GodEmperor
Registered User
- Oct 12, 2017
- 2,919
- 3,168
The reason I make this thread is that the Leafs are coming up on signing their big 3 and they are all set to get paid. However, what if the Leafs went into uncharted territory and effectively said "we couldn't care less about them as people, we just want to win" and simply put Matthews, Nylander and Marner on the block?
Let's say they wanted the best contracts, so that they could get similar players, but $ for $ better value:
Matthews, Leivo and a 3rd for Barkov
Marner+ 1st for Jones
Nylander+ Zaitsev for Ristolainen
At that point, they could even sign Tavares and SAVE money overall, i.e:
Matthews (10.5), Nylander (7.5), Marner (8.5), Zaitsev (4.5)= 31 million
Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares (10)= 27 million
Barkov is pretty much Matthews level (some will argue already better, hence the add), Risto>>>>Zaitsev and I would say better than Nylander in terms of overall impact, Jones and Marner have similar values, Jones might even be a bit better (hence the 1st). Therefore we're basically left with a free Tavares and even some play money, almost enough to sign JVR with.
Ofc none of this will ever happen, but what stops it from happening? Is it simply "loyalty" and the sort of paranoia it would put your team under thinking all of them can potentially be traded for "no reason?" I think if teams were this cutthroat, it could potentially give them a huge advantage as I know I would personally EASILY take the bottom 4 (Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares) over the upper 4 despite how much I like them all as people.
Should more teams take an extremely cut throat approach because nobody in the league is doing anything like this now and thus it would give them a huge advantage in the immediate term? Or is it pretty much an unspoken rule that nobody would behave like this? Btw I'm not "fixated" on the trades, so let's not get into their feasibility, you can deal those 3 for good contracts with similar players is the point, but I also don't think I tried at all to screw anyone in the least, I think all 3 are extremely fair.
Let's say they wanted the best contracts, so that they could get similar players, but $ for $ better value:
Matthews, Leivo and a 3rd for Barkov
Marner+ 1st for Jones
Nylander+ Zaitsev for Ristolainen
At that point, they could even sign Tavares and SAVE money overall, i.e:
Matthews (10.5), Nylander (7.5), Marner (8.5), Zaitsev (4.5)= 31 million
Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares (10)= 27 million
Barkov is pretty much Matthews level (some will argue already better, hence the add), Risto>>>>Zaitsev and I would say better than Nylander in terms of overall impact, Jones and Marner have similar values, Jones might even be a bit better (hence the 1st). Therefore we're basically left with a free Tavares and even some play money, almost enough to sign JVR with.
Ofc none of this will ever happen, but what stops it from happening? Is it simply "loyalty" and the sort of paranoia it would put your team under thinking all of them can potentially be traded for "no reason?" I think if teams were this cutthroat, it could potentially give them a huge advantage as I know I would personally EASILY take the bottom 4 (Risto, Barkov, Jones, Tavares) over the upper 4 despite how much I like them all as people.
Should more teams take an extremely cut throat approach because nobody in the league is doing anything like this now and thus it would give them a huge advantage in the immediate term? Or is it pretty much an unspoken rule that nobody would behave like this? Btw I'm not "fixated" on the trades, so let's not get into their feasibility, you can deal those 3 for good contracts with similar players is the point, but I also don't think I tried at all to screw anyone in the least, I think all 3 are extremely fair.