How likely is this scenario involving Tavares and Nylander? Does it make sense?

[AppsSyl]

faulk and hanafin aren't close to nylander's value, those 4 players aren't equal

The post was almost a year old. I agree that you could get a little more than Faulk or Hanifin.

 

[Walshy7]

The post was almost a year old. I agree that you could get a little more than Faulk or Hanifin.

oh man what an idiot, haha sorry.

Although id want more than a little more if faulk or hanafin are main pieces coming back

 

[deletethis]

In all honestly how many people can truly say if it was a straight up trade that they wouldn't trade Nylander for Tavares + an asset/assets of Nylanders value.

Curious to hear other posters thoughts.

I agree with this depending upon the assets. They can't be assets that expire or decline soon. I don't make this move for a 1 or 2 year window. The assets need to be younger NHLers who have better days ahead because the main thing Tavares can't be is 22 years old again.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Problem with a Nylander trade is still the same. The core asset coming back would have to be a great, young d-man, and there are none of those available. And any time you trade a talent of that level, it can't really be for a package.

I understand the logic of looking at a Nylander trade for us, I just don't see any possibilities that don't end up with us giving up value to try and plug holes. I'd rather not give up value on the rarest of assets, elite talent.

 

[Menzinger]

Problem with a Nylander trade is still the same. The core asset coming back would have to be a great, young d-man, and there are none of those available. And any time you trade a talent of that level, it can't really be for a package.

I understand the logic of looking at a Nylander trade for us, I just don't see any possibilities that don't end up with us giving up value to try and plug holes. I'd rather not give up value on the rarest of assets, elite talent.

I’m surprised it’s taking so long for folks to clue in on this.

Young budding 1D men simply aren’t traded. Seth Jones was only moved because he was stuck behind a stacked D core with well established top Defensemen. There is literally no other team at the moment in a similar situation as Nashville was when they made that trade. And all potential D men on the trade market at present would be poor return for a player Nylander’s level.

And that’s not even touching the fact at how It’s a bad idea to trade a blue chip young asset before they finish developing. Once an asset hits their prime and has proven what they can do their trace value goes up.

 

[daveleaf]

No, thanks. Nylander is already practically as good as JT is now, and is obviously much younger, still growing as a player, and an RFA.

View attachment 125689

No he is not. He disappears when the play becomes tough like he did in the playoffs. He will get better but he will never be as good as Tavares in tight and that is where much of the playoffs are played.

 

[ITM]

If Lou dangles Sorokin with Tavares for Nylander I think I'd listen.

 

[mapleleafs34]

Problem with a Nylander trade is still the same. The core asset coming back would have to be a great, young d-man, and there are none of those available. And any time you trade a talent of that level, it can't really be for a package.

I understand the logic of looking at a Nylander trade for us, I just don't see any possibilities that don't end up with us giving up value to try and plug holes. I'd rather not give up value on the rarest of assets, elite talent.

Wow I didn't know that you were an NHL GM and knew that there are no great young D-man available.

 

[Eb]

Problem with a Nylander trade is still the same. The core asset coming back would have to be a great, young d-man, and there are none of those available. And any time you trade a talent of that level, it can't really be for a package.

I understand the logic of looking at a Nylander trade for us, I just don't see any possibilities that don't end up with us giving up value to try and plug holes. I'd rather not give up value on the rarest of assets, elite talent.

Dougie Hamilton

 

[Community]

If Lou dangles Sorokin with Tavares for Nylander I think I'd listen.

Heck no. If Tavares wants to sign with the Leafs we just need to wait 10 more days. If Tavares walks we are left with an elite goalie PROSPECT for an elite forward who could develop into a #1C. Sorokin could easily bust.

Goalies dont have that kind of value, even great prospects like Sorokin.


If Tavares wont sign without that 8 year committment, then we probably don't want him anyways. Odds are his 6-7/8 years of his contract will be an anchor.

Edit: The only way Nylander gets traded is if a young high potential dman comes on the market which is very unlikely as the poster Nithoniniel pointed out.

