Boston accepts.

Tried to alter my trade last week based off what you said, happy to see it improved haha

Toronto Declines but stay in negotiations

Canes don't have the cap for Mason, even half retained. So no, it's not possible... wouldn't really want to give up Honka either.

Leafs easily decline, EF confirmed that Dubas isn't giving up a top end prospect for a rental. Leafs counter with Dermott and a 2nd for Lindholm. If Lindholm doesn't want to re-sign, Ducks will have no leverage in a trade

Friedman also reported that Toronto isn’t interested at all in giving up this years 1st or their top prospects for a rental, and would highly desire to keep their top prospects in general - that list included Niemela, Knies, and Robertson.

So for that reason, Leafs pass.

Thats fair, I wouldnt read too much into the generic "We arent giving our best assets up for a rental" that every contending team says every year but I can see why TOR doesnt do this

I think the pressure of 1st round exits forces Dubas' hand to make a move he might not love

Dubas is generally pretty honest with the media. He even said exactly what they were looking at last season and that his 1st was available - he then turned around and moved a 1st for Foligno. Unfortunately him being so open to the media is one of his greatest weaknesses

I still see no reason for Lindholm, Imo i would prefer to get a Top 4 RD not LD, Ik Muzz is out but Brodie can slide into that 2nd line LD & Reilly can get a Demelo or DeHann as a partner for a bit & who knows maybe De Hann likes what the Leafs have & takes a discount it’s highly unlikely but still plausible

Funny thing is he is open about assets but not trades, cause he has had some moves come right tf out of no where

Canes would accept that but don’t have the space to take Manson without a 3rd team to take more of the salary. Think that might be an option, but I think the extra assets required for more retention makes Manson less of an option. Canes probably just keep their assets and figure out the defense internally

Dubas even admitted himself (during the documentary) that Jarmo was fleecing him but it was a player the Leafs needed to round out the top 6. Also, I really liked Foligno during his tenure with the Leafs, he brought in something the Leafs didn't have a lot of

Not crazy about trading a 1st and not getting a top 6 center but this is a pretty good trade for both teams.

The best thing for the Sharks might be.....sell those UFAs at TDL, and then resign them this summer.

You think so? Seems meh to me in all honesty.

Last 3 seasons
DeBrusk - 0.45 PGP
Rakell - 0.58 PGP

^The difference in production over 82 games is about 10 points. That's a 10pt difference with DeBrusk being pretty meh the last 3 seasons, playing mostly with bottom 6 guys and getting little PP time. Rakell obviously a pending UFA while DeBrusk is a pending RFA. DeBrusk over the last 3 years has 3 less goals in 9 less games and roughly 4 years younger. Not saying I wouldn't take Rakell, in fact I think he'd do well with Begeron & Marchand. I just wouldn't give up much more than DeBrusk for Rakell. So that leaves a 1st + Moore for Steel, which is an awful swap for Boston. We have enough bottom 6 forwards and Moore isn't stopping the team cap wise from making a move.

Out of curiosity what would you give for Rakell with 50% retention ?

I think that’s what happens with Manson, he’s made it clear he wants to remain in Anaheim

Lindholm if he hits FA I think he walks he should get a good payday, I think if he makes it to free agency he gets at least 8x8, and at that price he doesn’t really make sense for the Ducks imo.

Rakell could go either way I’m not too sure what ends up happening with him

I look at as 1st for Rakell with 50% retention. Fair.

Debrusk & Moore for Steel. Debrusk is not coming back next year and his trade value is not commensurate with his production. Dumping Moore off the books and getting a forward back who has not hit his potential and under team control. I have seen worse ideas. Especially if they extend Rakell which should be doable.

Is it ideal. No of course not. But it’s better than most ideas on here. If they don’t extend Rakell then it’s a loss.

I wouldn't rule out JDB coming back if the B's can't find a deal they like.

Sam Steel is pending RFA (like DeBrusk) and he's only a year younger than DeBrusk. Could you also say then that DeBrusk has not hit his potential and under team control? Over the last 3 years DeBrusk in the same amount of games as Steel has 20 more points. So we're downgrading a forward to gain an extra $1.6 million in cap space by moving Moore?

Could the re-sign Rakell? sure, but he could also walk. Like you said if that happens then its a loss and what we have to show for a 1st + DeBrusk + Moore is.....Sam Steel

Honestly not much more than DeBrusk. In a DeBrusk for Rakell swap the Bruins wouldn't "need" ANH to retain on Rakell to make the cap work, so no extra juice value wise there. Maybe a mid pick or prospect with DeBrusk, but nothing that will get ANH fans excited.

Yeah, because a deal for Lindholm will only involve TOR and ANA right? I mean, its not like he's a desirable talent playing a position of need for many teams in the league. Are you serious?

Your offer would get quickly turned down and we'll speak to other teams regarding Lindholm... or, what is more likely, is we'll just re-sign him (he's playing hard ball with ANA, as he should, to maximise his contract. ANA has a history of low-balling RFAs under GMBM, but Lindholm is worth every penny of $8m per year and I hope Pat Verbeek sees that. Term could be a sticking point, but I'd suck it up and give him the 8 years if he demanded it).



Funny how you picked the last 3 years, basically when ANA sucked and BOS didn't. I appreciate that DeBrusk has gotten worse minutes than Rakell over recent years, but Rakell thrived on a winning team when he had a good version of Getzlaf (or Bergeron and Marchand perhaps) giving him time and space. I'm not saying Rakell is a superstar player or anything. In fact, he's pretty much to definition of a complimentary winger. However, I think he and DeBrusk are very similar (inconsistent scorers who are poor off the puck), but Rakell is a better performer (as demonstrated by his 2 x 30+ goal seasons) and has the ability to go full god-mode the way DeBrusk doesn't.

All that said, I think Rakell would be an excellent upgrade on DeBrusk. Something BOS should be looking to do going into a playoff run looking to go deep. Not trying to suggest the deal presented is good for you (it certainly would work for me). Just fighting from Rakell's corner.

Not funny at all, I use the 3 pervious season frequently because I feel like it gives the best snapshot of how a player is performing currently and not 5,6,7,8,9,10 years ago. DeBrusk the last few years has been awful production wise, which is part of the reason he was demoted to the bottom 6 and also why he had asked for a trade earlier this season. Yes Rakell had a few 30+ goal season 5/6 seasons ago. Those two season btw also happen to be his two best seasons from a shooting% standpoint. Funny that you call me out for using the last 3 years when the team was bad, but you want to use his two best seasons to show he's a better performer than DeBrusk.

He's a better performer based on your numbers as well... Lol. Also, you're dumping on DeBrusk, but then saying Rakell is no better. Rakell best seasons may have been 4-5 years ago now, but he still had them and DeBrusk hasn't. It still proves his capacity to have those high scoring seasons. Anyway, not going to waste anymore time trying to persuade you that Rakell is an upgrade on DeBrusk. He is and I'm confident most neutrals would agree. The question should really be what would the cost of that upgrade be, considering contracts, retention, etc. IMO, I think the deal above is fair, but you are of course welcome to disagree.

Did the math as I said before, the p/gp gap over the last 3yrs is 10 points over 82 games. That's with Rakell getting prime toi and 1PP time, which DeBrusk hasn't. I'd think the gap would be much larger, but its not.

Bruins don't need retention to fit Rakell in so it can be taken out. Don't need to move Moore and can just bury him. No use for Steel either. I'm not going to debate if it's fair, but i will say it wouldn't be of interest to Boston as constructed by OP