Wasn't it reported that MAF won't accept any trade at this point?

I'd personally rather have Knies. Even if Robertson has a ton of grit/fight in him...we have Kane and Debrincat. Knies is at least a powerful forward...which we don't have many of...

That's been officially debunked. Allen Walsh (his agent) has come out publicly and said all options are still on the table.

Interesting.

I would not accept that as toronto

It was reported he doesn't want to move, but there are conflicting reports on this both from Chicago outlets

Great point

Yeah, I think it's just a bit too much, but not by a lot. IMO if one of those firsts becomes a second or maybe a conditional 3rd (becoming a 2nd or 1st if they reach the finals) it would be a little closer.

The ask is way too high for Toronto. Fleury is a rental goalie, he's not going to get the moon. Hagel is just a young player who's running an unsustainable shooting %, there's going to be some heavy regression there going forward. At that kind of cost, he can regress in Chicago next season.

Well the Leafs goaltending has fallen off a steep cliff. Campbell, since january 1st, is posting a .897 sv % which obviously isn't going to get them anywhere in the playoffs so a change is needed there first and foremost. Widely reported the Hawks aren't shopping Hagel and have declined at least 3 if not 4 offers of a 1st and good prospect (Toronto was one of those teams) so it's fair to assume a top prospect and 1st would be needed. It was rumored that a package of multiple top picks and a top prospect is on the table now for Hagel and Flowers with likely Mrazek going the other way. This is probably close to what is on the table to get Chicago to listen.

The hardest part is Mrazek. The Hawks have reportedly turned down (4) different teams that offered a 1st and top prospect for Hagel...so that's the bench mark at the minimum the hawks are looking for Hagel. So a 1st for taking on Mrazek and giving MAF 50% retained...I'd argue that I'd want more to be perfectly honest. The Hawks don't WANT Mrazek. Mrazek is likely being forced upon them.

MAF would likely NOT be a rental. Of course he can change his mind at any moment, but he himself has come out and said that he wants to extend wherever he ends up because he doesn't want to move his family around. He wants to win and he wants to stay in one place. I think he extends on a 2 year $4M deal.

And that would still be a rental when it comes to what Chicago is trading. Chicago doesn't get value for a decision Fleury is making in the offseason.

How is 3 playoff runs a rental? Is Matthews a rental in your mind? Are we all just rentals on this planet? You're deep man!

We know the Hawks have passed on multiple offers of a 1st and good prospect for Hagel, so it's going to take more then that to pry Hagel out. Not saying it's fair, but that's the reality and luxury the Hawks have.

Flowers is going to take a 2nd retained, but throw in a an overpaid backup on a multi-year deal with Mrazek and it's going to easily bump that to a 1st for Flowers and IMO it's not worth it for the Hawks...Mrazek sucks and only was good behind the best defense in the league in Carolina historically which would have made a lot of goalies look good. Mrazek was clearly a acquisition that was overpaid for by the Leafs. Just can't see anyone wanting to take on that cap hit for a backup for multiple years which is why I hope Chicago can flip him for something if this trade went through.

Latest rumor is that a package of multiple top picks and a top prospect is on the table now for Hagel and Flowers with likely Mrazek going the other way.

Chicago isn't trading 3 playoff runs, they are trading 1. MAF might sign with his new team in the offseason but that isn't what Chicago is trading.

MAF won't accept the trade. He has the right. He's going to INSIST on an extension...OR NO TRADE

Yeah, I get that. Personally I think a 1st + top prospect is a fine return for Hagel, but as I've said in other threads, the only thing you up to get in moving Hagel is another Hagel, so does it even make sense to move him?. CHI is going to rebuild, so unless they feel this is going to be a very long rebuild like DET, then yeah, you move Hagel, but if they're only looking at maybe a four-ish year rebuild then you keep him.

At that price, there's no trade anyway so that won't be a problem.

I 100% agree with you. I wouldn't trade Hagel at all. This is just the Frank Seravalli rumor mill churning.

Couldn't agree more. A late first is nothing but a bag of magic beans with less then a 30% chance of getting a full-time NHL player based on historical stats. You'd hope with Robertson, despite being a bit fragile, you get production close to Hagel thus making the 1st another remote chance if it fails. But yes, to your point, trading Hagel would be foolish for a team rebuilding in a 2 to 3 (maybe 4) year window.

It's been already rumored this is the type of deal on the table as of now. Whether you or I like it, doesn't mean it's not on the table or won't happen and certainly neither of us can speak for the respective teams. For the record, to me Mrazek is a cap dump and for that reason I don't like the trade. Leafs should have to pay to move mrazek...he's nothing more then an overpaid backup goalie which there are plenty of much cheaper backup goalie options in the NHL.

He's awful. I've been stating for months now that he's consistently inconsistent. What that truly means though... at some point ... who knows when ... He'll get hot. Maybe the Hawks could move him then? Otherwise taking on cap dumps is what rebuilding teams need to do unfortunately.

If the Canes can get some retention on Kubalik, Canes accept. Mind you, they probably accept regardless. For the Toronto trade, I am pretty sure Flower would block a trade to Toronto with his NTC, and Mrazek might block a trade to Chicago, and absolutely block a trade to Edmonton. Plus, I’m pretty sure Toronto would have to pay a bit more for this trade to go down, and hope like he’ll that neither goalie blocks the trade with their NTC’s.

Where are these rumors coming from? This should be funny.