 

[Toronto makebeleifs]

Here's a better scenario. We sign Tavares to a max 1 year contract to allow us to sign him to an 8 year next year and go all out for the cup this year. So we roll with our top 3 centers as Matthews, Tavares, kadri. play nylander, marleau, marner, kappy, brown, and johnnson as our top 9. Sign dehaan, call up holl, package Gardiner with a sweetner for (ugh, tanev?) A rhd. The point of the game is to win the cup and the leafs have a unique 1 year oppurtunity here to really take advantage of. Lines would be
Hyman-matthews-nylander
Marleau-tavares-marner
Johnnson-kadri-kapanen
Grundstron-altonen-brown

Rielly-tanev
Dermott-dehaan
Holl-hainsey
Lilly

Andersen
Mcbackup/ sparks

Not too shabby, that could have serious contention.

 

[Pookie]

Nothing is more frustrating than when people don't actually read the OP, especially the bolded and underlined parts.

This isn't a Tavares for Nylander trade.

Also, the cap hit between them would not be that signifcant.

What I was saying in the OP is:
1) We likely can't sign Tavares and keep all of the big 3.
2) So if we do sign Tavares for free, we have to trade one of them.
3) We would have Nylander and Tavares in year 1 of Tavares, because it would make the most sense to load up for that year and trade him in the offseason.
4) When we do have to trade Nylander, you would be targeting a young controllable asset that is elite, like Nylander, but not quite as proven or an affordable established asset(s) like one of Carolina's D.

The end result would be that you have both Tavares and the return for Nylander (his value in an asset/assets) for essentially Nylander.

Your assumption about the big 3 is probably the issue.

You can. It might take trading a different player (eg. 43) but it can happen

 

[LeafFever]

Tavares does give us the option of trading a very valuable piece to get help on D (someone very good). That's something many people who ask "Why not spend the money on D?" Miss.

 

[ITM]

Heck no. If Tavares wants to sign with the Leafs we just need to wait 10 more days. If Tavares walks we are left with an elite goalie PROSPECT for an elite forward who could develop into a #1C. Sorokin could easily bust.

Goalies dont have that kind of value, even great prospects like Sorokin.


If Tavares wont sign without that 8 year committment, then we probably don't want him anyways. Odds are his 6-7/8 years of his contract will be an anchor.

Edit: The only way Nylander gets traded is if a young high potential dman comes on the market which is very unlikely as the poster Nithoniniel pointed out.

Of course prudence demands getting more for less and assets for only money instead of exchanging assets where possible.

I’ve stated as nauseum to hold fast on trading any of our key assets while chemistry builds and as needs continue to be identified.

Listening doesn’t equate to trading.

 

[Nithoniniel]

Wow I didn't know that you were an NHL GM and knew that there are no great young D-man available.

Do you also need Chiarelli to tell you that McDavid is unavailable before you believe it? The rest of us will get by with common sense.

Dougie Hamilton

Yeah not a bad example, to be honest.

 

[Menzinger]

Dougie Hamilton

Hamilton is good, but 1) isn’t great in his own end, his main strength is in the offensive zone 2) not good enough to justify a Nylander trade

 

[Eb]

Hamilton is good, but 1) isn’t great in his own end, his main strength is in the offensive zone 2) not good enough to justify a Nylander trade

Disagree, but alright.

I would love a Nylander for Hamilton deal.

 

[Faltorvo]

Much like the debate over Stamkos in his UFA year, people seem to be polarized about the idea of trying to sign John Tavares if he makes it to free agency.

This obviously hinges on Tavares wanting to sign here.

It is known by all that Tavares is an exceptional talent in his prime that plays the most desirable position (1C), but the points of contention seem to be that his deal will likely be 7 years and in the neighborhood of $9-$11 million AAV, which would be a large cap hit, and that it would make it difficult to sign and keep all of the big 3.

While I love the idea of having the big 3 for their entire careers as Maple Leafs, I can't help but wonder if we will/should take a run at Tavares.

There are very few scenarios that I would part with any of the big 3, but this one is intriguing to me, because of how heavily the value slants in our favour.

