Bruh.

You gotta give me more than that now....

I was thinking the same thing as him because there's just so much going on. Not only is this a 13-piece trade, but you have 4 roster players getting switched on each side. How would you know the trade would result in a net benefit if you're switching up 20% of your starting roster in a single trade? You also don't want to just have a net positive gain, but you want to have the best team possible, which is usually just done by trying to address a need or two and then seeing the result.

Or in other word(s)… Bruh.

Yeah, much more concise.

I figured I might as well explain since I'm pretty sure you didn't because of the amount of time that you've commented on his 7+ piece trades before. He didn't pick up on that and probably felt like it was a useless comment.

Edit: Or maybe I'm misremembering and you commented on someone else's multi-trade post and he just happens to have a few of these as well.

How do we know? None of us are clairvoyant first off. What we do know is that for several years we've been trying to add 2 top 4D and a defensive minded 3C along with some grit and scoring to the bottom 6, because those are the holes that have existed, both then and now. Since the beginning of last year we've lost Muzzin, Schenn, ROR and Acciari, all who were incredibly valuable in the playoffs at one time or another for this team, and all who we've yet to find suitable replacements for. Brodie and Gio are aging and showed they're no longer capable of handling the minutes that were asked of them last year.

So with this trade, as unrealistic as it might be, we find a player to pair with Rielly in Borgen, who fits the mold of the players he's had success with in the past. Larsson is a top-pairing, two-way RHD who can be the minute munching, mobile, physical replacement for Muzzin we so clearly lacked last year. He led Seattle in TOI last playoffs and was their most important player. Gourde led SEA in TOI among forwards and was the Krakken's playoff point leader, while also bringing a physical, defensively responsible brand of hockey that was very noticeable. Borgen is a top 4 D with size, mobility and physicality. Tanev can play anywhere in the lineup and is essentially a better Acciari.

Robertson has barely played in the playoffs due to his inability to stick with the team, largely due to his inexperience and defensive issues. Likewise for Liljegren, who lost his spot in the top 6 down the stretch and was completely ineffective once he did get into the playoffs. Jarnkrok has had a long history of disappearing in postseason. Brodie is clearly on the decline and was not only bad last playoffs, he was legitimately awful.

So you can make the argument that it's not worth it overall, but to suggest this trade doesn't improve the team now just shows your ignorance, and a lack of understanding for what the Leafs need and have needed for years.

Yeah, that's why GMs don't make that many moves in a single go.

You're saying the Leafs need a top 4D, okay, sure you added Larsson, but why would you trade a top 4D in Brodie who has been one of the best defensive Ds? Even if you think he's slipping and can't handle the same minutes as he used to, that's why you brought in Larsson, Brodie is still better than Borgen who is a 3rd pairing defenseman even in SEA. The reason why you're moving Brodie is for the cap space, but that's why you shouldn't bring in Tanev's 3.5M for what he does, simply isn't worth it as the Leafs don't have the luxury to pay a bottom-6 player 3.5M this year and probably not the next either.

You said they are also looking for a 3C that brings grit, well that's what Domi was advertised as and you're not satisfied, why would Gourde be any different? You talk about improving the bottom 6 scoring, yet you want to remove Jarnkrok who has is great defensively, produced slightly more than Gourde between last year and this year, and makes less than Gourde at 50%. All, you can say is that Gourde is more physical maybe but that's pretty much a lateral move that could be for the better but also for the worse. Worth noting though that Domi has been much better down the middle than on the wing and the 3rd line of Robertson-Domi-Jarnkrok is providing that secondary scoring that the team needs, chemistry does exist. You're also ignoring that the Leafs brought in Bertuzzi who was advertised for his grit as well.

Robertson is sticking with the team now, he's a young prospect so that's only normal, he wasn't able to stick in the past because he wasn't producing enough and he was also getting injured, not because of defensive deficiencies. He was decent away from the puck but decent isn't good enough for a team like the Leafs. Liljegren played a few games to in the playoffs in the second round, he's not a superstar, so it's no surprise if he wasn't effective. There's no reason to think that Borgen would have dressed for the Leafs in the playoffs last year had he been in Liljegren's place, in the last 3-years he's been averaging about a minute less in ice time than Liljegren. Jarnkrok has had a long history of disappearing in the post-season? Really? Tell me more about it.

