Numbers are unrealistic.

Aside from that, I'm not sure how we change this philosophy without moving away from the core 4. All the data shows this ingrained in the pay of Matthews/Marner.

The team has fundamentally destroyed the value of its bigger stats by teaching them to play in a way that won't win a cup.

It’s impossible to move away from the core 4.

Not impossible but very hard for sure.

I'm not critical of your AGM, just saying that it feels at this stage like the problem you are mentioning (which I agree with) isn't just reflected by the choice of supporting cast but is now fundamentally ingrained into Marner/Matthews specifically and I'm not sure it's possible to change that.

Another bad thought,,,,,,Kampf waiving to any poor team with cap. Why do Leaf fans think this is even possible? Timmins and Brodie both on the team? Keep Liljegren, keep the first and Robertson and forget about Schmaltz.
Minten and Cowan Leafs in October?

I’ve sort of just become content with the fact that this core cannot and likely will not be changed. I still think it’s possible to build a team around Marner Nylander Matthews that wins big games. Having said that, I don’t think this team wins with Tavares. And I think the clear route forward is to just wait out this dreadful Tavares contract, officially marking the end of a wasted era, and a start of a new one more serious about winning. I’d like to clarify, I do not support the structure of allocating 40 million (or whatever it is at this point) to 4 forwards. However, I don’t think trading Marner is the best (or necessary) solution to this issue.

That's a lot for a 23 goal score who has never played a full 82 games in 8 NHL seasons

I don’t really understand how a new era more serious about winning starts with an at least 12 million Marner extension. I get JTs money has weighed us down a bit too but every team has a bad contract or two. Edmonton is in the second round with Campbell 5 million in the AHL all year. Seguin and benn are probably overpaid for what they can do now.

You’d be looking at 37 million for matthews, nylander and Marner. Ya the cap is going up but I don’t understand what else this group needs to prove to get everyone on board that it doesn’t work.
I’m not even saying you couldn’t spend 35+ million on 3 forwards but not these 3.
They all have had issues underperforming at times but matthews and nylander are extended and counting in playoffs are the better players than Marner. Its time to try something else and give the team some cap flexibility.

I know I sound like a broken record, but the odds Marner waives his NMC is incredibly low.

By allocating only 37 million to 3 forwards, the rest of the team may look completely different from previous years, which could somehow allow Marner to perform in the playoffs to something idk.

If I'm being honest, I just don't see a scenario where we trade Marner and become a better team. The way I see it, we're going to lose in the playoffs either way. At least by keeping Marner, I get to watch exciting hockey 3-4 times a week, lol.

Man I feel where you’re coming from but it’s terrible fans would feel that way.
I think a lot of people are afraid we go back to a team that can’t even make the playoffs but the base of a strong team is still there even without Marner. Over 100 points this year when Samsonov couldn’t stop anything until January and riding Martin jones in net with other injuries to the group.
A stronger goalie tandem and blue line should lead to a great regular season again even without marners 90 points. Cheaper forwards can get 50-60 points and move points can come from the blue line.
What if they traded Marner for Theodore and signed at least one of zadorov, tanev or Roy?
Still money remaining for another goalie and forwards in the 3-6 million range.

I still don't think our team would improve that much (if at all) if we went through with that trade. I think it's safe to say that we're just making a change for the sake of it. But I think if you look at the history of the NHL, I can't recall one time when a contending team traded a superstar in one of their best players and actually improved or came out as a winner of the trade. A lot of these proposals on this site just seem like the main intention is to get rid of Marner without actually focusing on what could actually improve our team. Obviously, most of these fans believe that just by getting rid of him, we're improving. I personally don't share that same view, but I can see why some might.

So I wouldn’t say I view it like that. The leafs keep losing in the playoffs because they can’t score enough. And mainly because the powerplay can’t score. They need to fix that powerplay, Marner is a big part of why it’s a problem. They all are in a way but Marner is predictable and isn’t a shooting threat, neither is Rielly. Trading Marner for a d that can run Pp1 or to have money to sign one (Montour) can fix that issue.
They also give multiple games away in a series from just not being ready to play it seems. Games 1 and 4 this year. Game 3 in the second round last year. Games 2 and 4 in 2022. That has to be an issue in the room, maybe a new coach can change these things but I don’t think it will be enough.
Leafs are paying Matthews and nylander enough to drive a line each in the top 6, they shouldn’t need Marner. Spend the money to make the team deeper all around.

That's a valid opinion. I just don't see having an extra 12 million in cap guaranteeing a better team. Sure, having it all in 1 player like Marner has its downfalls, but 12 million in cap space can easily be given to like 3 mid-players or smth, idk. And I definitely don't trust Treliving with that money either, lol. Like, Kadri and Coleman together make the same amount as Marner. Can you be certain that having those two players (or players like that) would make the team substantially better now and in the future over having 1 Marner? Maybe they'll produce more in the playoffs, but I just don't see that as a guarantee.

The risk of trading Marner and getting worse outweighs the risk of keeping him and not improving, to me.