The Kings A) can't afford that, and B) aren't trading Clarke

If LA has a extension in place they 100% trade Clarke in this deal lol. Then they make the cap space for Matthews.

That's not how that works. LA would be the team signing him to a contact, not Toronto. Toronto has no leverage over that in trade talks. The only thing they can do is deny a team from talking to the player or agent like Vancouver did with Horvat

I like this. With an extension awaiting AM I’d like to see two 1sts from LA, as good as those prospects you’re getting from LA they’re unproven so I think the two 1sts is enough. Also leaves plenty of cap for a second line centre and D man.

Los Angeles clearly declines that offer. Kings don't have nearly the cap space or flexibility to absorb Matthews' cap hit, and aren't ever going to trade the kid seen as Drew Doughty's replacement.

Why would Kings want to help Toronto in its quick rebuild. Plus Matthews has a NMC and is he willing to waive it. All the leverage is with Matthews and the Kings.

Toronto doesn't have to trade matthews, there not giving away a top 5 player in the leauge for free. IF LA is seriously interested in Matthews (not saying they are) then that deal starts with Clarke. Toronto would get more from another team or just run it back with Matthews for his last year and try to win a cup with him. So if LA doesn't want to trade Clarke then LA and toronto are not a good match for a Matthews trade.

Also why cant LA have an extension in place if Toronto let's them discuss an extension. No team is giving up fair or close to fair value for Matthews without having an extension in place and Toronto knows that.

You are right they don't have to trade him but that's only true if he's willing to re-up with the Leafs. If not it's in their best interest to trade him. He entire idea of trading his is under the preconception he won't sign with Toronto. That has nothing to do with LA. If Toronto does not want to trade him to LA because they won't include Clarke then I don't think LA has an issue waiting to get him for free the next year

Toronto can allow LA to discuss an extension prior to a trade. However the actual extension would take place after the trade. How exactly do you extort extra value there? Let's run that as a hypothetical conversation.

TML - "we give you permission to talk to our player before hand."
LAK - "Ok thanks, then we can find out if he's willing to extend with us."
TML - "if he is willing to extend with you, Clarke has to be included in the deal."
LA goes and talks to him
LAK - "he wasn't willing to extend with us at this point in time but we'll trade for him anyways, so no Clarke included."
TML - "Fine."
trade for rental takes place, some time after trade happens Matthews signs extension with Kings

My point is I don't see what Toronto would want from LA that's fair value that's not Clarke. I doubt Toronto want's several players that can'f fit in there roster. LA won't be the only team interested. Literally almost every team in the leauge will be. This isn't a patty kane/claude giroux situation where they can trade him to one team only. I also don't agree that they will automatically trade him even if he is undecided on resigning. The leafs would for sure shop him but if the value is not there, they'll just run it back with him for his last year. It's not unheard of for teams to go into the last year of there stars contract without an extension and risk him walking (stamkos, JT). Matthews is a proven top 5 player, Clarke is a NHL prosepct that hasn't proven anything at the NHL level, could be a bust or could be a superstar, there's risk there. I'd except the trade to be Clarke ++ for Matthews. The trade posted here would be realistic trade value for AM.

Whether LA has an extention means nothing to Toronto, but means everything to LA. Toronto has there minimum return they expect for him. If LA doesn't meet that then the leafs trade him elsewhere or keep him.

The problem with your POV is you can't understand that Matthews trade value is purely as a rental in every possible scenario and LA is not going to move Clarke (or Byfield) for a rental.

Also Matthews has a Full NTC kicking in on July 1st so it could absolutely be the same as Kane or Giroux.

I agree that Toronto's best course of action is to not trade him at all and try as hard as they can to extend him, but you have to understand that 1) Matthews can not discuss contract extensions prior to July 1st, and 2) Matthew holds pretty much all the cards after July 1st.

I didn't know there was a rule stating he can't talk about extensions just thought he can't officially sign until july 1st. I thought it was like free agents who already had verbally agreements with teams then officailly sign when free agencey opens. There's always a bunch of them signed within minutes.

With that being said, I would rather see the leafs just keep Matthews and go for a cup if he's only being viewed as a rental and not getting good value for him.

You cannot legally discuss it. The same goes for free agents. Free agents used to be able to discuss contracts prior to free agency (Panarin and Bobrovsky for example) but that rule changed recently.

You can gauge interest via second hand info and stuff (ie Calgary had a pretty good idea Markstrom was going to sign there due to Lindholm), but nothing formal can be done

As for a return. He will absolutely get good value but that simply won't include Clarke. For example Spence is only like 1 step below Clarke in terms of potential and could absolutely ve available