The 4.48M cap increase from going from Jarnkrok, Liljegren, and Robertson to Gourde, Borgen, and Tanev is not worth it, you're getting little to no upgrade and at the cost of Brodie. You're essentially negating the improvement, if any, that Larsson brings if there isn't a clear overall improvement and wasting your assets in the process. The simple solution is to just try bringing in Larsson alone, then look to add a physical 3rd pairing to replace GIO if you're not satisfied with Benoit.

Interesting way to start... Do you not remember the leafs adding 6 new roster players just last year? Or all the TDL moves from years past? The reason that needed to be done is because of all the holes that have remained on this team, and still remain due to Dubas' penchant for cycling through short term rentals that have failed to become long term solutions.

You're all over the place here. Larsson is an upgrade on Brodie, is cheaper, younger and signed for an additional year beyond this. At this point in their careers there is almost nothing he doesn't do better than Brodie. We know what type of player pairs best with Rielly and Borgen fits that mold. He's also signed for an additional year beyond this and critically is paid 2.3 mil less than Brodie, who is not the type of player who best compliments Rielly's game come playoff time, as proven by the fact they've been split up for the last several postseasons. If he was the TJ Brodie that he once was, which is the player you're referencing, then this might be more sensible, but he has clearly taken a step back.

Borgen is a top 4D for Seattle and was in the playoffs as well. Again, he brings balance to a pair with Rielly because each player's strengths compliments the other weaknesses. He needs to be a responsible, prototypical DFD who is competent at moving the puck and has enough mobility to play within our system, which he is. What exactly is it about Liljegren that you think makes him so irreplaceable? He has ONE assist in 10 games this year and 6 shots over that span. He has ZERO points and ZERO shots through 7 playoff games. This for a guy whose strength was supposed to be offense..

Robertson was not able to stick with the Leafs for exactly the reason we're now watching play out again. He starts hot, sputters out, and when he's not scoring his questionable reads and hockey IQ aren't enough to compensate for his lack of production. His biggest strength is supposed to be goal scoring and he has 0 goals and 3 assists in his last 12 games. That 3rd line has not been providing the secondary scoring we need at all, and with Domi's defensive issues playing him at center has meant that's not a line you're going to be putting out there in defensive situations either.

"Jarnkrok has had a long history of disappearing in the post-season? Really? Tell me more about it."

Uhh... this might have been a good one to research yourself before making a smarmy comment like this. Yes, really. In NINE postseasons Jarnkrok has scored more than ONE goal ONCE, that was SIX years ago when he scored TWO goals in TWENTY-ONE games. He has scored more than FOUR points once as well, SIX years ago when he scored SEVEN points in TWENTY-ONE games. In 5 of those 9 postseasons he scored ZERO goals, which means he's played more postseasons where he hasn't scored at all than when he has. He has 5 goals and 22 points in EIGHTY-SIX playoff games, going -12 over that span. Was there some argument you were going to make that my statement was incorrect? Would be fun to hear it if so.

It's becoming clear that you really don't know what you're talking about. If the extent of your Gourde to Domi comparison is that they're the same player because they're both 3Cs with grit, then I can't start to explain how over-simplistic and dense that is. First off, Domi was never the plan at the center position and we knew that was a hole going into the season, one that has existed for years now. By comparison, Gourde led all Krakken forwards in TOI and points in last year's playoffs, posting 13 points in 14 games as their de facto 1C, while also being great defensively, something Domi is not.

Gourde, Borgen and Tanev is absolutely a massive upgrade on Jarnkrok, Liljegren and Robertson, just as Larsson is a massive upgrade on Brodie. Claiming otherwise is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of ignorance; something you've shown an abundance of here. If it gives you peace of mind we can take 1 mil off the retention to Gourde and apply it to Tanev - now we have Gourde at 3.583 and Tanev at 2.5, incredible value all of a sudden!

