Save me the sob "injury" story. His metrics, both regular and advanced, have been poor. "A change of scenery" isn't an excuse for a 30 y/o goalie. He's a backup goalie at best. We're not giving you a starter, AND a 4th for him.

Also, you're not one to be a choosing beggar, especially considering your cap situation. You need to re-sign Campbell and Rielly has a more lucrative extension. So either offer us something of interesting for Fleury, and/or something of value to take Mrazek.

You're wrong. He is a quality starting/tandem goalie, and 3.8 for this is a good price. A goalie at a lower number won't be as good as Mrazek is, unless they're on an ELC. While you're retaining, we're giving you a goalie with 2 more years after, which is why the deal balances out, without us giving you an additional sweetener. In other words, Mrazek's remaining 2 years is the sweetener. Why have a starter for only 1 more year when you can get a tandem goalie (with Lankinen) for 3?

You're simply wrong. He's a tandem goalie, and with Lankinen, that's a good match. If I were you I'd rather have a tandem goalie at a great number for 3 years than one for a ridiculous 7.5 for one year before he wants to leave. It's gonna be hard attracting UFA goalies to come to Chicago because they're not a winning team right now. The only way they'd come is if Chicago overpays. That overpayment will have to be around Mrazek's number, so I'd rather have a goalie who's worth 3.8 in Mazek than who's overpaid at 3.8. So, we're the ones giving you the advantage - a goalie at a good cap hit, who's a good tandem goalie, and who's locked in (preventing you from having to overpay to bring UFA goalies to Chicago).

Ritchie has no place on the team? Nobody on your team can score a goal, and RItchie had 15 last year. NYI is literally paying Pageau 5mil for a 10 goal season pace and Josh Bailey 5mil for a 7 goal season pace. So when you talk about place on the team, do these players not have a place on the team as well? Lou throughout his time with Toronto, NJ, and NYI has made bad deals. Whether it's signing zaitsev, martin, komarov, or trading for Martin (who he originally signed), that's what Lou does. The whole role in the organization thing is nonsense - you pay for what the player can bring on the ice, and Ritchie, a 15 goal scorer and a mean player out there, is someone Lou would easily take for 2.5. Clutterbuck's at 3.5 lol.

lol... that offer for Nick Paul... that's gotta be a joke

To anyone who looks back at the 2015 NHL Draft, they would see that Dermott was drafted 34th overall. Dermott's a young defenseman who still has potential and can use a fresh start. Saying Engvall is useless to you is stupid, he's a young player who's super fast, at a great cap hit, is an RFA after this season, who can score, and who has potential to be a good 3rd liner. Rather than trying to devalue these players, look at your roster.

The only thing missing from that deal is Amirov and a buyout date for Mrazek

Yep I have looked at our own roster and engvall doesn’t fit in anywhere in the short term or long term. We have plenty of potentially good 3rd liners. And have a decent left side on defense. But sure your scraps are all stars I’m done with this. Nobody wants your cast offs.

Then keep him. You're clearly the only one who thinks he has any positive value. We're better off letting Fleury walk for nothing than do this deal

Ok, you're either trolling or you're just plain stupid. You say he's a tandem goalie yet you are either ignorant of or willfully ignoring his terrible metrics. Even in Carolina (who had/have an exceptional defense), he was alright at best. Not someone I'm paying for with Fleury.

Also, you still haven't addressed my point about your cap crunching. How are you going to afford Campbell + your multiple RFAs with just over $8M in cap space? You need to dump Mrazek. We'll take him as a dump, but you'll need to add.

I don't think this guy realizes that we're not taking Mrazek contract unless we're getting at least a second round pick back and idk if I'd even want to do that. And that doesn't include Fleury

your trades in this post are all objectively terrible so it’s easy to see that you don’t understand value. ritchie passed through waivers, lou could have taken him and he elected not to. thus, he didn’t see ritchie as an appealing asset to take for free. so why would he do this trade? just because “it’s what he does” in your assessment? no. leafs add a pick to it or no deal.

I don’t think that’s even really considered as a return for Paul. Would much rather keep him but even if he was moved it would be for more than what’s offered here.

We dont need engvall. We will have over 10 wingers next season so he would probably be scratched all the time.