Dude, Leafs fans will kiss you on the mouth for that gift.

I mean, you and I both know that should be true, but have you met these guys?

they have washed up Wayne Simmonds

I don’t understand why you guys think Garland is all that special. Kerfoot has been better then him this year and he’s cheaper. This is a strong no for the leafs

^ right on cue

You do know Kerfoot has more points than Garland right?

Garland has proven more offensively than Kerfoot over his career, he's younger and playing on a weaker team

Toronto is 5th in goals for per game and Vancouver is 29th. If Garland was playing in the Leafs top 6 he would be a point per game player. Guaranteed. He's also a pest and hard to play against. If you've seen him play, you'd understand. And I actually don't want Van to trade the guy. He's too valuable.

Yes Garland has had a few very good years but at most Garland is a slight upgrade on Kerfoot offensively, he’s payed way more, he would have to play his off side in Toronto, so I don’t even know if Toronto does this one for one. Throw in a 1st and arguably our number one prospect and it’s an absolute joke of a trade. I know you guys like him in Vancouver, please keep him we don’t want this

Keep in mind that Halak is coming the Leafs way while they are dumping Mrazek on the Canucks. I agree, Garland and Kerfoot are pretty close in value, but I definitely give Garland the edge

Apparently the leafs have been getting calls about Mrazek so im guessing his value isn’t even in the negative yet, if he keeps playing like this im sure he will need to be dumped but we’re not there yet

1- Points are not the sole measure of a player. Obviously.

2- But since we're on the topic of points comparison: Kerfoot is receiving quite the boost playing mostly with Tavares and Nylander. Garland has mostly played with a somewhat slumping Horvat and the struggling true rookie Podkolzin. Huge difference.

3- Kerfoot is signed for one more season. Garland is locked up for four at a very reasonable cap hit. And he's two years younger, to boot.

4- Even with the far better linemates/team, Kerfoot's analytical numbers are worse than Garland's.

5- Kerfoot is having an outlier career year (likely due to the linemates boost). Garland is not, and his production doesn;t bounce around anyway. He's remarkably consistent.

The Leafs would jump at this, and I'm shocked that any Leafs fan would protest, seeing as how nearly all of you were trying to dump Kerfoot in offseason AGMs.

Off topic, but Edmonton declines hard. Mrazek is a downgrade on Koskinen and has 2 years left on his deal, Edmonton wouldn't so this 1-for-1 let alone add a 2nd!

I’m willing to admit Garland has the edge on Kerfoot, but there are a number of factors at play here. First, of course Garland is on a great contract, but Kerfoot is cheaper, it’s not like the leafs are just going to magically replace that 1.5 million next year, every dollar matters. Second, while Kerfoot has played with Tavares and Nylander mostly, he’s also gotten a lot of time with the black hole offensively that is David Kampf. Also, he doesn’t play PP at all, so those points aren’t inflated by the fact that the leafs have the best PP in the NHL. Third, Kerfoot’s age and contract length is pretty much irrelevant here, as the leafs likely need the cap space that he free’s up for Matthews and Nylander the following year. One of Amirov, Robertson, or Knies should be able to produce decently in a top six role while on an ELC by then. Fourth, while Garland’s analytics are better then Kerfoot’s, they are both above average defensively with Garland having the edge, but offensively this year Kerfoot has actually been better. I don’t necessarily think it’s sustainable but it doesn’t have to be because the leafs are in win now mode. Fifth, Kerfoot being traded in AGMs means nothing, the fact that Dubas has moved on from similar guys like Johnsson and Kapanen but kept Kerfoot tells you how much he values him. With all that said, sure, anyone would swap Kerfoot for Garland one for one, but if you want a first and our top prospect that’s just crazy. If that’s where were at, why not keep Kerfoot and address a real need for a top 4 defensemen, a package of Robertson and a 1st would get pretty much any defensemen on the market and the leafs can keep the solid top six winger that no one has complained about this year. Again, if you Nucks fans like Garland so much just keep him, I promise you the leafs will be fine with there current forward group

A few quick notes...

1- At even strength, Kerfoot has played 335+ minutes with Tavares and 291 minutes with Nylander. He has also played 105+ with Marner. He's played 90 with Kampf.

2- Age and contract length certainly matter when it's a player worth keeping around. And in case you did not notice, the Leafs would gain about 800K in cap space from this deal this season. Yes, Garland costs more (roughly 1.5M), but the savings from Mrazek to Halak (roughly 2.3M) outweighs that. Next season, when Halak runs out of contract, the Leafs would gain around 2.3M from the deal.

Besides, Matthews and Nylander aren't due new deals until 2025.

3- Garland's offense analytics are better than Kerfoot's (and with much lesser linemates). Not sure how you figured otherwise.

4- "... the fact that Dubas has moved on from similar guys like Johnsson and Kapanen but kept Kerfoot tells you how much he values him."

Or, conversely, it's just a product of the fact that those other players had big injury concerns (Johnsson) or a lot more trade value (Kapi).