As for the point about not having the luxury for these guys in the bottom 6, I've shown here that the cap would work this year, and you could return essentially the same team next year as well. The cap rising by 4 mil would roughly cover Matthews' and Nylanders' raises. Domi could realistically sign for the same AAV with a bit of term. At the very least, we could replace Sammy with a slightly less expensive goaltender which would give us more than enough to cover any potential raises for Benoit, Domi and Gregor. That would leave us with close to 6 mil to replace Bertuzzi, who we could probably fit in or find a cheaper option on the FA market, keeping in mind Domi, Tanev and Gourde can all play higher up the lineup and that there's still the potential for some of our younger guys (Minten, Cowan Hildeby) to grab a spot.

This roster would give us much more balance and compensate for the areas we're lacking in. You could even run a lineup of:

Knies - Matthews - Domi
Bertuzzi - Tavares - Nylander
Tanev - Gourde - Marner
Gregor - Kampf - McMann/Perry

McCabe - Larsson
Rielly - Borgen
Benoit - Timmins
Gio - Lagesson

Woll
Sammy

Every forward line in the top 9 has a power forward down the left side who can retrieve pucks on the forecheck, create space to open up lanes for their linemates, help with the cycle game when teams neutralize the rush and clog up the neutral zone, and win critical battles around the net in order to create screens and deflections, while having the hands to finish in tight. All 3 lines have solid defensive centers who can finish and win physical battles when space becomes more limited. Matthews is a top 3 center in the world, Tavares is a high end 1C and Gourde is a solid 2C/ elite 3C. All 3 lines have high end playmakers at RW, with Marner and Nylander both being top 10 in the league at the position and Domi being a more than capable top 6 option. All 3 lines would have an agitator in Domi/ Bertuzzi / Tanev / Gourde / Perry who can affect the game in different ways, as we've seen in years past with guys like Bennet, Tkachuk, Gudas, Perry, Maroon, etc.

That 3rd line would be elite defensively and one that you could match up against any line in the league, while still having the ability to produce offense at a high level. This would free up the 2 elite offensive lines in the top 6 from harder matchups. The 4th line is great defensively and another line you can match against high end offensive lines, while bringing speed, physicality, size and forechecking to suffocate the other team. When that 4th line isn't on the ice, you're always guaranteed to have one of Marner, Matthews, Nylander or Tavares out there, a matchup nightmare for the other team.

McCabe and Larsson would give us a legit shutdown pairing, what Dubas hoped Brodie and McCabe would be. Larsson can play more minutes than any other player in the league come playoff time. He is big, physical, a great puck mover with great mobility, and has poise with and without the puck while even being capable of chipping in offense here and there. Borgen would be the successor of guys like Schenn and Bush, filling a similar role while also being more mobile and even slightly better offensively. Benoit would provide the in zone defense every pair needs with his ability to kill the cycle, box players out at the net front, block shots and win 1 on 1 battles. Timmins would compliment him with his puck moving ability and offensive capability, something that can become more crucial when teams collapse around the net and leave more room at the point come playoff time. Overall the backend would be bigger, more mobile, more physical and likely an improvement offensively. We'd be much less likely to get eaten alive by Tampa's forecheck, or get pushed aside any time the opposing team wants to get to our net, as we saw Tkachuk/Bennet etc. do so successfully against us,

Woll would be an upgrade over last year's playoff starter in Sammy, while still having Sammy and Jones behind him.

In short, at this point in time:

Larsson > Brodie
Gourde > Jarnkrok
Tanev > Robertson
Borgen > Liljegren

With all those players brining a style of game that has proven success come playoff time, whether you want to acknowledge the abundance of evidence that supports this claim or not. This team could easily be cup favourites, both this year and next.

Yeah, I remember that I also remember that but I also remember 1) them that the last time a team changed that large percentage of their roster it was over 2 decades ago, so it's not a common occurrence 2) the Leafs brought in six guys but they only moved out two roster regulars, which means they tried to keep their guys that they valued like Brodie 3) the changes that they made were for similar players that were clear cut upgrades generally speaking. You can't blame Dubas for O'Reilly, Schenn, and Acciari ending up as rentals since Treliving was at the helm. He ended up bringing in Bertuzzi, Domi, and Klingberg instead. Klingberg hasn't worked out so that hole is still there, but the other two have been fine. The addition of Larsson would solve that. If you want a defensive 3C, then sure, Gourde fits the mold. Your other additions are not for filling current holes though but to bring in characteristic types that you think the Leafs are lacking. There's an argument for a Borgen-type player, which is something the Leafs are interested in but you would want him to replace Benoit not Brodie. Here you're suggesting Brodie and Liljegren be replaced by Larsson and Borgen which you might consider to be a massive upgrade and I won't bother trying to convince you otherwise; however, I will say keeping Brodie while adding Larsson would make the team better.



