Joined: Jul. 2021
Posts: 1,052
Likes: 548
MacKinnon and Huberdeau are intriguing, not just because they’d be an upgrade over Marner but also because of the cap hit they’d free up. However, that’s one reason I don’t think their current teams would do it. It would already put Florida over the cap. (It’s harder to judge the impact it would have on Colorado because they have so many unsigned players.) You could argue that that they’d have to deal with that next year anyway if they want to extend these guys, but a lot can change in a year so there are benefits to not dealing with cap issues before you have to.
Another issue is that like the Leafs, these teams are in win-now mode. If the trade makes sense for Toronto because it makes them better now, it makes sense for Florida and Colorado not to do it for the same reason. The Leafs would need to deal with somebody who’s not a contender, like Chicago, but you don’t trade Marner for a year of Patrick Kane. I don’t know if I’d trade Nylander for him either, but if I did, I’d want Chicago to retain half of his salary, so it’s more like a Kadri deal than a Kawhi deal.
The other consideration in these trades is what’s going to happen to these players when their contracts run out. I think Marner could be a Leaf for life, not just for the three years left on his contract, so I don’t think I’d give that up for just one year of anybody. Keeping him probably increases the chances of Matthews wanting to stick around too.
Going all in for one year doesn’t work as well in today’s NHL anyway. Even if you have the best team, the odds of winning the cup in any given year are still against you, so once you develop into a contender, you want to keep the core together because it might take several years to get over the top. So I’m keeping Marner and Nylander, and aiming a little lower than MVP-level players if I’m going after a 1-year rental.