I know it's not as easy as taking the best guy when there's other, outside factors going into him, but I'd hate to be the GM that passes on Michkov.
- GreatGigInTheSky

Most GM's are looking at a 2-3 year window to move the needle in their team improvement. If Michkov comes in 3yrs....great, if for what ever reason he stays for another 2-3yrs, that GM (frank)ed up royally with a very high pick, there is a gamble element with Michkov. I won't complain in MTL takes someone else at #5 if Michkov is available, I understand the pressure Habs mgmt are under to make sure they improve the team with that pick

They’re not giving up multiple players for one behind your argument then.

And there is no way in hell they’ll give a bargain to the guy they just fired. Flames fans would eat their new management alive. The leafs would have to give up a top 6 C AND a top 4 D for them to not even hang up the phone on them if their intention is to remain competitive.
- Dozzer

Calgary never fired Treliving.

I'm confident if they had the opportunity to acquire a potentially franchise altering player they would take it into consideration and aren't going to be operating in a tunnel under a set of parameters that may qualify them to look at an offer or not.

If they decide such a deal makes them more competitive, fits their style better, is better for them long term, who knows. Teams make hockey deals all the time, the entire league isn't based around "well if we're trading this player it's only because we're rebuilding and at that point we only want picks and prospects"

Not at bargain prices, especially to the GM they just fired.
- Dozzer

Whats the bargain price? The first few comments from the know it all's was the leafs get hosed in that deal cause Calgary gets the better player. 🤔

SJ takes him @ 4 - their time frame is perfect for him to come over then- lots of bad money gone and kids ramping up - he’ll fit right in.
- dozerD10

I think Carlsson is the only one outside of Bedard and Fantilli that would go ahead of him - and that's because with his size, he's at least a Centre. Smith might play Centre, but he's not yet Centre-sized (6' height is fine, but 170 lbs is too sleight). His numbers are gaudy at the development team level, though.

This argument is so preposterous. So Marner had 3 points in 5 games against Florida. Nylander had 3, Matthews and O'Reilly had 2, Tavares had 1.

The Leafs were the better team in 4 of the 5 games - the only they weren't was the one we all obviously saw - game 3. Bobrovsky stole the show. He stole the show against Boston and Carolina, too.

You know what those teams and their fanbases aren't doing? Talking about poopty all their players are and how they need to trade them all.

Claiming that it was Marner that was shut down easily is pretty laughable. The whole team couldn't score - and that was despite some wonderful setups from guys like Marner.

Would Calgary trade their #1 Centre and top defenseman for him? Of course not! The holes in their lineup would be massive. But you are completely undervaluing one of the top right wingers in the world.
- Monkeypunk

Finally some sense

My point is teams are not going to pay big prices for an overpaid weak ass winger with nothing more than talent.

If Marner doesn’t have C’s like Matthews and JT and gets to play on a PP with 5 top 10 picks he isn’t going to produce like he does. Anyone who believes otherwise is flat out in denial
- Dozzer

I had a long response typed out but it's not worth getting into, with your post that followed this one I'm responding to.

I disagree entirely.

I had a long response typed out but it's not worth getting into, with your post that followed this one I'm responding to.

I disagree entirely.
- GreatGigInTheSky

I concur with your disagreement.

I had a long response typed out but it's not worth getting into, with your post that followed this one I'm responding to.

I disagree entirely.
- GreatGigInTheSky

Yeah and Lindholm gets a free pass for 60 points even though the Flames traded for a guy who had 115 points and 25 more points than his next teammate.

I can’t wait for the disappointment from leafs nation because either none of the core gets moved or the return isn’t anything like the fantasies.

It will be amusing.

This conversation has significantly deteriorated ....
- The Law

Luckily, it wasn’t great when it started

I can’t wait for the disappointment from leafs nation because either none of the core gets moved or the return isn’t anything like the fantasies.

It will be amusing.
- Dozzer

Only a select few on here want the core move at all.

This argument is so preposterous. So Marner had 3 points in 5 games against Florida. Nylander had 3, Matthews and O'Reilly had 2, Tavares had 1.

The Leafs were the better team in 4 of the 5 games - the only they weren't was the one we all obviously saw - game 3. Bobrovsky stole the show. He stole the show against Boston and Carolina, too.

You know what those teams and their fanbases aren't doing? Talking about poopty all their players are and how they need to trade them all.

Claiming that it was Marner that was shut down easily is pretty laughable. The whole team couldn't score - and that was despite some wonderful setups from guys like Marner.

Would Calgary trade their #1 Centre and top defenseman for him? Of course not! The holes in their lineup would be massive. But you are completely undervaluing one of the top right wingers in the world.
- Monkeypunk

Anyone who doesn't think Marner would have considerable trade value doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

But anyone who says Calgary or any other team would never trade a certain player because they play a certain position is being just as short sighted. Come on, you know that.

If the same rationale is implied to winnipeg, they would never trade Dubois, he's a top six centre. They'd never trade Hellebyuck, he's a stud #1 goalie. Except now they're in a spot they potentially can't sign either long term and never becomes probably.

