Nashville will stand pat IMO

The last guy i would trade is sandin

"Doubt this happens but solves all the issues." ... so who do you plan to lose to Seattle for nothing? Great job.

Thats a problem for next year.... Maybe dermott and a 3rd? Dont really know

The problem the other person was pointing out is that you're losing someone who you just paid through the nose to get.

That's not a smart way to operate and that's not how GM's are doing things. You make a deal like this and it's counter productive.

Protect 7-3-1:
Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Tavares, Forsberg, Hyman, Kerfoot, Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, Saros ... then you lose either Ekholm or Campbell

Protect 8-1:
Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, Rielly, Brodie, Muzzin, Ekholm, Saros ... then you lose either Forsberg (likely) or Campbell

& don't come back with "make a side deal with Seattle" .. the price for either of those situations starts with a 1st and a top prospect. & You've traded away both 1st round picks in the next 2 drafts and 2 top prospects. It'd likely start with Robertson and Liljegen plus a pick. So you can essentially add those 2 players to this trade do.

This idea is weak. No thought behind it. You have to keep the future in mind as well.

Preds decline

Why are we protecting FA Rielly?

Can't believe a top-notch mind like yours isn't in the NHL. Maybe take a screenshot of that brilliant analysis and send it to teams.

Well it makes the Leafs stronger this season. Due to cap reasons and losing all those futures, makes the Leafs weak next season and for years to come/

Why are you insulting me when you can't even get your own facts straight? ... Rielly isn't a UFA this off-season. He still has another year on his deal left. Nice try though bud. Troll elsewhere.

Who are you kid?

Let's break it down so even you can see it:

You're right. Hyman is a pending UFA.. but in that first situation, who else would you prefer to protect instead? Keep in mind it has to be a forward because it's the 7-3-1 option:

How bout Joey Anderson? An AHLer who Seattle wouldn't even consider taking.
How bout Alex Galchenyuk? Oops, UFA this off-season too
How bout Spezza? Oops, UFA too. And said he wouldn't play anywhere else than Toronto so if Seattle wants to pick him please do just so he can re-sign in Toronto after
How bout Joe Thornton? Oops, UFA too. Can't see a veteran wanting to sign in Seattle so we'll take him back after too.
How bout Simmonds? Oops, UFA too. & again he's not gonna wanna sign in Seattle. Likely re-signs in Toronto next season anyways.
How bout Riley Nash? Oops, UFA too.
How bout any of the Marlies available to Seattle? Oops, they'll be RFA's and not worth protecting too.
So now we're back to protecting Hyman so that Toronto protects his negotiating rights and can sign him sooner and not risk losing him to free agency. Keep in mind that guys like Engavall have to be exposed because they meet the 27/54 requirement to be exposed and Toronto has to expose a small number of players who meet that. So who are you protecting? .... I await your response. I'm in need of a good laugh.

lmao... seriously I don't understand why you're trolling me out of no where.

You don't read it because you know it's right and you don't want to admit it. You had no place in this conversation with me and you arrogantly insult me multiple times for no apparent reason. If you wanna talk hockey, sure shoot. But the way you interact is odd. I've done nothing to you and you insult me. Cool. I'm just gonna add you to my blocked list now. Goodbye.

Alright, one last thing before you're blocked. I never "insulted" this thread. I offered insight as to how the GM's have said they're working because they have to take the Seattle expansion draft into account when making any trade this deadline. Which is true. It's offering knowledge of the situation to make the thread starter aware of things that go on in the league to help them create a realistic thread - it's called constructive criticism. IN no way was there any heated discussion or argument with the thread starter as you've decided to start.

I'm sorry your kid had a bad experience on here. But that was by fault of me and you should show your kid that you're a bigger person and not take this low path to come on here and immediately insult users for no reason. You're not helping the situation and personally I hope that if you continue to do these actions that you get banned. There's no place for it on here. Again, sorry your kid went through it, but you acting this way does not help the situation.

Seems like that should be a fun pastime for you!

Yeah, imagine hockey fans going to a hockey forum to discuss hockey transactions.

Crazy!!

Why does Soros get protected over the immortal Jack Campbell?

I am almost certain that is another LeafsSeason account.

Meh...

Everyone has their own things. There's millions of forums on the internet with plenty of people posting regularly.

I really don't see the issue in someone pointing out to this poster that this proposed trade doesn't make much sense when the future is considered.

Doesn't take an expert to see that.

And here's the poster boy of them all!

Saros is an elite goalie, should be in the conversation for the Vezina this season. But in this situation I thought it made more sense to protect Saros over Campbell for 2 reasons:
1. Saros has been better for longer
2. Toronto is acquiring Saros in this thread. Can't imagine them wanting to lose him for nothing to Seattle if they just traded for him.

But could protect Campbell too. My point was if this trade was made, it's messing with the expansion plans too much. It's just not worth it and needs to be considered in deadline deals this season.

Maybe.

Of course, what some adults might think is apparent stupidity isn't quite so apparent to, say, an 8 year-old just trying to screw around.

Campbell just doesn't lose man!

But apparently when even more information is pointed out just to clarify that more, it's "not worth reading a pathetic novel-esq post from a wannabe GM" ... I didn't know this site wasn't for people who like hockey and want to improve their knowledge. But hey, I could be wrong!

A real clash of wannabe GM minds!

True.

I'd feel ****ty if I was a bit of a prick to a 10 yo.

But I'd assume the majority of posters are 16 yo and over, it's fairly difficult to tell how old the poster is at the other end of the discussion.