Even if there's no condition on the other 1st, this would get declined easily. Not taking all those cap dumps back

Not allowed to do conditions on re-signing any longer.

All "cap dumps" expire at the end of this season. But kerfoot is not a cap dump.

I cant wait for the day he gets traded for less, or they ask so much for him he doesnt get traded and walks for free haha.

He is to a rebuilding team especially if he's a ufa at the end of the season.

Why do Leaf fans want Patrick Kane so bad (judging by how many trades on here involve him)? If it was Toews or Murphy, I get that. Matthews, Marner, Tavares, Nylander, Bunting, Robertson as a group are better than Sandin, Benn, Liljegren, Holl. I don't watch the Leafs as much but I'd feel better about the forwards than the D. I listed Toews but he is a completely different dynamic player than Kane which Toronto might look for.

Can’t wait for Mathews to not get traded and walks for free haha.

keep dreaming lol

Don’t need to dream

He 100% is to the hawks who aren't a playoff team. If you believe he has value, then the only landing place for a rental would be a playoff team to receive value otherwise he's a cap dump all day long.

Not a chance the Hawks would accept a conditional 1st for Kane. It would easily have to be (2) 1sts with no conditions, 50% retention, and with all those cap dumps coming back the 3rd is appropriate.

I mean if a 40-50 point guy who is owed 750K for the year is a cap dump I don't wanr to know what you would consider value. If the Hawks entertained the deal proposed above today then he absolutely has value as he would have top 6 time till the deadline and would return a 2nd or better in a trade with another team.

But this trade would never go through today...totally unrealistic to think that way. Furthermore, it's about cap hits, not salary owned when you are dealing with the top 3 most valuable cash rich teams. Lastly, if he's worth a 2nd, why would you think to give him away to a non-playoff team where there simply isn't much value? That's like telling someone who doesn't eat fish; hey I'll order you steak but the piece of fish comes with it...the person isn't going to care about the fish and place zero value on it. Find someone who wants to eat a piece of fish in otherwords...make sense?

I understand it's unrealistic, but everything is unrealistic on here until it becomes reality, it does not matter what team it's is whether the richest or the poorest, it's asset management and if you can get an asset for cheap that you know would return a good value then you do it. The trade proposed has value for both sides hence why the Leafs would include kerfoot
And further more the deal offered above is pretty well dollar in dollar out

Doesn't work that was in reality. Teams will only place value based on value to them individually, not what someone else would value that player as. Hawks aren't going to place any value in Kerfoot as such, and as such, Toronto could get value from another team for him that can utilize him for perhaps a 2nd or 3rd versus negative value by Chicago's viewpoint. It's called poor asset management by Toronto.

Agree to disagree.

It's mainly just to have Kane and Matthews playing together on the same line.

Okay, so because their is value in kerfoot to a playoff team, a non playoff team will see kerfoot with the same value...sorry man, but that's just backwards thinking.