If a player of Tavares' calibre, that plays Centre that is his age is willing to sign, you can't pass up on the free asset. While signing him likely costs you Nylander, we have to look at it from the standpoint that you are basically getting Tavares + the return for Nylander, for Nylander, because you would not be able to sign Tavares otherwise. The return for Nylander would be a very significant piece, and likely a young controllable asset on ELC or a sweetheart contract, or a number of other assets.

The scenario as I see it would be that we sign Tavares and sign Nylander next offseason, keeping Nylander for the season icing probably one of the best forward corps the league has seen in a long time, and then management would pull the trigger on a deal involving Nylander in the offseason before Matthews and Marner's contracts kick in.

In all honestly how many people can truly say if it was a straight up trade that they wouldn't trade Nylander for Tavares + an asset/assets of Nylanders value.

Curious to hear other posters thoughts.

I understand your premise but it starts on very fault ground.

We can afford the big 3 and JT.

The Caps just won the cup with 8 guys that make more then our 2nd highest active cap hit.

We have 1 5+m cap hit, they had 8 , i'm sure we can figure it all out.

 

[mapleleafs34]

Do you also need Chiarelli to tell you that McDavid is unavailable before you believe it? The rest of us will get by with common sense.

LOL, comparing McDavid to "great young d-man"

 

[Nithoniniel]

LOL, comparing McDavid to "great young d-man"

I'm not comparing them at all. I'm using them both as examples where availability is common sense. I don't need someone to tell me that Edmonton won't be trading McDavid, and I don't need someone to tell me that Columbus won't be trading Werenski.

 

[Tonka]

You guys make it sound like as if JVR, Bozak, Horton, and Marleau are not coming off the books in a couple years.

 

[hullsy47]

Tavares does give us the option of trading a very valuable piece to get help on D (someone very good). That's something many people who ask "Why not spend the money on D?" Miss.

it just might be why tavaras signs with leafs ,he signs ,nylander goes for defensive help
I agree the dominoes will fall one JT signs

 

[mapleleafs34]

I'm not comparing them at all. I'm using them both as examples where availability is common sense. I don't need someone to tell me that Edmonton won't be trading McDavid, and I don't need someone to tell me that Columbus won't be trading Werenski.

Availability is not common sense though....And again you are comparing apples to oranges.

Saying EDM won't be trading McDavid and CLB won't be trading Werenski is the equivalent to saying PIT won't be trading Crosby and MTL won't be trading Subban 5 years ago. And look what happened.....

No one is going to pay the massive over payment price to acquire a franchise superstar but teams will pay the hefty price to acquire a top young D-man. So that is why I'm saying you can't say "none are available". And I'm pretty sure Hanifin AND Dougie Hamilton just got traded (both who are great young d-man)

 

[Nithoniniel]

No one is going to pay the massive over payment price to acquire a franchise superstar but teams will pay the hefty price to acquire a top young D-man. So that is why I'm saying you can't say "none are available". And I'm pretty sure Hanifin AND Dougie Hamilton just got traded (both who are great young d-man)

If you want to argue that exceptional things happen, I won't disagree. But you can't make plans based on such things. As for the young ones, Hanifin is simply not good enough to trade Nylander for. Hamilton might be, though. But considering the deal that just went down, he should have been attainable without giving up Nylander. They just traded him, a top nine forward, and a superb prospect for a lesser defender, a lesser top nine forward, and no prospect. Why would we then talk about giving up Willy for that?

 

[Menzinger]

Availability is not common sense though....And again you are comparing apples to oranges.

Saying EDM won't be trading McDavid and CLB won't be trading Werenski is the equivalent to saying PIT won't be trading Crosby and MTL won't be trading Subban 5 years ago. And look what happened.....

No one is going to pay the massive over payment price to acquire a franchise superstar but teams will pay the hefty price to acquire a top young D-man. So that is why I'm saying you can't say "none are available". And I'm pretty sure Hanifin AND Dougie Hamilton just got traded (both who are great young d-man)

They also were traded for one another.

Like Subban was traded... for another 1D man.....