replace Sandin with Niemela

And retain 50% of Miller's contract and I would do that trade.

nope if you want 50% retained add a 2nd too then

Also replace Kerfoot and Robertson with Knies.

We literally gave you Dahlstrom, will need to change the prospect back to abruzzese and the pick is debatable whether its the 2nd or not.

That's just too much for a rental.

Nope

Then there's no deal to be made.

If this is how your GM operates you are going to be left watching him walk at the end of the season. It's just not reasonable. A 1 year rental doesn't get these sort of Grade A prime super star package. Miller is turning 30 and needs 9 million on his next deal.

Miller will be traded if an extension can't be reached, just not to the Leafs, and he doesn't NEED 9 million a season on his next deal, he just WANTS it

You think that a '23 1st and 2 good prospects is a "Grade A prime super star package?" And since when have NHL GM's been known to do what's reasonable?

Right, because all Leaf players and prospects are crap. You are just hilarious.

I never said anything like that, you're putting words in my mouth

I understand you guys just suffered through Benning but most GM's make reasonable decisions. I think if anyone can beat a package of Kerfoot, Robertson, Niemela and a 1st for Miller at 50% then that GM is overpaying. I think this is a super steep price for TO to pay but it's a 1 year go all in rental acquisition to go for it all.

You win, you get the last word.

From the Canucks point of view Kerfoot is a cap dump and Robertson doesn't have much value. If Miller is traded it will be to a team that wants to give him an extension and therefore wouldn't be a rental. I don't think Toronto would be a good trading partner for Vancouver for that reason.

You mean from the Canuck fans who hate the Leafs perspective. No one with any grasp of reality calls a 50 point player at 3.5 million as a cap dump. Then again you and your buds also argue Myers and Poolman have value at their full cap hits so

Don't tell me what I mean or what I think. The reason Kerfoot would be a cap dump in this trade is that he's a UFA at the end of the season and the Canucks would be unlikely to resign him. It not that he's a bad player, he just isn't what we need and Toronto would be including him in the trade to clear cap space.
Maybe you should relax and remember that this is all just for fun and we are all just offering our opinions as none of us are NHL GM's.

That makes Kerfoot a prime rental asset. Come on dude, I don't believe for a second that you don't see that. It's just this weird "I am going to pretend hard negotiate this and win!" Thing so many people on here do. If you had a 50 point winger, I don't care who, literally could be anyone 26-28 year old pending FA, you would hope that could bring you a 1st as a high end asset.

So please tell me how the Canucks getting Kerfoot to at the very least contribute all over your lineup and at best, he brings you a 2nd or better if he has a big year prior to the deadline and at the very least a 3rd. On top of whatever assets are used to get Miller.

Toronto should trade Kerfoot as a rental to a team looking for rental players and get all the draft picks for themselves..

Nope, this deal is fair for a rental who may not resign after this year.

Knies is too much, Miller is only a rental. This deal is fair

Sure - not a big change

But he will most likely get between $8-9M per season

I don't think Kerfoot is just a cap dump. Had a very strong season and his a versatile C/W who can penalty kill and could help the canucks this year and would most likley resign as he is from VAN.