Title is spot on

Please share why you think this, instead of just criticizing, saying because we don't want Engvall doesn't work. Sometimes it's nice to have some back and forth conversations with people on here to see what peoples thoughts are on things. I am all for adding something else or switching things up.

"Not Realistic" title was posted, meaning you believe these are unrealistic? Someone says "title was spot on." That was agreeing with your post, that you believe these to be unrealistic. Why do you think they are unrealistic?

Suter is playing each game. What are you talking about? Red Wings don't need Engvall. We'll keep the better player in Suter until we get some bodies back from injury.

We'll take a 3rd. There's no need to clog up the roster with rental Engvall. Red Wings aren't obligated to do favours for the Leafs.

I don't know why Leafs fans keep offering the same garbage for Vatrano. Verbeek isn't trading a player he just signed for multiple years in UFA. Otherwise he'll not be able to sign any future UFA's. He signed Klingberg for 1 year with the sole intention of trading him for a 1st round pick at the trade deadline.

No team wants washed up Wayne Simmonds. He's cleared waivers at least twice this season.

Leaf fans have wanted Kerfoot traded for 3 years now and he's still there. I expect he'll still be a Leaf after the trade deadline.

Verbeek is doing the same thing Yzerman is. He's surrounding his young core players with good vets who can take pressure off them and show them the way. Not every vet needs to be traded away during a rebuild.

Touche, I wrote the title before actually doing any trades then did not bother changing title. I do belief they could be realistic with some tweaks here and there.

Oh I thought I read on an article that he was healthy scratched but I just looked and ya he has played every game. Also I never said Detroit needs to do favor's I thought Suter was healthy scratch so it was for both to have fresh starts. Engvall to hopefully find his game and Suter to play (which obviously I see now that he is)

There was literally just a 32 thoughts on the leaf's interest in Vatrano and the Ducks looking to move people depending on if the money and return works for them which my offer may very well not.

Sorry but Suter doesn't need a change of scenery, And we're not dealing him for Engval either.

Kudos to you for wanting to have real dialogue. As others have said, based on the title, I thought you knew these were unrealistic and were just spamming the board with "square peg in round hole” scenarios that the Leafs fanbase has a bit of a bad reputation for doing.

With that said, Detroit and Toronto are really not trade partners, under any scenario to be honest. What the Leafs are selling, Detroit isn't buying and it seems unlikely that Toronto is willing to pay the rate for what Detroit would be willing to trade. Engvall (along with Holl and Kerfoot) have been attempted on this board at an almost comical rate to Detroit and there is just zero fit. We have players on the roster and in the system we would rather play, so they're not fits here, at all.

As for the Carolina trade, I don't see why they would give up multiple assets for a player that the Leafs want gone and you even admit is viewed as a cap dump by many. The is no leverage for the Leafs there. Realistically, Toronto would be lucky to get a 3rd alone for Kerfoot and even that is unlikely.

There was a 32 thoughts where Friedman spitballed that Toronto needed a player like Vatrano, then in the same breath mentioned it wouldn't work due to cap reasons. Every reporter from Toronto to Vegas heard "Toronto wants Vatrano" and ran with it, and now there's trade speculation everywhere that Dubas is trying to pry Frank loose from Anaheim.

It's not happening, Vatrano was Verbeeks FIRST signing as a GM. You want us to trade him 25% of the way through a season right after we gave him a 3 year deal? What UFA would sign with the Ducks after that knowing that the GM might immediately turn around and ship him out of town.

Vatrano is a heart and soul player who refuses to give up on the game even in the face of certain defeat. He is leading all our forwards in hits and shot block, and beating out many of our defense there too, and he's good for about 20 goals a season. He was brought onto this team to help turn the locker room around and to teach the kids to dig deep and keep fighting, and if you've watched all our games this season, you can see that starting to wear off on them.

And you want us to retain ~5.5 million on him, across three seasons, for a guy who can't seem to crack a NHL roster, a diminutive Finnish winger, and a future mid round pick?

So instead analyze why the opposite team would "accept." I will use the Wings trade as that is my favorite team in the example. You are proposing a trade from TOR's point of view. So this is a trade offered to SY. Based on his history, the two teams and their history, etc. TOR is looking for upgrades at LW, in the bottom 6 (CF TOR fans do your thing) and an upgrade on RHD (seemingly shifted more positive recently). You also have cap constraints limiting some options. Kerfoot, Holl, Engvall, are seemingly the most obvious candidates based on performance compared to salary.

You move Engvall to Detroit for a middle to bottom 6 C in Suter, which benefits TOR based on their need for (upgrade in bottom 6) even at the gain in salary cap. Detroit gains nothing as Engvall adds in to what there is already a surplus of. He also would not be re-signed. The cap hit is irrelevant to the conversation as the added space doesn't impact immediate needs. There is no added benefit since Engvall has done nothing to garner the same level of trust as Suter. So for Detroit, there are two players that have no added benefit (outside of who holds more value moving when the time comes) which would be Pius. So Detroit downgrades at the cost of an irrelevant cap hit.

Not a shot Anaheim even thinks about this

We aren’t trading away a guy we just signed, with retention, for nothing. It will have to be an overpay and this is not close to that

If Kerfoot is a "cap dump" (your words) why would any team give up assets for him?
That is one horrendous trade for the Ducks. for Vatrano. Why do Leaf fans think Anderson is an NHLer? If he was he would be a Leaf.
Simmons. He's not moving from his home. He's either a Leaf or Marlie. Doesn't hurt the Leafs cap either way. I think he will find his way to play some more as a Leaf.
Suter is worth more than Engvall. If Wings do trade their UFA, they will get a better return.

We didn't sign Frank Vatrano just to trade him after 19 games, especially since he looks like he's going to be exactly what we expected him to be (if not more, as my esteemed friend @GiggyWithGibby implies). Moreover, as your senior authority @palhal points out, Anderson isn't an NHLer, and Hirvonen has no value behind Jakob Perreault and Sam Colangelo; for that package, you'd be lucky to get Brett Leason.

Why would we be paying assets for a so-called "cap dump?" Anyway, prior to the season starting i might would've considered this, but seeing how slow of a start Kerfoot is off to and how well Martinook's has done on that 3rd line, i'd decline rn. We have no shortage of depth players who can't score, we don't need another.