I'm not saying you shouldn't add Larsson, so there's no need to discuss Brodie vs Larsson. You're saying Larsson is cheaper than Brodie and Borgen is cheaper than Brodie both statements are true but combined they aren't cheaper than him and Larsson + Borgen aren't cheaper than Brodie + Liljegren this year (and might not even be cheaper next year either). Borgen being cheaper than Brodie is only natural since he's not as good, even if Brodie has taken a step back.

Schenn and Rielly worked out well and maybe Borgen + Rielly would be great as well but Rielly and Brodie are just fine, if you want to improve that pairing then you could always just put Larsson there if he's able to do everything that Brodie does better, but putting him McCabe as you suggested would be better. I never said Liljegren is irreplaceable and sure, offense was what was expected of Liljegren but if he ends up becoming a DFD it's not a big deal as long as he's an effective top 4 guy. The big knock on him is his injury history, so I wouldn't be opposed to trading Liljegren and getting Larrson and Borgen but only if it could be done without getting rid of Brodie. In the end though, it's not a pressing need.



It's simply not true that we are watching the same thing unfold with Robertson. Last year Robertson got all his points in his first 7 games, then went on an 8-game pointless streak. This year Robertson started hot again and cooled down but he hasn't gone more than 3 games without a point, and that's what you expect for a guy who's providing secondary scoring. Your expectations for him are unrealistic (just like Jarnkrok). He's not a bonafide top 6 player for you to be disappointed about how many goals he has thus far just because that's supposed to be his strength. Not sure what you're expecting from the 3rd line in terms of production but they have 4 goals in their last 10 games among them. So, let me know what you expect and how replacing Jarnkrok + Robertson with Gourde and Tanev is going to achieve that? You might be happier with them in defensive situations but those two have 1-point (0 goals) in their last 10 games and are producing less this season so far.



You're the one making the claim so I expect you to do research and present your findings. I was well aware of Jarnkrok's playoff production, and I suspected that's what you were going off of as if he's a top 6 player. You made no mention of what he did defensively which is part of his task. You could have said the same thing about Tanev. Your expectation for depth players is ridiculous. Most players aren't producing in the playoffs, so very few depth guys are producing a lot if any. Regardless, even if he has a history of being a ghost in the playoffs, that's not a good reason to trade him, if you're not going to trade Matthews for that same reason, why would you trade a bottom-six player for the same reason? Instead of looking at player's histories, particularly the post-season history, maybe look at what they are doing for their team now. Jarnkrok didn't provide enough secondary production for the Leafs in the post-season last year, but between his regular season production last year and this year, it's clear he can provide secondary scoring, that doesn't mean it will happen for him come playoff time though. He's also been effective in his role as a defensive player has his defense. You're grasping at straws to try to justify trading him and putting too much weight on what guys did or did not do for their team in the postseason. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that past post-season performances are meaningless, but it's usually a reason for wanting to get a player or getting rid of a player if they are a top 6, top 4, or starting goalie.



I'm not saying that Gourde and Domi are the same player. What I said was "You said they are also looking for a 3C that brings grit, well that's what Domi was advertised as and you're not satisfied, why would Gourde be any different?" What you said was "a defensive 3C along with some grit and scoring to the bottom 6". What I meant by "why would Gourde be any different" was in terms of wanting to add more grit which is why I mentioned Bertuzzi. So, the question still stands, when will you be satisfied with the grit of the forward group? When the roster looks like the Islanders?"

As for the plan Domi not being planned as the 3C, you still need to take into consideration that he hasn't played well on this team on the wing, your suggestion below is not the way to go as Marner has never played on the 3rd line and I don't think he's going to start any time soon especially considering how hard it would be to play him 20 min+. Perhaps, Domi-Gourde could work better than Domi-Kampf since Gourde has the offensive upside. How your additions and subtractions are going to affect the team's chemistry or players' usage is something a GM has to keep in mind.

