Leafs aren't trading Marner for a rental and Bjorkstrand. Way too much money for Landeskog, might as well keep Marner for an extra 3M

Landeskog isnt leaving Colorado for the contract they hope they can sign him for

A rental? He's extended in this scenario.

And that proposal is absolutely never going to happen anyways. Bjorkstrand+Jones extended together requires a "you'll hate yourself so much for even typing it you could end up on a suicide watch" level return.

Whether or not he's signed an extension he still only has one year left on his current team, therefore a rental. People like to underrate Marner cause of his cap hit but he was just top 5 in scoring. 90% of the teams in the NHL would kill for a guy like him

Um. No. It does not work that way. The scenario involved had him extended as part of the conditions for the trade.

But he wouldn't be signing that deal with Columbus so they still only have one more year of control they can trade. They could get slightly more than just a straight rental but it wouldn't be fetching Marner+ alongside Bjork

Quit being obtuse. Columbus would be offering Jones with the extension as a fait accompli. Much like how Vegas picked up Mark Stone. You don't get to have the extension agreement in place AND then turn around and say "well it's only one year of control at the time of trade, THEREFORE...". That's a predatory attempt at double-dipping. He is either a rental with that uncertainty w/r/t whether or not he'd consider extending, or he's agreed to the extension and you have him for years. This kind of "both at the same time with maximum advantage for Toronto" nonsense isn't going to fly.

What are you talking about? Do you know what the package was for Stone? Not to mention Stone is a much better asset than Jones. If teams could just stick an extension on rentals and get equivalent players back with term it'd happen all the time but it doesn't

We're not necessarily looking for equivalent roster players right now, altho it'd be nice if that happened. We'd be looking for high-quality future core level prospects - such as, say, what Erik Brannstrom was back then.

And Bjorkstrand is still untouchable, by the way.

So you prove my point that Marner wouldn't be moved for this package, thanks. And imagine thinking Bjorkstrand is untouchable but Marner can be moved

These things are team situation dependent. I don't know if Marner can be moved - I do see a lot of Leafs fans and media pundits suggesting it, but I dunno if it's actually the right call to make; it strikes me as a little short-term reactionary. But I'm certain about Bjorkstrand.