Calgary would have never traded Tkachuk this time last year and then they did. Is a new management group in Calgary going to lose Lindholm for nothing fresh off the previous regime playing this game and losing Gaudreau for nothing?

If Calgary has a struggle with Lindholm, everything goes on the table. Then they go okay, we can trade him for picks and prospects, does that go with our current climate? What about trading him for another roster player? Maybe that works better.

But also, we have an option where we can take him with an excellent defenceman on a great contract and bring in a potential new face of the franchise. Do we have the depth to support that on D? Is that a more viable option than the others?

Never is never never, even if McDavids contract falls into a spot Edmonton will have to consider never. The leafs are there in some people's heads with Matthews right now ffs, he's a player you never trade. 🤦

Finally some sense
- Santo_44

So you agree with Monkey that Calgary wouldn't make that trade?

I can’t wait for the disappointment from leafs nation because either none of the core gets moved or the return isn’t anything like the fantasies.

It will be amusing.
- Dozzer

Some want to trade someone from the core because they believe the fundamental makeup of the team is flawed.
Some would be be prepared to trade Marner only if there was a return of equal value. Some maintain that Lindholm and Andersson represent pretty close to equal value.

That doesn’t mean such a trade works for either team.

And it’s already amusing

🫡

Tree says yeah, don't hate the deal but real not sure about Lindholms long term status (completely disregarding the idea that Marner has 2 years left and can sign wherever he wants), so we'll need that first rounder in the deal as well.

Proceeds to trade Calgary 1st, Robertson, prospect for Konecny. Signs Barbashev, resigns Acciari and ROR.

Ices a top 9 of:

Barbashev / Matthews / Nylander
Tavares / Lindholm / Konecny
Knies / ROR / Acciari

Watch out, it's raining cups.
- joel878

That would be a fantastic lineup up front. Even if you need to move Willy for the ROR signing and scoop up Mantha to add in the mix but save cap space…move Konecny up Mantha on L2

So you agree with Monkey that Calgary wouldn't make that trade?

- Scabeh

I never argued CGYs end of it.

I argued it would be terrible for the Leafs.

Leaving holes on a team that has several CGY players stating and rumoured to be wary of signing an extension makes it difficult for them.

Down the road may be a different story.

CGY is also not in a position to add cap space. They have 0.

There goes Lavi

Anyone who doesn't think Marner would have considerable trade value doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

But anyone who says Calgary or any other team would never trade a certain player because they play a certain position is being just as short sighted. Come on, you know that.

If the same rationale is implied to winnipeg, they would never trade Dubois, he's a top six centre. They'd never trade Hellebyuck, he's a stud #1 goalie. Except now they're in a spot they potentially can't sign either long term and never becomes probably.

Calgary would have never traded Tkachuk this time last year and then they did. Is a new management group in Calgary going to lose Lindholm for nothing fresh off the previous regime playing this game and losing Gaudreau for nothing?

If Calgary has a struggle with Lindholm, everything goes on the table. Then they go okay, we can trade him for picks and prospects, does that go with our current climate? What about trading him for another roster player? Maybe that works better.

But also, we have an option where we can take him with an excellent defenceman on a great contract and bring in a potential new face of the franchise. Do we have the depth to support that on D? Is that a more viable option than the others?

Never is never never, even if McDavids contract falls into a spot Edmonton will have to consider never. The leafs are there in some people's heads with Matthews right now ffs, he's a player you never trade. 🤦
- joel878

Maybe this sides with Doz's point a little here, but ultimately the questions are these:

What is Lindholm's trade value?
What is Lindholm's value to Calgary?
What is Lindholm's positional value to Calgary?

What is Andersson's trade value?
What is Andersson's value to Calgary?
What is Andersson's positional value to Calgary?

What is Marner's trade value?
What is Marner's value to Toronto?
What is Marner's positional value to Toronto?

I would argue that as a straight trade, Marner's trade value is higher than that of either Lindholm or Andersson. Is his straight trade _value_ equivalent to or greater than the combined trade value of Lindholm and Andersson? I don't know, but likely not.

What is Lindholm's value to Calgary as their highest used forward? Pretty bloody high. Is he irreplaceable? No, but in the near-term who is going to take that role as the #1C? 33 year old Backlund who enjoyed lesser competition? 32 year old Kadri? It's hard to get a #1C. They have one who was #2 in Selke voting last year when he scored 42 goals.

Andersson leads all Calgary defensemen in ATOI by about 2 minutes / game and leads all defensemen in scoring. He also quarterbacks their powerplay. Now they do have other defensemen who are quite capable in Weegar or Hanifin, but Andersson plays a critical role on that team.

Marner is Toronto's #1 right-winger and the true quarterback of the #2 power play in the NHL. Right now the Leafs' have a need at LW in their top-6 and the acquisition of a guy like Lindholm would let them slide Tavares in the 2LW position, but it would then leave them with a gap in the 2RW spot. They do have Nylander who could slot in for him, but Marner is more effective at puck distribution. Marner is the stick that stirs the drink for the Leafs' power play.

