I see a three way deal. trouba to leafs lindholm to jets and jvr at half salary retained to da ducks
- bosman[/img]

Why not a four way deal? Trouba to Anaheim, Lindholm to Ottawa, JVR at half salary to Winnepeg, and Phaneuf at full salary and a half to Toronto.

Do the leafs need to improve their D? Yes.
Do they need to do it this year? No

There is a pretty decent batch of UFA's this summer headlined by Shattenkirk, and Burns. Absolutely no incentive for the leafs to deal a blue chip forward prospect this season, just to move up from the bottom ten, and to maybe become a middle of the road (11-20) team.
I know this is shocking to everyone, but the leafs are not going to win the cup this year.
- B-Wforever

The point is to capitalize on other team's issues (i.e., cap/depth) to acquire a young stud D who would not be available otherwise. When teams are currently in a bind you don't just ignore it and put all your hopes on Shattenkirk.

I tend to agree with this.

Personally I see Marner as more valuable than Nylander, especially because he is draft exempt. What do you think?
- RonPielep

I believe both are exempt … but I used to rely on generalfanager too figure those things out.

Tough to choose between the 2…if I had to choose, I may keep nylander as I see him as an eventual 2C. but like I said, tough choice.

- eichiefs9

The point is to capitalize on other team's issues (i.e., cap/depth) to acquire a young stud D who would not be available otherwise. When teams are currently in a bind you don't just ignore it and put all your hopes on Shattenkirk.
- RonPielep

Sure, as long as your doing that.
Giving up Nylander or Marner is not capitalizing on anything. It's just shifting the problem from defense to forward.

Leafs need to patiently add to this new core, not trade pieces to improve now.

Sure, as long as your doing that.
Giving up Nylander or Marner is not capitalizing on anything. It's just shifting the problem from defense to forward.

Leafs need to patiently add to this new core, not trade pieces to improve now.
- B-Wforever

Agree if they have to give up a great young prospect then it doesn't really make sense, they are just getting the rebuild underway, don't start trading them away.

I believe both are exempt … but I used to rely on generalfanager too figure those things out.

Tough to choose between the 2…if I had to choose, I may keep nylander as I see him as an eventual 2C. but like I said, tough choice.
- Tumbleweed

They both are.

Sure, as long as your doing that.
Giving up Nylander or Marner is not capitalizing on anything. It's just shifting the problem from defense to forward.

Leafs need to patiently add to this new core, not trade pieces to improve now.
- B-Wforever

Moving someone like Marner/Nylander for someone like Lindholm is by no means impatiently under-cutting the rebuild. This is simply a case of you over-valuing your young forwards due to a hot start and under-valuing a stud young RFA D-man in Lindholm.

It's actually excessive to the point of you ignoring the log-jam of top 9 F prospects and the relative weakness of quality D depth in the Leafs system. This would not be a hasty, get better now move. It would be a solid long term move and a prudent one for taking advantage of the Ducks current situation. If you took the homer glasses off and quit seeing Marner as Patrick Kane then you might realize that.

They both are.
- Yeti1181

Pretty sure Nylander is in his 3rd pro season now so he will need to be protected.

Trouba, Petan, and a 2nd/1st for Lindholm? That's probably what it'd take.

Pretty sure Nylander is in his 3rd pro season now so he will need to be protected.
- RonPielep

Nope second year.

i would trade any prospect not name matthew nylander or marner those three are non starters

Nope second year.

i would trade any prospect not name matthew nylander or marner those three are non starters
- Mandree85

He played 37 AHL games in 2014-2015, 38 in 2015-2016. Those don't count as pro years? Because if they do then this is his 3rd one.

He played 37 AHL games in 2014-2015, 38 in 2015-2016. Those don't count as pro years? Because if they do then this is his 3rd one.
- RonPielep

They count, he'll need to be protected.

They count, he'll need to be protected.
- eichiefs9

Thought so. Can't believe the (frank)ing Ducks gave Vermette a NMC...

Thought so. Can't believe the (frank)ing Ducks gave Vermette a NMC...
- RonPielep

Cogliano has a M-NTC which while not as bad as Vermette getting a NMC, is pretty terrible.

I don't think anyone is taking Stoner, especially with another year on his contract and the cap not looking like it is going by much anymore. Teams were paying a premium to move bad contracts with more then one year left this past summer. Perhaps you include Stoner with Lindholm for Trouba. If you are looking to dump salary, the best bet is Fowler for picks or prospects, or Bernier as he only has this year left, and you would probably need to add a 2nd or 3rd rounder with him.
- VT001

Jvr Komerov take back stoner and a 2nd for lindholm.

Ducks are so poorly managed, trying to win with aging vets is all they got going for them.

Why would this trade happen. Trouba wants money the ducks don't have.

Thought so. Can't believe the (frank)ing Ducks gave Vermette a NMC...
- RonPielep

Expires the day before the draft i think

Why would this trade happen. Trouba wants money the ducks don't have.
- Danformo

Trouba dealing with the ducks now?

Cogliano has a M-NTC which while not as bad as Vermette getting a NMC, is pretty terrible.
- eichiefs9

Luckily I don't think that mandates protection.

Still, they are forced to protect Vermette, Kesler, Getzlaf, Perry and Bieksa.

They will prob want to protect Fowler, Vatanen, Lindholm, Theodore, Silfverberg, Rakell, Ritchie.

Expires the day before the draft i think
- Tumbleweed

Sneaky.

[quote=RonPielep]The point is to capitalize on other team's issues (i.e., cap/depth) to acquire a young stud D who would not be available otherwise. When teams are currently in a bind you don't just ignore it and put all your hopes on Shattenkirk.

If your going to bring up timing in a rebuild trouba and lindholm fit better with developing a contending core then any player eligible to be a UFa in the next two years.

It's nice to have great vets but investing in good young players that can grow together is more appropriate based on where the leafs are. Don't overpay on free agents until the young guns are in there prime in 3/4 years.

[quote=RonPielep]The point is to capitalize on other team's issues (i.e., cap/depth) to acquire a young stud D who would not be available otherwise. When teams are currently in a bind you don't just ignore it and put all your hopes on Shattenkirk.

If your going to bring up timing in a rebuild trouba and lindholm fit better with developing a contending core then any player eligible to be a UFa in the next two years.

It's nice to have great vets but investing in good young players that can grow together is more appropriate based on where the leafs are. Don't overpay on free agents until the young guns are in there prime in 3/4 years.
- BrainSap

Agreed

Luckily I don't think that mandates protection.

Still, they are forced to protect Vermette, Kesler, Getzlaf, Perry and Bieksa.

They will prob want to protect Fowler, Vatanen, Lindholm, Theodore, Silfverberg, Rakell, Ritchie.
- RonPielep

Oh yeah, I wasn't really saying it for protection purposes. More for comedic purposes.

[quote=RonPielep]The point is to capitalize on other team's issues (i.e., cap/depth) to acquire a young stud D who would not be available otherwise. When teams are currently in a bind you don't just ignore it and put all your hopes on Shattenkirk.

If your going to bring up timing in a rebuild trouba and lindholm fit better with developing a contending core then any player eligible to be a UFa in the next two years.

It's nice to have great vets but investing in good young players that can grow together is more appropriate based on where the leafs are. Don't overpay on free agents until the young guns are in there prime in 3/4 years.
- BrainSap

Agreed. I don't know if you were trying to make a point to counter mine but you actually supported my argument. I was saying it makes more sense to go after players like Trouba/Lindholm who are so rarely made available, than to put all of your hopes into overpaying a UFA like Shattenkirk.