I think Keith is a good player, but he is 35 and Liljegren is 19. If Keith was a bit younger I think I wouldnt have replyed. Also why the 1st round pick.

I wouldn''t give up a future elite RD for a aging defencemen, regardless who it is. Keith is a great player and would fill the needs for Toronto to be able to make a legitimate push for a cup.

Yeah, you could maybe trade Gardnier for Keith if that would work

I just threw something together quick. It might be too much. Paul Stastny @ 50% retention was worth the #29 pick. He was a pure rental...so WPG essentially lost that pick with nothing to show. That's the risks you take @ the TDL. So it'll have to be more than just the 1st. YES...I get Timmy is MUCH more than just a little more. I just saw a D prospect replacement and took it. The real point of the post is to show that YEAH this team can easily fit BOTH Matthews and Marner. Babcock's also rumored to really like what Keith can bring to the team. $2.7M cap hit is really really good for 24 min of top pair hockey. Can he do that for all 5 years??? No, but Keith's conditioning is legendary. I wouldn't be surprised if he can be a solid contributor for all 5 years.

From a Hawks point of view...I'd replace Timmy with a different highly regarded D prospect? Ian Mitchell? I'd prefer Chad Krys, but he's LD and I'm not sure that would get it done.

Nah I wouldnt... I would wait alwhile. If he is still in the AHL 2 years from now, trade him but not yet

Toronto should not be able to trade a future prospect for a aging vetern. Like Rylee said, Gardiner and maybe a conditional 2nd if Gardiner signs with Chicago for Keith and between 20%-30% retained salary.

I hear ya. That just doesn't fit what CHI is looking for. I'd rather just have Keith for 5 more years.

Yeah I would too if he spent his whole career their.

I also the Seebrook could leave soon. So maybe add that trade with Seebrook

He's harder to move. Keith today is still a great top pair Dman. Seabrook is a good hockey player, but he's slowed down and his cap hit is too high. I think he'll be a compliance buyout when the CBA is up...or possible just retire in a few years.

I would retain about 20% of his slaray

I would too, but it all depends on what's coming back and when the trade occurs. I'd prefer to NOT have $1.4M against the cap for 6 more years. The CBA opt out comes in Sept 2019...If the owners or players opt out. If no trade happens by then...just compliance buy him out. Zero cap hit then.

I wouldn't move Seabrook at all. Yes he's harder to move, although Chicago needs him. If he were to go to Toronto, we would have a legitimate chance at a joke. Right handed, stay at home defencemen, reliable, etc. Seabrook and (a little off topic from Chicago and Toronto) Mark Methot from Dallas are by far the best stay at home defencemen in the league with lots of experience.

The real hard part about Seabrook is the term and size of the contract. I agree with every word you just said. It's just ~$7M for 5.5 years. I think CHI and TOR would be great trade partners in some fashion. TOR is clearly in win now mode. The Hawks want picks/prospects. TOR has picks prospects. CHI can provide experienced players (They HAVE to eat cap) How? IDK

Thoughts on this:

LEAFS TRADE
Timashov, Dmytro -> growing prospect
Hainsey, Ron -> used to flip for picks
(50% retained salary - $1,500,000)
Conditional 2020 2nd round pick
(If Toronto makes it the playoffs, they will receive a 2nd round pick. If Toronto makes it to the conference finals, the 2nd round pick turns into a 1st round pick)

CHICAGO TRADES
Seabrook, Brent
(42% retained salary - $2,887,500)

Keith could be fun but not if it takes from the prospect pool. Liljegren and Sandin are non starters. Borgman or Rosen may get the conversation started.

The hard part is the very bottom sentence. ~$3M in cap lost for the next 5 years. The return would have to be sky high...not saying TOR should pay something sky high, but from CHI's pov pursue the compliance buyout option first. That's Roughly $15M in cap! Heck TOR should wait too! They might be able to sign Seabrook for a decent cap hit while giving up Nothing! I get the Hainsey flip...AND I like that thought. There couldn't be anything conditional. It's 5 years of cap retention. IDK it comes down to that cap.

The problem with any Keith deal is that his best days are clearly behind him and any team trading for him is doing so for the name more than asset they'll get back. Plus he dictates where he wants to go which limits the options. His contract is perfect for Arizona since its a back diving deal but does Keith want to go there? I don't think so.

Honestly, I think Seabrook, Keith and Toews will be Chicago lifers. There are simply too many hurdles for them to jump over to make a deal work. Kane on the other hand, since his value is still high still has a potential to be moved. Teams would be way more willing to give up the farm if it was for a guy they knew could still produce like his contracts dictates.

I agree with every word you said. It's 100% up to Keith (and the other as you mentioned) to waive. AND they are probably lifers truly. I'm actually A-OK with that! It was fun! Is Keith today worth $2.7M? Oh heck ya. Keith today is worth his $5M. I would agree he may not be worth the $5M in the future, but it wouldn't be $5M...it would be $2.7M. VERY hard to have a $2.7M bust just kinda in general.

***EDIT***Keith is an old contract...TOR could technically threaten to buy him out unless CHI takes him back...That cap recapture would incentivize CHI to trade something back to TOR instead of Dubas buying him out. Anyway...Just thoughts out loud. I'm not demanding anything or talking poorly of others.

Yeah its not so much that he isn't worth his actual cap hit. 5M nowadays isn't even that much. Its that he's 5M/year + signed for 5 years more + 35 years old + team will have to give up assets to get him, etc etc etc

If Keith hit free agency right now, Im sure a team would gladly give him his 5.5M cap for at least 2 years and then go year by year after that. The cap hit isn't really the problem.

BUT it's the benefit of TOR. Low Cap Certainty. So in 4 years...Keith isn't worth $2.7M. Hey Rocky...I'm about to buy him out...What do you think of that? Oh, you don't like that??? What are you willing to give me? I'm sure it'll be more cordial than I'm making it.

Lol, if you are in the ahl for 4 years it means you suck

Yeah sure that would be all good but if that's even a plausible scenario, why trade Liljegren and a 1st? How much more would TO need to just trade for a Parayko for example at that point? The higher cost in Parayko can be offset by the addition of roster player like Brown for example.

Which would you rather have: (Example of course)

Keith @ 2.7M for Liljegren+1st 2019

or

Parayko @ 5.5M for Brown @ 2.M, Liljegren + 1st 2019 +Bracco, etc

I don't want to go off on a tangent too much...not intentionally anyway, but do you think that gets Parayko? I don't. I think STL is going to demand something more than the Dutch trade. 3.5 years of Parayko @ $5.5M >> 1.5 years of Dutch @ $6M. Also, this puts TOR closer to the cap after signing Matthews/Marner...maybe no room for Kap?

***EDIT*** not that this would make a big difference in the trade, but it's more than nothing. Parayko also has a diminishing salary where Dutch's salary increased.