If Gourde+Borgen+Tanev is a massive upgrade over Jarnkrok + Liljegren + Robertson, it should be simple enough to present your evidence. All you've done is mention why you want the SEA guys and don't want the TOR guys. Tanev is not better than Jarnkrok, so bringing him in at 2.5M doesn't make it any better. It's not realistic to expect SEA to do all that retaining anyway especially if they are providing the Leafs massive upgrades here. Tanev's also not producing more than Robertson even if he's better defensively, so it's not a massive upgrade going from Tanev to Robertson or Jarnkrok. What you said about Robertson was not true, so you might want to fact check your claims before pointing fingers. In the end, it's not an upgrade in terms of improving the secondary scoring which you're claiming is lacking. Now Gourde having a great playoff last year is great but he has been producing less since last year, and now he's producing less than Jarnkrok. So, by all means, bring him in but not at the cost of Brodie.




I meant that there's no room to have Tanev in particular, even at 2.5M.

Maybe see if Gourde+Larsson for Liljegren+Jarnkrok+...is something that could be worked out, and Seeler from PHI since you want a DFD (doesn't have to be someone who can play with Rielly). There are other defensive 3Cs out there though.

What are you on about? The holes are either there or they aren't. They are there because Dubas created them and continually failed to find a long term solution for filling them. That's why we've had to add two top 4 D at each of the last 2 deadlines, despite having made major trades for guys like Muzzin and Barrie who are no longer contributing to the team. The hole at 3C has existed since we traded Kadri and failed to replace him long term despite acquiring guys like Spezza, Thornton, Kerfoot, Foligno and ROR. The holes in the top 4 have existed since the Barrie farce and the Muzzin career ending injury, and has only been further exemplified by the losses of Schenn, Lyubushkin and Holl and the very apparent decline of Brodie and Gio.

Do you not understand the concept of the cap? Not only is Benoit making league min while Brodie is being paid like a top pairing D at more than FIVE times the cost, but Benoit has even been better defensively than Brodie. I recognize the value Brodie once had, but he is now 33 years old and this is part of the aging process for an NHL defenseman. It's hard to accept I understand, kind of like losing a childhood pet I suppose. The Larsson and Brodie comparison is important because we're operating as a team who always spends to the cap, and a players value is relative to their salary cap hit.

Maybe we're not watching the "same" thing happen with Robertson, only something incredibly similar. The fact he went 8 games without a point last year does not somehow make this year a success by comparison; he was not good enough then and he's not been good enough as of now. He has gone 3 games without a point, literally twice in the last 9 games. I'm not holding him to the standard of a top 6 winger either, his production as of late simply hasn't been good enough for a 3rd line offensive player who provides nothing outside of point production.

You think I'm sacrificing skill at the expense of grit, with a roster that still has Matthews, Marner, Nylander, Domi, Rielly, Larsson? This is still a top 3 team in terms of skill, but what you considered "grit" is what I consider to be a well understood aspect of successful hockey in a physical sport. Don't let common knowledge or years of evidence fly in the face of your delusions though!

I'm the one making the claim and you're the one pretending I don't know what I'm talking about. Can you consider yourself educated on the matter now that I've explained this very basic concept to you? Despite me having already made the point that Larsson is better than Brodie, and Borgen is better than Liljegren, the 300K in savings somehow offsets that difference based on your evaluation? If Liljegren and Brodie end up being cheaper next year it will be because they are lesser players, the cap is not going down.

Also, I am expecting too much when criticizing a top 9 forward who has only scored more than ONE, I repeat ONE goal in a postseason once, while going 5 out of 9 postseasons he's played in with ZERO, I repeat ZERO goals. Does his -12 make up for that? You're not stupid enough to pretend there's any defending this, you're just hopelessly full of **** and got caught talking out of your ass. Your backpedaling only makes it worse, I promise. Now that I've explained it MULTIPLE TIMES for you, can you please not ask me to explain it again? I went into this with the understanding that it wouldn't be like arguing with my 6 year old nephew.

To summarize, you're not saying Gourde and Domi are the same player, but you're asking why Gourde would be any different....

do you see where this is going? The reason is because THEY'RE DIFFERENT PLAYERS!