The Leafs would get worse offensively, better defensively and Calgary would be better on the powerplay, but weaker at 5v5.

The trade doesn't make sense for either of them.

There goes Lavi
- Azuredoom

What a joke 😔

This argument is so preposterous. So Marner had 3 points in 5 games against Florida. Nylander had 3, Matthews and O'Reilly had 2, Tavares had 1.

The Leafs were the better team in 4 of the 5 games - the only they weren't was the one we all obviously saw - game 3. Bobrovsky stole the show. He stole the show against Boston and Carolina, too.

You know what those teams and their fanbases aren't doing? Talking about poopty all their players are and how they need to trade them all.

Claiming that it was Marner that was shut down easily is pretty laughable. The whole team couldn't score - and that was despite some wonderful setups from guys like Marner.

Would Calgary trade their #1 Centre and top defenseman for him? Of course not! The holes in their lineup would be massive. But you are completely undervaluing one of the top right wingers in the world.
- Monkeypunk

Oh. I guess I was watching a different series entirely...

Maybe this sides with Doz's point a little here, but ultimately the questions are these:

What is Lindholm's trade value?
What is Lindholm's value to Calgary?
What is Lindholm's positional value to Calgary?

What is Andersson's trade value?
What is Andersson's value to Calgary?
What is Andersson's positional value to Calgary?

What is Marner's trade value?
What is Marner's value to Toronto?
What is Marner's positional value to Toronto?

I would argue that as a straight trade, Marner's trade value is higher than that of either Lindholm or Andersson. Is his straight trade _value_ equivalent to or greater than the combined trade value of Lindholm and Andersson? I don't know, but likely not.

What is Lindholm's value to Calgary as their highest used forward? Pretty bloody high. Is he irreplaceable? No, but in the near-term who is going to take that role as the #1C? 33 year old Backlund who enjoyed lesser competition? 32 year old Kadri? It's hard to get a #1C. They have one who was #2 in Selke voting last year when he scored 42 goals.

Andersson leads all Calgary defensemen in ATOI by about 2 minutes / game and leads all defensemen in scoring. He also quarterbacks their powerplay. Now they do have other defensemen who are quite capable in Weegar or Hanifin, but Andersson plays a critical role on that team.

Marner is Toronto's #1 right-winger and the true quarterback of the #2 power play in the NHL. Right now the Leafs' have a need at LW in their top-6 and the acquisition of a guy like Lindholm would let them slide Tavares in the 2LW position, but it would then leave them with a gap in the 2RW spot. They do have Nylander who could slot in for him, but Marner is more effective at puck distribution. Marner is the stick that stirs the drink for the Leafs' power play.

The Leafs would get worse offensively, better defensively and Calgary would be better on the powerplay, but weaker at 5v5.

The trade doesn't make sense for either of them.
- Monkeypunk

The trade not making sense for either of them is your determination.

If we are using the assessment in your 2nd last paragraph as fact, there's ample room for an argument to be made that both teams would be interested on the basis of borrowing from a strength to improve elsewhere.

Perspective am I right.

Marner is talented but it became pretty clear that shutting him down isn’t all that hard either.

Just play physical with him. Florida more than proved that. My guess other teams will be doing that more moving forward.

He’s just a super talented non-physical winger and no, that’s not worth a top 6 C and top pairing D man. If I was Calgary’s GM I’d literally laugh and hang up the phone because he’d have a handful of better offers for those two.
- Dozzer

Geez, like a tape played back 10+ years ago about Patty Kane.....3 Cups later.....

Guys, it is NOT about one guy. It is about TOO MANY of that kinda guy. If Marner played with a more balanced team around him with guys with a different skill-set. Leafs would be on their way. Matthews, Marner, Willy and Tavarez as a 4-some just bring ZERO physical, zero grit, and not enuf will to get the dirty, hard goals. Move any one of them for 2-3 really good guys that can supply this would make a world of difference.

I suspect they TRY to add these elements while keeping all 4. I just don't think they will have the money to do so adequately.

So, pick one....make the move....bring in the E Kane, Thatchuk, Bertuzzi, Wilson types....at least a couple. (Not those guys specifically....but that type).

Don't see them going deep filling in around the "Core 4"....just too much of the soft skill, not enough of the "Playoff grit"....

Only a select few on here want the core move at all.
- Santo_44

I wonder if we would want McDavid traded if he was a leaf.

I wonder if we would want McDavid traded if he was a leaf.
- shack67

The obvious answer is yes when he didn't win a cup after round 1

The obvious answer is yes when he didn't win a cup after round 1
- Aaron_85

And I also wonder about tkachuk if he was a leaf. He seems pretty immature with all the misconduct penalties and saving his bravery for when the game is over.

If he was a leaf would he be run out of town by the Toronto media? He’s a more talented version of bunting.