Garland and Pearson retained at those cap hits certainly costs more than a few throwaway prospects and picks

No motivation for Vancouver to do that trade. Unrealistic that the Canucks retain on Garland, the chances of that happening are extremely slim.

If Garland was doing well on 5v5 this year, then maybe the Leafs could use him (perhaps a change of scenery helps) but this isn't the move for the Leafs.

The retention alone will cost a 1st+. Then you have to pay for Garland and Pearson at those cap hits, which is Liljegren++

Pearson is terrible and has been dropping out of favor for 2 seasons. Had 4 points in his first 6 games and was demoted to the bottom 6 where he has proceeded to post a goal and is minus 7. He had value 2 seasons ago maybe but now he's a 3+ million dollar player who is replacement level. Right now, that costs assets to move. Even retained.

Keep dreaming. Garland at least than 4 is a great value contract yes but Pearson at anything more than a million is a bad contract. He's been awful for the Canucks this year and since you guys have been trading him daily for 2 full seasons now, it's clear you realize he's just bad value. So a 5'10" 50 point winger at under 4 for his term would cost a 1st + but Pearson at anything more than a million is negative so a 1st and some contracts going the other way is enough. From TO's perspective, Kerfoot will do more than good enough compared to Garland to make paying his asking price just wasteful. Way better options are available than Garland that actually fit the needs TO has.

Totally. Garland just doesn't offer anything we really have in short supply. A smallish winger who tries hard, we have a couple of them. Regardless of how much better Garland is than them, he costs way too much for what he brings and TO already has lots of it.

I still don't understand in what world is Engvall better at 3rd line center than Kampf? Look at the stats between the two there not even close. Just because the guy makes more money doesn't mean he's a better player.