Leafs would need to add more in a package for Tanev, the Canucks are flush with minor league D men. A first rounder instead of Valiev maybe gets it done. The Larkin trade is intriguing.

I like the Larkin deal but I feel like he's untouchable, even if he had a down year. His performance at the IIHF World Championships this spring was quite impressive and no doubt his speed and offence helps the Leafs 100%. As for Tanev. I am not sure how interested the Leafs are in him plus his contract. I think the Leafs would prefer to give up a little more to try and get a player like Manson, Dumba, Slavin, etc. even if it meant trading a high 2017 or 2018 draft pick. Finally, as @TomG mentioned, I am not sure Vailev adds anything to this deal. He is a depth defenceman that will likely spend his career on AHL teams, maybe as a 7/8 defenceman. He's quite slow, and for his age, he has not developed as well as the Leafs had hoped he would have considering he doesn't bring much offence at all.

Detroit says Hell No, We already have a Kapanen his name is Anthony Mantha and he's already more proven then Kapanen. And Carrick really he does nothing for us plus Brooks and a 17th pick in a weak draft. Nylander and Larkin have similar values no way is Larkin dealt within the division for this and he's only available for a proven top 4 LHD/RHD like Hanifin maybe Brodin players like that.

I would 100% disagree that Nylander and Larkin have similar value. Yes, we all have our team biases, sure, and both may very well become franchise players, but Larkin's offensive game is nowhere near that of Nylander. I would agree though that Larkin is not for sale.

MG, solid comments as always! Re: Larkin, he may very well be untouchable, but represents for similar to what you are saying above, exactly the type of balance Leafs seek to fill out the left side! As far as Tanev and the others that you discuss above, I would suggest that those and a number of others, Trouba, Manson, Slavin, Hamonic, would be higher on my list as well, but at what cost? Not sure the cost, to both the present and long term strategy as well as the overall balance on the roster. They could also just choose to invest in free agency, costing only cash or cap space, in guys like Alzner, Shattenkirk. . . . .

Toronto is developing a highly offensive skilled team. And Detroit is still struggling and i agree that hurt Larkin but he will come on strong he had a pretty good world here and i think he will only get better. And i did say similar between Nylander and Larkin Nylander is higher then Larkin but Larkin will eventually get there. He's only going on 21 this year and still has tons of potential and there's nothing that Toronto is willing to give up that would even make us consider moving Larkin to the Leafs.

Thanks for the kind words Doug. My #1 issue I have with so many of these arm-chair GM teams is that individuals say it's a "realistic" perspective but do not consider the big long-term picture, whether that means emptying the prospect drawer almost completely or getting stuck with a major salary cap issue a season or 2 down the line. I would say 100% Dylan Larkin would be a major upgrade for all 30 teams in the NHL. What it would take to get him? Unclear, but I have to believe Detroit would not sell low on him, meaning they'd at least keep around for another year to build up his value. As far as investmests go, rumors will always persist, but in a trend of relatively good money management (Zaitsev deal is iffy), I do not see the Leafs giving term to an aging slow defender in Alzner, especially after they saw him first hand in the playoffs, or Shattenkirk, who is incredibly overrated for the price that he is apparently asking for this summer.

As I just mentioned to Doug, and would agree with what I think you are saying, Detroit has absolutely no reason to sell low on Larkin. It'd be much more worth it for the team and Larkin's own development, to let him build up his value and confidence at least another season. He is quite young for sure and there may come a time where Larkin is no longer a Red Wing, but I need to believe that since the team is now in a rebuild (or as Ken Holland called it, retooling on the fly), Larkin sticks with Detroit.

in what world is larkin and nylander similar values?

Leafs say heck NO to the Larkin trade. Why do the Leafs need him? He's a centre and now you have moved him to LW. Larkin production really fell off last year. So what player is he? I'd know it's subjective but the Leafs are better off thinking Kapanen is a top 6 forward and NHL Dmen Carrick. Plus a first rounder, Yikes. I think people were listening to much to Hockey Night in Canada falling all over the the brilliance of Larkin two years ago/
Larkin had 32 points in a full season last year. Those are Komarov numbers. Now I know he's better than that, but you don't gut your team for him.
Why, why do the Leafs have give two players to Vegas? Who is valuable that the Leafs fear losing?