Just a casual 11+ million dollars in cap being exchanged for 3 picks over two seasons lol

It's something you see every day, no big deal.

Jake Muzzin is a negative asset

hes not, narrative is very ignorant

It’s the flat cap era my dude.

If he had value or was willing to waive he would be gone

the season starts in 2 months, while i think theres more value in keeping him because hes nowhere near as bad as everyone says he is, hes still not a negative value

If he stays healthy for a full season u might be right. But he’s old and guys don’t usually get less injury prone at this point in their careers lol.

If Muzzin was on the Ducks he would be worth a 1st round pick from a contender at the deadline.

That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day

well hes alot better than chiarot, and if chiarot can get a first then, based off deadline deals teh past few years

Chiarot was expiring. Like I said it give it a year.

Here in one sentence is the root of the problem from which most Toronto fans suffer: the conflation of trade value with playing value, and the conflation of both with some "Platonic ideal" of universal value.

On the last point first, players don't have the same value to all teams. Say that a player is a perfectly good #2C. That player would be worth more to Boston, who are pretty anxious to get a #2C, than he would be to Edmonton or Toronto, who are rumored to have 2 pretty decent centermen already.

To my knowledge, nobody who says Muzzin is a negative (trade) value, or even low (trade) value, is doing so based on the argument that he's a lousy defender or even "bad" in general. On the contrary -- many of us who decline or object to Muzzin trades to our favorite teams do so on the basis that his cap hit does not justify his acquisition, especially if we're talking about non-contending teams like Anaheim who won't sniff the playoffs this season or contending teams like Los Angeles for whom Muzzin is a numerical impossibility. I have made the argument in numerous posts that Muzzin has significant value to the Maple Leafs because taking him out of your defense would be to seriously weaken it -- more value to Toronto on the ice than losing his cap hit would recover, because you have no real internal replacement for him (please don't try to tell us that Sandin or Giordano is) and what's left on the free-agent market isn't even as good as your own guys. (DeHaan? DeKeyser? Please.)

You're absolutely right that Toronto should keep him. He's worth more to the Maple Leafs than he is to any one of the other 31 teams. The defenses of most contenders don't need him because their top-4's are mostly well-set and the defenses of all non-contenders don't need him because HE WON'T HELP.

I agree with you that Muzzin is important to the Leafs, the only way to clear Muzzin's cap hit and have their D improve would be as part of a package deal for a better D-man from a team that's likely to miss the playoffs (ie. Shea Theodore in Vegas). However, even if Muzzin did have low or negative trade value, he wouldn't be that hard to get rid of (ie. Mrazek trade).

Yeah, and there are your problems in a nutshell: Las Vegas is trying to shed cap, not add $425,000 to it, and Muzzin would have to waive his NTC to go anywhere. (To be fair, Las Vegas is one of the teams I'm pretty sure he would be willing to go to, if he wanted to go anywhere.) To get the younger and more productive Theodore, you'd have to take some other big cap hit off the Golden Knights' hands, which would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise from Toronto's point of view.

I agree and I explored the possibility of a Vegas trade yesterday. For it to make sense, it would need to be a 3-team trade. I came up with this trade: Leafs trade Muzzin, Kerfoot, and a pick, prospect, or Holl to Vegas, Vegas trades Marchessault and Theodore to a 3rd team who are willing to retain, and the 3rd team trades Marchessault and Theodore to Toronto with 50% retained on each of them, in exchange for picks, prospects, and/or Holl. The 3rd team could be someone like Arizona, Chicago, Philadelphia or Seattle. Vegas saves cap space and gets assets in the process. Toronto clears cap space, makes upgrades, and neither player is a rental. The 3rd (rebuilding team) uses some of their extra cap space to secure more picks/prospects for their rebuild.

All three of those guys to the Ducks are though

ok but did I say all 3 were? what was even the point of that

I was just simply stating. What was even the point to get all bent out of shape

what? i responded to someone talking about 1 guy, you chime in hours later with needing to get your opinion in for something that I didnt even bring up in the first place, sounds to me like youre the bent out of shape one

Sorry guy. Didn’t know I couldn’t offer insight. Maybe next time I’ll do better

Lol someones pissy

I really wish I was. I’d have more reason to want to go back and fourth with ya but I’m just not about it today

Have a better rest of your day!

Muzzin isn't a negative asset, especially to Toronto (to whom he's more valuable than to anyone else), nor is rental Kerfoot, nor is rental Holl, but none of the three of them have any appeal to Anaheim.

If you could somehow hold on to Kerfoot and Holl until the trade deadline, I'll bet that they could give you Montreal-like returns. (Kerfoot's similar to Lehkonen's, Holl's similar to Kulak's.)