5- You left out the value of getting out from under Mrazek's contract. And Robertson is probably no longer Toronto's top prospect, nor is he a top shelf prospect. Plus, he's racked up quite the injury history by age 20. It's not a great picture.

"... a package of Robertson and a 1st would get pretty much any defensemen on the market... "

Hahaha what??? Bruh...

Finally, I'm not a Vancouver fan. I'm a fully objective observer here. And Dubas would kiss Vancouver on the mouth, WITH sexy tongue, to make this deal. And if he didn't, Leafs nation would have a conniption fit. It's a no-brainer.

You make a few good points, but I also have a few notes

1. The Mrazek thing is irrelevant in this trade because the leafs are already getting calls on him meaning he still has some kind of value. Next offseason the leafs will need to trade Mrazek and Ritchie just to bring back Campbell, adding Garlands additional salary makes that much more difficult

2. Not sure what you mean about big injury concerns with Johnsson, it’s fair to say the leafs moved Kapanen because they got an outrageous return, but the same can’t be said for Johnsson. Dubas literally traded for Jared McCann in order to keep Kerfoot on the team because thats how much he values him

3. If you believe that you share the opinion of most GMs and you don’t value Robertson much, why would the leafs trade him at his lowest. He has picked up two unlucky and unrelated injuries but people forget how dominent he was in the OHL and then he produced well in the AHL as a 19 year old during an injury plagued season with a terrible Marlies team. He still undoubtedly has 30 goal upside and if the perception from the outside is he is no longer a great prospect, there is no reason to trade him.

4. Not sure how Robertson and a 1st doesn’t get almost any defensemen on the market. Besides Chychrun of course are you telling me Montreal wouldn’t give up Ben Chiarot or Anaheim wouldn’t give up Josh Manson for that package? In fact, Dallas probably does this for Klingberg as well

5. Again, the leafs don’t need a forward whatsoever, the glaring weakness is clearly on the backend and this is just a complete waste of assets to get a player that won’t be a massive upgrade

I’m assuming your a blues fan, so imagine giving up something like Neighbours, Barbashev, and a first for Garland. Doesn’t sound so good now does it?

1- Heh. And how much value do you're think you're getting out of Mrazek by himself? I'm not even getting into Ritchie, he has nothing to do with this.

2- Johnsson was coming straight off major knee surgery at the time. That's what I mean.

3- Umm... because you'd be getting Garland back? That's a great reason. Frankly, I do not follow your logic. The whole thought exercise is based on this trade idea.

4- I will concede it's possible you'd be right about Dallas, because his brother is there. For Chiarot, it would be a silly overpay. I'm not convinced Manson is on the market right now. But at first you said "pretty much any" D-man, which I took as using poetic language to mean "every one of them" - which obviously would be crazy. So we got crossed wires, no biggie.

5- Garland would be a massive upgrade on all but four of your forwards in a stable where Leafs fans are continually screaming for deeper quality. And gosh, I hate to break this to you, but the Leafs are 6th in the league in GA/game.

Oh... and Neighbors, Barby and a 1st is a much better offer than the one in this trade. Besides, the Blues have arguably the deepest forward stable in the league right now. So that comparison doesn't work.

1. All I’m saying is Mrazek is gone regardless of whether or not he’s in this trade so that’s irrelevant

2. Wouldn’t call it major surgery, he literally came back and played a game before he was traded

3. I’m saying why give up Robertson if you value him more than any other team, throw in a 2nd instead if you need something on top of the 1st

4. God I hope the leafs don’t trade for Chiarot, that was just to say that the leafs could get most of the D-man on the market right now

5. Campbell and the two way ability of the forwards are responsible for the leafs not giving up many goals, ask any leafs fan, the number one need of the team is someone to play with Muzzin the the top 4

6. Now that I think about it, the blues trade is extremely similar to the leafs. Neighbours and Robertson were both drafted in a similar range, made the NHL as teenagers but didn’t produce very well. Both dominated the CHL. The only difference is Robertson had a few freak injuries but balances that out by having the higher upside, very similar prospects in value. Kerfoot and Barbashev are also more similar then you would like to admit. Both primarily depth players until this year (although Kerfoot has had some very solid years before) both got opportunities in the top six with quality line mates and have produced this year. Yes, Barbashev has more points, but
Kerfoot has more at even strength in less games. Kerfoot is also much better defensively. They are one year in age apart and the both have two years left on their contracts at great value. Barbashev is a bit cheaper and plays C so I might give him a slight edge but it’s very close. Also, yes the blues probably do have the deepest top nine in the league, but the leafs would be up there as well, they don’t need a forward any more then the blues do

1- It's not irrelevant at all. Depends on the return, doesn't it?

2- Yeah... six months later. Knee surgeries where you miss half a year are always major.

3- Huh? Again, we are operating off the premise of the trade in this AGM, which is certainly better than you could do with Robertson on his own.

5- Ask any Leafs fan, huh? No thanks.

6- Oi vey.

Okay, my friend, I think we've covered it from every angle. You see it your way and that's that.

Glad to see I’ve convinced you 👍

Great back and forth gents. Love the discussion.