I think no I know were ok

Apart from Hughes and Horvat nothing of importance is going to TO. The highest value piece is Hughes (debatable between him and Rielly). Horvat has value but he's a rental and then pretty much everything TO is sending west is way better than what we get. Pearson and Schenn wouldn't make the leafs. This is silly

Canucks pass

Quality for quality, Not quantity for quality.

3 firsts, Robertson and Rielly and the Leafs are left with Hughes. Yeah quality eh?

Leafs are not trading the their franchise player in N. Robertson. He's untouchable !

this is awful for the leafs, like hilariously so

you're just mad he didnt include Nylander

It’s not debatable who’s more valuable between Hughes and Rielly. Hughes is a better, younger version of Rielly. Better offensively, better defensively, and a better contract

I see zero reason for the Canucks to do this

How's Hughes' contract better? He's already getting paid more with less term and when he's Rielly's age he's going to get a massive 8-year deal with a much higher AAV.

I am not going to argue with Canuck fans over Hughes. He's won all the Norris Trophies in their eyes and to them Schenn is a first pair defender who is better than Rielly. It's ridiculous

Same, but it would be pretty interesting if a trade like this ever happened lol

I don’t think any reasonable Canucks fans think that about Schenn. On a contender he’s realistically nothing more than a 3rd pair guy who can maybe fill in on the top 4 for an injured player for a little bit. He has played very well with Hughes though, but anyone saying he’s better than Rielly is either a troll or severe homer

I would be super reluctant to move Hughes, but for this package I why not. Only major Canuck homers wouldn’t accept this.

Because he isn't getting paid into his 30s... Why are you talking about Hughes' next deal? Obviously it will be higher, that is common sense.

On a contender, Tampa, he was their #4 RD and was sent to the minors at one point. He's a 7/8 defenceman, playing way more than he should but he hits so people love him and ignore all the glaring weaknesses he has. I wouldn't play him over any of our RD options. Brodie, Liljegren, Holl and Timmins are all better than him.

Hughes' current deal is higher than Rielly's and his next one will be too, and he too will be signed into his thirties at the same age that Rielly is now. So in terms of the contract itself, there's nothing better about Hughes' vs Rielly's. There's nothing special about Hughes' deal in comparison to Rielly's, it's a higher cap hit with 3 less years. So I don't see how it's better.

If the argument is that he's the younger and better player so it's a better contract, that really doesn't make any sense because he's getting paid more now, and at the end of his current contract he will get another bigger deal for the same term as Rielly's at the same age. Maybe he's signed for 11m through his 30s.

Come on, Hughes, and Reilly are basically getting paid the exact same... Hughes is younger and better so it is a better contract... It isn't rocket science. We aren't talking about his next contract. We are talking about his current one... Saying his current contract is worse because his next contract will be more expensive is irrelevant

Him being younger, "better", and getting paid "basically the same" would have been relevant if they had the same term, but Rielly has 3 more years than him, so there's nothing special about Hughes' current contract. The reason why I'm mentioning the next contract is to point out that the shorter term isn't beneficial at all, and because you said Rielly is signed through his 30s.

I'm opposing the argument that because Hughes is younger and supposedly better, he therefore automatically has the better contract which would have been true if there was an advantage to his contract but there isn't as he's not getting paid less and he has less term. If I were to say Makar is "better offensively, better defensively, and [has] a better contract" than Hughes, it's really meaningless to mention Makar's contract in trying to say he's more valuable because there's nothing special about his contract as he's getting paid more for the same term. Makar's contract does not add to his value vs Hughes at all. In the case of Hughes vs Rielly, Hughes has 3 fewer years of team control and is getting paid more even if it's only slightly.

I'm not saying Hughes' contract is worse than Rielly's, I'm just saying it's not better. Rielly is signed for the best of his UFA years (Hughes only 1) and has more term than Hughes by 3 years and a slightly lower AAV. So Hughes' contract has no bearing on him being more valuable than Rielly.

Worth noting that offensively, Rielly and Hughes are actually very close (for now). Not sure how they match up defensively but I'll just assume Hughes is better. So it's not a matter of Rielly not being "worth" his contract and Hughes being "worth" his either. If anything, Rielly has a preferable contract.