I am going to directly quote you, because you are being completely hypocritical. "if you want a Top 4 RHD with contract control you need to pay for it." Travis Dermott is as much of a "top-4" as Brandon Montour, yet look at what the Leafs are giving up to Buffalo, but receiving from Colorado.

If you want to have fun on these AGMs and just throw nonsense out there, that's perfectly fine, but don't try to seem "realistic" when your deals are in themselves a contradiction of one another.

Your right to aquire a top 4 Dman with team control you need to pay,you don't need to pay with what's viewed as your future top 4 D, also Buffalo has a forward issue and plenty on the back end, another D prospect does not make them better, this is why both teams decline

It's the usual TOR tax - TOR players aren't really good players or prospects but every losing teams players are incredibly valuable

I mean yes, there is the Toronto tax (interesting way of putting it). This is just one of those unique times (or perhaps not so unique), when an AGM insists on several different acqusitions that continue to contradict what seems to be the premise of the entire AGM to begin.

What's the benefit in TO paying to aquire Gus a UFA in 30 games and shipping out Dermott (team controlled RFA) and defensive analytic darling for less than they payed for the UFA defenseman?

Buffalo passes