I see 2 roster players, next to Liljegren or top RD defenceman in Niemela, 1st round pick, plus another prospect or pick just to keep Rakall. Sorry I’m not tying to beat a dead horse but that’s just a lot for 1 player who hasn’t been good for over two years. Call it snake bitten or what, he’s not scoring like he used too. I think Pearson would fit in nicely or Buchnevich.
Or just stay pat and see what this group looks like with a healthy Robertson and Thornton. Maybe no adds are needed

Buchnevich would cost more than what I posted. Don't see why you're saying that's an option if your arguing against spending too much already

He’s on an expiring deal, IMO
1st + Amirov for 50% retention Buchnevich. That wouldn’t get it done.

A 1st + Amirov is more than I proposed.. it's better quality of prospect by far.

Buchnevich expires this off-season but is an RFA so the team retains control. Which adds to his price and acquisition. The Rangers also don't need prospects, they need roster players. Specifically left handed d-man and centres. They wouldn't even take the offer you proposed.

You are proposing the Leafs trade an established NHL defenceman with top 4 potential in Dermott, a useful 4th NHL player in Engvall, the leafs second or arguably best RD defenceman in Niemela, a 2021 1st, and then another prospect or pick just to keep Rakall from getting selected from Seattle.

And me offering up 1st and Amirov, who may or may not turn out to be a top 6 player is too much? I’m pretty sure if I post that Ranger fans would accept.

News flash: that "useful 4th line player" is gonna have to be moved in any deal that the Leafs bring in salary because of the cap. Niemela isn't the teams 2nd best right handed defence prospect, he's arguably top 5. He had a good world junior, that doesn't make he jump up the rankings that far. He's likely a #4-5 guy. & how can you sit there and justify giving up a prospect that "may or may not reach his potential" but then turn around and tell me that my proposal is too much partly because the prospect I said "may or may not reach his potential"? You're being quite hypocritical.

My point is that the Rakell naysayers are ignoring the fact that he's an improvement over EVERYONE you have at LW right now.

"Rakell was paid to put up goals." Where did you get THAT idiocy? Rakell was paid to be a top-6 LW. He does that. Hyman was paid to be a top-6 LW. He does that.

Rakell is also a much better defensive player than Hyman. I'm not knocking your best LW; I'm just pointing out that this underselling of him is unsupported by facts.

Gee you say those three players don't factor into Leafs long plans. They fit in long term than Rakell's 1.5 years. But agree with, I where does an additional winger fit into the Leafs lineup this year.

I don't know what the obsession with this trades for winger is lately. Leafs seem to flush with wingers....admitting some of the suggestion are better.
How would the Leafs even have the cap to sign Buchnevich this summer, and he could be lost to Seattle.

Yeah, I was making the point that these people keep saying Rakell is garbage and hasn't had a good year since 2018 but he's outscored their best LW both years since on a much weaker team, but all I got was moronic comments like "Terrible comparison. Rakell was paid to put up goals." as if that's actually a valid thought.

Uhm, yeah it kinda does? ... people continually said Marner wasn't worth his contract when he wasn't scoring in the playoffs. But now it's fine when a guy doesn't score at the same pace for 3 years?

Classless comment. Wouldn't expect anything less.

My god what does Marner have to do with anything he said? You have some serious comprehension problems.

Can you seriously not read kid? He said " "Terrible comparison. Rakell was paid to put up goals." as if that's actually a valid thought." - saying that it's not a valid point to justify that players are paid to score. So people saying that Marner wasn't doing anything when he wasn't scoring (despite still contributing in other ways) is perfectly valid.

Learn to read and comprehend yourself there bud.

Imagine taking a Hyman and Rakell comparison and then somehow going off on a tangent and coming back with Marner and his 10.8M contract vs Rakell and his 3.8M contract. It’s actually quite something.

What do I and Mitch Marner have to do with anything?

You really are a fine representative of Leafs Nation.

That's an absolutely valid opinion. The point that I was trying to make is that the objections that he's (1) fallen off from his prior years' production, and (2) Leafs have equivalent talent in the system are spurious arguments, because he's every bit as productive as Hyman, better than everyone else you've got now (why else would you be trading for him?), and cheaper than most top-6 LWs. I've had lots of discussion with highly knowledgeable Toronto adherents @LeafsFanForSomeReason and @PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood and we agree that (a) there IS an intelligent range for a Rakell acquisition that would be sensible for the Maple Leafs, (b) you'd have a decision to make about Dermott and Holl vis-a-vis the expansion draft, and (c) there are some other entirely reasonable alternatives to Rakell out there. But rejecting a Rakell trade out of hand, or even for the wrong reason, is not a knowledgeable action.

Lol. You literally said " "Terrible comparison. Rakell was paid to put up goals." as if that's actually a valid thought." Which means you're saying that players aren't paid to score goals and saying it's not a valid thought if someone says they are paid to score goals. So where Marner come in, is where he struggled to score goals in the play-in's last year and people on this site jumped at the chance to say he wasn't good or worth his contract because of it (not saying you said it, just people on this site). Marner's clearly paid to put up points. So is Rakell. Or do you think Rakell is paid to play a physical role and get the puck for other players like Hyman?

Appreciate your points, I’d argue not knowledgeable. My basis for the post wasn’t to start a feud only the cost of Rakall with retention is way too costly. The only way it could possibly work was if the Ducks has a need or want for Kerfoot. The salaries work, money in money out. But to give up the assets to attain Rakall with 50% retention then we’d need to give up another prospect or pick just to keep Seattle from selecting him. This move does not make sense for all those parts. Again, not hating but he’s not the same player he once was. If the Leafs are giving up a ton I hope it’s for a sure thing and not ‘we hope he regains his scoring touch’. That’s it.

Again, that's an entirely valid point. But I'd like you to re-consider the premise about having to give up additional assets to protect Rakell. Which would you rather have -- Rakell and one of Holl and Dermott (because Seattle can't take them both), or one of Holl and Dermott protected and one exposed? It's not as simple a question as it may seem at first glance; I think it matters only if you believe that there's an appreciable difference between the two defensemen. Note that if you acquire Rakell, you get to protect Kerfoot, too.

I’m not a Kerfoot fan, he is miscast on Leafs. At 3.5 mil I expect more for a 3C, he can’t win faceoff’s, limited offence, don’t get me started. Would be delighted if Seattle took him off the books. I don’t want to lose Dermott or Holl. I worry the Leafs will not have the cap space to keep Rielly and believe Dermott and Sandin plus Muzzin can carry the load on LD with Morgan’s departure. Holl has become better than I ever imagined, even after a very poor play in the series against CLB he has improved he’s play considerably. IMO if Dermott is not traded for FWD help this year they will need to spend prospect/pick to have Seattle take Engvall or Kerfoot. If we trade for Rakall, then we are out those prospects/picks and he’s own protection from Seattle. To big a price. I think also the biggest factor that hasn’t been addressed is the two week waiting period for Rakall to quarantine. If the Leafs make a roster move, it’s in division