Again, as I've already explained and provided a visual example of, there is room for Tanev on this roster this year and next. There is not room for a swap of Gourde + Larsson for Liljegren + Jarnkrok because again, the salary cap still exists.

Let me be very clear here - this is not a difference of opinion, you just don't know what you're talking about. Your attempts at saving face are plain to see and quite embarrassing. Part of me feels bad for going so hard on you, but then I remember your smarmy, over-confident response that started all this. Pick an easier target next time.

Way too much reading for me but you guys have fun. If anything Affectionate, I like the targets!👍
My Christmas list:
2- RHD
1- back up goalie
1- tough guy that is an asset to play in bottom 6

Yeah quite the blurb for sure. Cheers!

Brodie is much better than Benoit, he's making 5 times more but his contract expires, but again he's much better. Benoit is a fringe NHLer. You want to talk about cap, yet you want to bring in Tanev at 2.5M (originally 3.5M) over Robertson who you are saying isn't producing enough. Tanev is producing less, I realize they are different players but you can't say the 3rd line is not producing enough and then bring in a guy who is not producing to replace him.

Going 3-games without a point isn't terrible for a 3rd line player at the frequency that it has happened for Robertson so far, he's on pace for 41 points. If you think it is then how are you fine with bringing in Tanev over him who has gone 4-games without a point and 7-games without a point? Or even bringing in Gourde who has gone pointless for a 4-game stretch, a 3-game stretch, 5-game stretch, and a 9-game stretch which he just snapped in his last game? Why doesn't your logic of keeping Lajoie in over Brodie apply here? It's because you're putting too much value on his playoff performance. He's not the only defensive 3C in the league.

If you want to have some lofty expectations for a top 9 forward, then at least judge him based on what he's done for the Leafs in both the regular season and the postseason. If you want me to stop asking you about Jarnkrok, then address all that I have asked (or don't that's up to you). Show me where you explained why you're holding Jarnkrok responsible for what he's done on different teams for his playoff history, but and ignoring what he has he done with the Leafs? He's been great in the regular season, post-season he's been underwhelming but his 1 goal and 2 assists in 11 games and +1 is not a whole lot different than Tanev's 1 goal + 4 assists in 15 games with a plus-minus of 0. There is a huge difference in their regular season production. You're overlooking that Leafs could keep Jarnkrok instead of acquiring Tanev in your proposal.

You're being hyper-critical of the Leaf players and not putting the SEA players under the same scrutiny.

Again, I'm not saying Domi and Gourde are the same player. Re-read what I said if you want.

"Pick an easier target next time"? I'm not targeting you, I'm trying to have a discussion and I have asked you to defend your position but you're just telling me "it's not a difference of opinion". Surely, if they are facts then you can present an argument that goes beyond saying player x is better than player. You went from saying "So you can make the argument that it's not worth it overall, but to suggest this trade doesn't improve the team now just shows your ignorance, and a lack of understanding for what the Leafs need and have needed for years." to saying that it's a massive upgrade that is indisputable, so how can one make the argument that it's not worth it overall? You're accusing me of targeting you, trying to save face, and being over-confident but I'm not the one throwing around insults here, I'm not making big claims and refusing to back up my claims, I'm not the one doubling down on my mistakes and trying to prove my claims without saying a whole lot, and I'm not the calling you ignorant. Quite frankly, I have nothing to be embarrassed about, I can't say the same for you. If you didn't want to have a discussion and defend your claims then you could have just said "agree to disagree" or "thank you for your feedback" and that would have saved us a whole lot of time.

Look at how you entered this conversation? Anyway, I'm not going to get caught up in a circular argument, we clearly have different philosophies and standards for this team. I said it may not be worth it overall because the package from the Leafs could probably get more, I did that purposely to avoid looking biased. Regardless, it is 100% an indisputable upgrade by any metric you want to use. I suggested this trade with playoffs in mind, where all the players the Leafs are giving up here were either non-factors (Robertson, Liljegren, Jarnkrok, Hirvonen) or a net negative (Brodie). That's compared to a #1RD, another top 4 defensive D, a guy who was successful playing at 1C and an incredible defensive forechecker who would at the very least be comparable to Acciari, but more likely an upgrade.

Let's leave it at that.