Proposal: TOR-CGY-VGK
- Thread starter Americanadian
- Start date
Nanuuk
Registered User
You think there is some sort of fire sale going on in Calgary? And that they're desperate to deal Markstrom for Toronto's first?
If Markstrom is going to go it will be in a hockey deal and I wouldn't be surprised if it is part of a larger deal to obtain Marner.
If Markstrom is going to go it will be in a hockey deal and I wouldn't be surprised if it is part of a larger deal to obtain Marner.
The Duck Knight
Henry, you're our only hope!
No interest in Marner at all. If Theo goes it should be for a young cheap top 6 wing and/or picks.
From Toronto it would have to involve Knies.
From Toronto it would have to involve Knies.
HockeyVirus
Woll stan.
- Nov 15, 2020
- 16,475
- 24,331
Only piece that interests me as a Leafs fan is Theodore and IDK if we have a chance at extending him.
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
I wouldn't absolutely hate it as a Leafs fan, but it doesn't improve our D core's ability to penalty kill or play actual D. It also doesn't leave us money to go after a stud shutdown guy in UFA or trade, such as Pesce Trouba Jones Walker DeMelo etc.
Rielly - (UFA - Lybushkin 1 or 2 years?)
McCabe - Theodore
Benoit - whomever
That D core doesn't look ready to shut down elite teams in the playoffs. On top of that, Theodore gets a raise next summer or walks in UFA.
Without being too critical of the trade value aspect, I just don't know if this is the direction the Leafs should go in.
Rielly - (UFA - Lybushkin 1 or 2 years?)
McCabe - Theodore
Benoit - whomever
That D core doesn't look ready to shut down elite teams in the playoffs. On top of that, Theodore gets a raise next summer or walks in UFA.
Without being too critical of the trade value aspect, I just don't know if this is the direction the Leafs should go in.
Americanadian
Registered User
There was a lot of speculation that Markstrom was gone at the deadline but Conroy didn't want to retain and wanted a 1st in return. This accomplishes both of those goals but he takes a contract back for 1 season. The contract is 400k in real money though so it would be a win from the ownership side.
The Leafs would still have ample room to make a UFA splash after this deal and ample room to re-sign Theodore when him and Tavares' contracts expire.
VEGASKING
Registered User
If Marner had more term maybe but no interest at all with only 1 year left. That's the reason Theodore would be traded away. Just replacing one expiring contract for another and getting no long term assets out of it.
Bounces R Way
Registered User
You have the Flames eating over 5 million in cap space and trading their #1G for the 23rd overall?
I don't think that's enough.
I don't think that's enough.
Bouboumaster
Registered User
- Jul 4, 2014
- 9,833
- 7,937
Do I miss something or is Calgary getting absolutly f***ed in that deal?
Am I reading Markstrom + retention on Marner for one lone 1st, and not a good one at that?
Am I reading Markstrom + retention on Marner for one lone 1st, and not a good one at that?
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,971
- 11,229
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
Calgary last time I checked is one of the oldest teams in the league, if not the oldest team. They're also not cup-competitive and would be wise to blow it up and rebuild soon. With all of that in mind, do you think they're willing to extend Marner for big money and pay all three of Huberdeau, Kadri and Marner for the next 5+ years to miss the playoffs every year as Huberdeau and Kadri start declining? If they don't want to extend Marner, acquiring him for their non-existant playoff run for 1 year makes no sense either.
Nanuuk
Registered User
Hey OP, let me float this one on ya.
To TOR
Markstrom, Mangiapane, Andersson
To CGY
Marner, Liljegren, 2024 1st.
We're re-tooling, not re-building.
And at the end of the day, the Leafs only played 7 more games than us.
To TOR
Markstrom, Mangiapane, Andersson
To CGY
Marner, Liljegren, 2024 1st.
Nope. Check again. We're a lot younger than we were at the beginning of the season and will be a lot younger again to start next season.
We're re-tooling, not re-building.
And at the end of the day, the Leafs only played 7 more games than us.
Americanadian
Registered User
I would do it without the 1st. Leafs take on a ton of cap here and still don't get a C. The issue is I doubt Marner waives for Calgary.
Flames Fanatic
Mediocre
Maybe it got slanted after we moved a bunch of UFA's but according to this we're right middle of the pack.
Definitely have some vets longer in the tooth but it's offset by a fair bit of young blood this year.
NHL Team Biometrics: Average Age, Height, and Weight | leftwinglock.com
NHL Team Biometrics: Average Age, Height, and Weight.
leftwinglock.com
Nanuuk
Registered User
According to this we were no.5 at the end of the season.Maybe it got slanted after we moved a bunch of UFA's but according to this we're right middle of the pack.
Definitely have some vets longer in the tooth but it's offset by a fair bit of young blood this year.
NHL Team Biometrics: Average Age, Height, and Weight | leftwinglock.com
NHL Team Biometrics: Average Age, Height, and Weight.
Elite Prospects - Team Comparison in NHL
Compare average height, weight and age in NHL.
www.eliteprospects.com
The Duck Knight
Henry, you're our only hope!
lanceuppercut75
Registered User
Counter-proposal :
to Toronto Maple Leafs
Rasmus Andersson
Andrew Mangiapane
Daniel Vladar
negotiating rights to Oliver Kylington (UFA)
to Calgary Flames
Mitch Marner
Timothy Liljegren
Some Other Flame
Registered User
- Dec 4, 2010
- 7,514
- 9,028
Yeah, not nearly enough to Calgary.
Boils down to the late first in a weaker draft (there's a drop off after the top 20 or so) to eat 5.45M in cap and then just Liljegren for Markstrom. The first part's fine, but the second is nowhere near enough.
Flames don't really need Liljegren either
Zero chance Marner waives for Calgary, especially one that's decimating it's defense in order to get him.
Likewise, zero chance the Flames would trade Andersson for Marner; it's completely contradictory to common sense. If Conroy was delusional enough to think the Flames can be competitive next season, then he's not destroying the defence by trading Andersson.
Boils down to the late first in a weaker draft (there's a drop off after the top 20 or so) to eat 5.45M in cap and then just Liljegren for Markstrom. The first part's fine, but the second is nowhere near enough.
Flames don't really need Liljegren either
Zero chance Marner waives for Calgary, especially one that's decimating it's defense in order to get him.
Likewise, zero chance the Flames would trade Andersson for Marner; it's completely contradictory to common sense. If Conroy was delusional enough to think the Flames can be competitive next season, then he's not destroying the defence by trading Andersson.
Golden_Jet
Registered User
- Sep 21, 2005
- 22,971
- 11,229
Zirakzigil
Global Moderator
That is hilariously bad for the Flames. It would require more than a 1st round pick to retain 50% of Marner alone, let alone with Markstrom in there.
Ledge And Dairy
Registered User
That's about right for Markstrom. What are you sending us for retaining 5.45M? My ask isn't your 1st in 2024. It's Cowan and a 2nd as a total package coming our way.
One thing that would make sense for us if he'd waive is taking on Tavares as a cap dump. I don't see any interest in Marner or Liljegren.
Nanuuk
Registered User
Too much from Calgary. Also Kylington has already said he wants to resign in Calgary and the feeling is mutual.
Drop Kylington. Toronto adds Robertson.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. Andersson is currently the weak link. Didn't have the greatest of seasons.
Hasn't been the same since the scooter accident in NY. I wouldn't be opposed to moving him in the right deal.
