We’ll see on Wednesday.

Honestly if im Francis I take Hymans rights and run for the hills.

That would be extremely stupid for Seattle. McCann is a good player, maybe just as good as Hyman. He’s also younger, and Hyman is set to make nearly 3 times as much money as him per year on a long-term deal. Plus if they really wanted Hyman, they can sign him on July 28th.

But remember who is Seattle's head coach. Hakstol. He has familiarity with both Hyman and Kerfoot. That does have precedence in the GM's potential choices. To me its between those 2 as Hakstol never coached McCann. Got to think Francis went to him and asked who he thought would be the right fit before the trade happened. And when we consider Kerfoot stepped up his game when JT got hurt that could sway the choice into his direction.

Rn making a Seattle team now that I know the protected guys. Looks pretty good so far.

I made my own expansion draft prediction. Here's a link for it.

Hughes and Clarke are even for me so I would be happy with either

Wallstedt to SJ

I agree. And based on interviews, it seemed like Hughes wanted to play more in NJ than Clarke

Teams that likely make a trade:
Chicago
Winnipeg
Anaheim

Montreal

Finally done mine oh god my eyes and brain

Here's link mine

I actually just realized something funny

People who are talking about Kerfoot and McCann don't realize something big

Kerfoot is only making 750k this year and for a GM wanting to save money that could be of interest. Especially for a team like Seattle. Plus the following season he only makes 2.7mill. McCann on the other hand is owed 3.38 mill and that also is his QA. But with Arbitration lets be real probs gonna make above that 3.75 according to Evolving Hockey.

So what side deals do you see Seattle doing with teams.

My guess rn

Carolina has included something for Seattle not to take Bean. Maybe a 1st, maybe a good prospect with picks
Toronto will move Liligren with Kerfoot to avoid losing McCann (cause rn Liligren does not have a spot)
St Louis will add a pick so Dunn does not get taken

terrible move by Kyle if that's true. Kerfoot is good but giving up a B- prospect to keep him is bad

Not really, Hallender for Kerfoot is a good trade, and there's still a good chance they take Kerfoot.

yep, in a sense Dubas only Lost Hallander and a 7th in the expansion as McCann never officially played for the leafs so was never a leaf to begin with.

That and with Kerfoot being good on the PK and only making 750k this year thats a movable contract later on.

Here is the first of two hot takes/unpopular opinions I have:

Trading quality for quantity isn't necessarily bad.

Example:
A certain team that has a goaltendign weakness and that has a weak PK trades a 2nd line RWer that is good for 20-25G and 40-55pts per year for a good 1B goalie(35 games or so), an excellent 4C that runs their top PK unit, and a number 5 d-man who becomes their 2nd mode dependable penalty killer. You might think this is bad for the team that trades quality in exchange for quantity but I don't think it is.

Cause they plug a major hole in net and immediately improve their PK. Yes it's true that they lose 20-25G a year but if their PK improves to a point where they allow 15 less goals a year on the PK well then you're only down 5-10 goals which is easily manageable.

Now of course I don't mean to say trading Crosby for a number 3 d-man, a 2C and a 1A goalie is a good move but people who say «TrAdInG qUaLiTy FoR qUaNtITy Is BaD» are way too simplistic. It can be, but it's not necessarily bad.

2nd hot take/unpopular opinion:

The saying that «who gets the best player in a trade wins the trade» is WRONG. Or at least it's not always right.

Say a team(x) trades their top LWer who has a season left on his contract after this one deal at the TDL to a contending team for 4 assets:
-a B+ prospect
-a 2nd rounder in the year after the deal was made(becomes a first if the team wins the SC)
-a 2nd round pick in the year the trade was made
-a 3rd line player that the team immediately flips for more assets (these won't be mentioned here)

Say the team «y» doesn't win the cup in either playoff run, so the other team(x) gets a B+ prospect and 2 2nds.

The B+ prospect becomes a dependable number 4 d-man that plays on this team for 7 seasons.
The 2nd rounder becomes a 3rd RWer that plays on this team for 10 seasons
The other 2nd rounder becomes a 2 LW that scores 20 goals a season for the next 11 seasons for this team

Now, none of these pieces are as good as a top LWer is but you CANNOT tell me that the team that wins the deal is the team «y» because they «gOt ThE bEsT pLaYeR». This mentality is way too simplistic

Except Kerfoot is a player TOR already HAS. Trading a good asset for a player you might not use (*) is the definition of a LOSS. Especially when the team protects Holl, who is the definition of a replaceable player)

* now, of course, if Seattle selects Kerfoot over McCann, I won't be mad, but you get the point

The thing is though Holl makes 2mill and can play 20mins a night and puts up good PK and offensive numbers. So who in FA is better and will cost 2mill. No one. The Majority of RD available in Fa either are gonna cost significantly more, are not top 4 guys, or are to old. Throwing Liligren in with Muzzin could work but rushing him in to 20mins a night really aint the best Idea.

Like lets be real whats better

Rielly-Brodie
Muzzin-Holl
Sandin-Dermott

Rielly-Brodie
Muzzin-Liligren
Sandin-Dermott

option 2 would be a big gamble especially in the Atlantic division.

Then you got Kerfoot and his implications are tricky. Established himself on the PK, came as part of the Kadri trade. And if Kerfoot goes Dubas officially traded Kadri for nothing. RN the trade is balanced out as Kadri got his ass suspended from the playoffs.

I think there is a side deal in place but even if not losing hallander and a 7th as the expansion price really aint bad in the long run.

The difference from Kerfoot to McCann as far as selection goes is negligible. You can argue which one you would prefer (I'd like to keep McCann), but they play the same role to similar effectiveness at similar cap hits. The trade basically allowed them to have their NHL roster untouched by the expansion draft. Barring any side deal, the Leafs basically lost Hallander and a 7th to Seattle.

Look I've praised Holl many times this season but he does have his lapses that are very annoying.

Why? They had to lose someone to Seattle. Basically losing Hallender to Seattle (a guy that wouldn't be on the team in at least 3 years) is good.

McCann has got 20 goal potential and can still do PK so McCann is clearly better

Oh for sure sometimes he drives me nuts. But sometimes this guy was incredible. Like I think next to Simmonds only guy willing to drop the gloves with Tkachuck. Or when he kept Mcdavid to 0 points in that 3 game stretch where the Oilers were almost shutout 3 times by 3 different goalies. Now if there were better options in FA that Dubas could get for 2mill or less sure Holl could have been moved. But with the Defense market rn favoring expensive or LD guys I dont think moving Holl rn is wise.

Hallander is 20. He's likely to make an NHL roster in 22-23 which is not in 3 years lol