Confirmed with Link: [TOR/PIT] TOR acquires Jared McCann for Filip Hallander & 7th Round Pick but for Seattle.

[Martin Skoula]

Some people are counting us losing a 7th, Hallander and McCann. I'm not entirely sure why. As without Hallander and the 7th, there is no McCann. We can't lose them twice.

Apparently we can and we will.

 

[Mess]

My friend needed some change, so I traded him two $10 for a $20. Then I gave that $20 bill to Domino's and they gave me a pizza.

Let's do the math here. $10 + $10 + $20. Well dang, that pizza cost me $40.

What if instead of eating the Pizza yourself you shipped it to a friend in Seattle?.

That explains why you no longer have neither the money nor the pizza, or in this case Leafs organization has neither Hallander nor 7th round pick nor Jared McCann.

This is not hard to prove as Hallander and Leafs 7th round pick belong to Pittsburgh and McCann now belongs to Seattle and Toronto has nothing left from that combined transaction.

You seem to be arguing the price to protect Kerfoot a player you already owned is not doubled by your analogy, but nobody is really saying that. However if you simply let Kerfoot go to expansion, you would still have Hallander and pick today & $3.5 mil recaptured cap space to go out and get a player via free agency to replace him and then had all 3 assets in Leafs organization still at the expense of only Kerfoot. Or you would still have Hallander and pick, to use as tradable assets toward a replacement player to use post expansion draft, but for your own roster, not another teams.

Maybe Leafs fans would feel better to define the losses of 3 assets (prospect, pick and roster player) as the protection cost to keep Kerfoot.

PS. Yeah but every team needed to lose a player to expansion, true. But Leafs needed to spend a prospect and pick to obtain that player first, that they then lost to expansion also. They couldn't send just the pick and prospect to Seattle directly to get them not to take Kerfoot, because then they would still have lost another roster player like Travis Dermott in addition to the other assets via expansion. Then nobody would be arguing they lost either Hallander & pick or Dermott but not all 3 to keep Kerfoot.

 

[leaffaninvancouver]

What if instead of eating the Pizza yourself you shipped it to a friend in Seattle?.

That explains why you no longer have neither the money nor the pizza, or in this case Leafs organization has neither Hallander nor 7th round pick nor McCann.

This is not hard to prove as Hallander and Leafs 7th round pick belong to Pittsburgh and McCann now belongs to Seattle and Toronto has nothing left from that combined transaction.

You seem to arguing the price to protect Kerfoot a player you already owned is not doubled by you analogy, but nobody is saying that. However if you simply let Kerfoot go to expansion, you would still have Hallander and pick today & $3.5 mil recaptured cap space to go out and get a player via free agency to replace him and then had all 3 assets in Leafs organization still.

Maybe Leafs fans would feel better to define the losses of 3 assets (prospect, pick and roster player) as the protection cost to keep Kerfoot.

PS. Yeah but every team needed to lose a player to expansion, true. But Leafs needed to spend prospect and pick to obtain that player first, that they then lost to expansion. They couldn't send the pick and prospect to Seattle to get them not to take Kerfoot, because then they would have lost another roster player like Travis Dermott in addition to the other assets.

You can't lose assets twice. The Leafs either lost McCann to Seattle, or they lost Hallander and a 7th to the Pens and nothing to Seattle. You can't count the assets they lost twice.

 

[conFABulator]

We lost 3 assets and gained one for a net 2 asset loss all in an effort to keep a poor 3rd line center.

I agree with the math...and am not at all prepared to argue the Kerfoot point...I also am not sold on him as a 3rd line center...I do like thing about his game and the versatility. We have up a low pick and a (b) prospect to keep him.

Could we have acquired him for that cost? No. If we moved ln from him and traded him should we expect more of a return? I would say yes.

So in this sense it is not bad asset management, but it might be poor talent assessment if you don't like the player.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

A day before the draft our roster had all of our players (including Kerfoot, Hill, Dermott, Engvall all of whom would be exposed in the ED). We also had all of our prospects (including some B levels like Hallinder) and we had limited draft picks, but we did have our 7th.

...after the ED we still have all of those pieces with the exception of Hallinder and the 7th...because that is all we lost. It cost us those two assets to keep our roster in tact...think of it like we traded Hallinder and a 7th to Seattle for them not to take Kerfoot (or Dermott).

I don't see how people are seeing this as us having lost McCann AND the assets is cost us to acquire McCann.

...if I have a dollar and exchange it for 4 quarters and then someone takes my four quarters I am down only a dollar, right?

Again, this only works if you consider Kerfoot/Dermott players worthy of protecting.

I personally would have seen it as a net positive for us if either of those players were picked by Seattle. So to give up assets in order to protect them is mind boggling.

 

[Ashdown2]

if I would have said a month ago than all we would lose in the expansion draft is hallander and a 7th round pick you would have called me crazy. every other asset we have is worth more than that.

terrific move by dubas. clearly a thread filled with dubas haters.