I like this idea. DeMelo is for sure an upgrade on our third pairing, and Spurgeon is would be really great for us. My main concern would be resigning him...

That price is ridiculous for Spurgeon. Zaitsev is a top 4 RHD and if he's healthy this year will be much better than last year. Throwing in Brown as well as a first is just insane cost for a player that is a marginal upgrade over Zaitsev. The only benefit is the net saving in cap space which is under a million so its not even worth it from that perspective. All in all, this trade weakens Toronto without creating space.

Minnesota has enough depth as it is. Downgrading your RHD for a second/third liner, taking up more cap space, makes no sense in their situation.

I was expecting this response, and believe me I do like Zaitsev and would much rather deal Gardiner, but I don't see another way that we get a legitimate 2D (which is what Spurgeon is) without moving more valuable pieces. Yes I agree this may be an overpay, but all the pieces moved are secondary pieces and not Nylander. The Wild won't accept "market value" for Spurgeon, and why should they?

By the time you have to sign Spurgeon, Marleau is off the books and the cap has likely rised a fair bit. I don't see that as much of an issue honestly.

Possibly not. But Matthews, Marner, Kapanen, Nylander will have new contracts, and Andersen will want a raise a year later.

Fair points. Spurgeon is a guy you make some room for and you likely have Liljegren and Sandin on entry levels by that point anyway. Regardless that's two years away and two years of a really solid RHD.

Yeah for sure. I'd probably considering letting Spurgeon walk if Liljegren shows he's ready.

So why would you overpay for a guy you are going to let walk? This is a pattern that never works but teams always do this. Overpay for something only to never get the value out of the trade. As others have mentioned, the young depth will be pushing into the lineup pretty soon. Why not roll with what we have and see how things unfold. Jumping the gun and overpaying when the window to compete is at least the next 8 years is just silly.

Overpay? Yes maybe the price was a little steep, but Zaitsev really isn't that good he's at best a 2nd/3rd pairing guy. Brown has middle six upside which isn't bad. Maybe the 1st could become a 2nd, but to be honest Brown and Zaitsev are both spare pieces on the Leafs.

As Spurgeon would be as well. This is a common theme on this site, people moving minor parts around for other minor parts. That is all fine and good but if you're moving 2 spare parts and a high draft pick for another spare part, why are you even bothering?

Trades should always improve the overall total state of the team. This trade improves the defence marginally and lowers the skill of the forwards and also uses up a future asset in the draft pick. There isn't a net benefit here.

Spurgeon is a quality top pairing defenseman not a spare part.

He's a above average 2nd pairing defenceman. He's good but he's still a spare part. He's not the stud blueliner who is the envy of other teams. He's a good defencemen with a right shot. If he was left handed, we aren't even mentioning him here. Don't get me wrong though, he's a very valuable player. He just isn't enough of a step up that it makes sense to make the trade you mentioned above.

He'd improve the defence a couple points but when you factor in the lost production from Brown and the lost draft pick, then the trade isn't a positive gain overall for Toronto.

That's my point, the proposed trade does not end with an overall increase in talent on the Leafs.

Spurgeon eats up 24 minutes a night, and has a positive CF% rel unlike both of Zaitsev and Brown. Spurgeon isn't a franchise D but he's a quality puck mover which is an asset the Leafs would very well use.

You're getting hung up on individual players here. I'm not arguing that Spurgeon isn't good. He's fine, and I'd be happy to see him on the Leafs. However, my point is the trade you proposed weakens the Leafs. Its not a net positive move. It improves 1 pairing of the defence, weakens another, weakens the forwards and weakens future depth by trading an asset.

On top of all that, TO is in a massive cap crunch next season (Only next season however) so the Leafs need to be really smart with their assets. This trade does more harm than good, which is why I am saying what I am saying.

Think big picture always, individuals are part of that picture but if you can't look past the individuals you end up with a shitty team. Just look at Edmonton, they made trades based on individual issues and then traded Hall for Larson. That's what happens when you think about specific players in a trade instead of the overall state of the team after a trade.

So in conclusion, if you really want Spurgeon, make a trade is fair but also doesn't harm the team.

Brown is going to be spending his time as a Leaf as a 3rd/4th liner. Moving him gives roster spots to out NHL ready Marlies wingers. You make a fair point, but I'm saying that the Leafs have the depth to pull of this type of trade.

Of course they have the depth to pull it off, but my point remains. The trade proposed is too much for the assets coming back. If the Leafs have the depth to make a move, why spend assets that you can potentially find in house. Holl looked good in his 2 game cameo last season and very well good be a servicable RHD for the Leafs. His contract is cheap and with the power the forwards have, it makes his job much easier than if he was on a slow more defensive team. As it is now, the defence just needs to skate back and get the puck fast so they can turn it up ice.

Brown is a guy who is on a cheap contract and adds a lot of value to the forwards, since he can play anywhere on the right side and is a really good penalty killer as well. Can he be replaced? Probably, but can you keep him and add a young defenceman who can get the job done well enough on the back end? Until that question gets answered, I'm not sending good assets to other teams.