.com).
- If Leafs sign Matthews and Marner to team friendly deals (say $12M for Matthews and $9M for Marner), that would mean the Leafs have $2.2M to sign remaining 9 players (including Kapanen and Starks) - so not happening...
- If they don't sign Gardiner and move Marleau, that adds $6.25M to $2.2.M, but still tight, considering low end contracts still run close to $1M each. And I doubt Kapanen is taking $1M after this year. They could let him sit for the year next year, but eventually he will need to sign, and if he pulls a Nylander, the Leafs won't have the cap space next year to do what they did with Nylander this year.
- this also still leaves Leafs D as Reilly, Zaitsev, Dermott, Holl and ?

Some of the most valuable players on the Leafs roster right now are: Rielly, Kadri and Andersen because of the value they bring with the low cost, so any of them being traded is not likely.

Could the Leafs find a taker for Zaitsev? Maybe, but then again, where does that leave their D? Hard to win a Cup with primarily AHL level players holding down the front on D.

This summer is going to be very interesting for offer sheets.

The list of top scoring RFAs this year includes:
1) Matthews (averaging over a goal per game, and average points per game is same as leading scorer Rantanen)
2) Rantanen (#1 in total pts currently)
3) Marner (#4 in total pts currently)
4) Point (#5 in total pts and #4 in total goals currently)
5) Laine (#1 in total goals currently)
6) Tkachuk (#16 in total pts currently)

Of those players, the only player to probably not get an offer sheet would be Rantanen, because Colorado has a ton of cap space, and will easily match any offer (so why offer to drive up the market if there is no chance in getting the player).

Otherwise, all of the other teams where those players currently reside are going to be very pressed with their caps next year:
- Winnipeg has $23M in cap space, but only have 11 players signed (need to sign 12 for full roster, including Trouba and Connor who are also both RFAs)
- Tampa has $6M in cap space, with 15 players signed (need to sign 8, including Point, and Vasilevskiy and Sergachev are RFAs the following year).
- Calgary has $12.5M in cap space, with 15 players signed (need to sign 8, including Tkachuk)
- And then there are the Leafs...

And if the solution is trading contracts from Winnipeg, Tampa, Calgary and Toronto, how many of the teams with cap space are going to be interested in bad contracts or lower end players with decent contracts, when they could offer sheet one of the 6 on the list above.

[JB7]

you let the others walk. Matthews/Marner will be signed. It may cost us Gardiner walking, we may have to trade Kadri at some point despite his uber cheap deal. It will be similar to the Pens trading Staal. They didn't trade Crosby/Malkin, they traded the other guys. The Blackhawks traded the other guys, not the main pieces.

In the case of Pittsburgh, yes they kept Malkin, but I believe that was because of Crosby's concussion history. Why move a #1 C, if your other #1 C could have a career ending injury at any time, leaving you with no #1 C's. I think if Crosby were healthy early on in his career, they would have moved Malkin in favour of filling out their roster more. The Penguins were not winning Cups again until they added more talent (Kessel) which came years after the signing of the Crosby and Malkin deals (which meant their cap hits were not as bad as the cap had grown).

The Blackhawks are an interesting comparator for the Leafs. The Blackhawks were lucky enough to win their Cups before the big deals for Toews, Kane and Seabrook kicked in. Since those deals kicked in, they have sucked.

The unfortunate thing for the Leafs, is it looks like RFAs are not waiting until closer to their UFAs to get big deals, realizing their most productive years will be through their RFA years.

With analytics, teams are no longer playing players for past production, so if players want to get paid, they need to get paid for future production, or work off one year deals. And players like Matthews and Marner will not want the uncertainty of 1 year deals.

This is the choice the Leafs are going to have to make, because Nylander clearly showed that these RFAs do not want to take a haircut for the team.