Say it with me Anaheim, we're not paying for anyone's cap dump!

Muzzin comes with picks or you can call up another team, assuming he would even waive his NTC.

Using Anaheim as an example, besides Muzzin would be an amazing addition for your young defense core for his 2 remaining seasons. Chill

You have to be kidding....right?.........Ducks Coach and GM would both drive to the airport to personally pick up Muzzen if he agreed to waive his NTC to join the Ducks.

Explain why I would be? We have a lot of LHD to develop to see what we have in them, and our 1LD spot is locked up long term. Is he a good player? Sure, when he's healthy. Is he going to help the Ducks do anything over the remaining two years of his contract? No, most likely not.

We don't need more veteran presence on the D, half of them are. We don't need a 2LD from outside the organization, and we certainly don't need to be tying 5.6 mil up for the next two seasons.

Oh, but see, Toronto DOES need to dump cap, and there's what, 4 or 5 teams who can realistically take Muzzins contract? You see the miscalculation you Leafs fans are making is assuming Muzzin should be as valueable to us as he is to you. He is massively valueable to you, he's not worth the 5.6 million to us, because he doesn't get us anywhere. But the cap space he does occupy, that's VERY valueable to you. That's the ability to resign Sandin, and the cap space to go and pick up a rental at the deadline to try and break the curse.

You are buying 5.6 mil in cap space for the next two years, that's why you are sending the draft picks, or a prospect we like, with Muzzin. Or you can try calling one of the other teams who can take his contract without sending cap back the other way, but they will tell you the same thing.

Kane will turn 35 a whole month into that contract. Nope,even without all the personal issues nooooope

NTC Muzzin and his cap just can't disappear. Really the Leafs shouldn't be giving up so much for one year of Kane. Pretty unrealistic signings next season, where is that cap coming from.
And no way Nylander gets a first rounder for his one year. What good team has the cap, and a poor team isn't giving up a firs.

And Kane at 35 is a massive upgrade for the Leafs as his numbers haven't slowed down.

What personal issues?

Yeah 35 year old players never decline and become shells of their former selves rapidly
Lol, what person issues.

Interesting that Kane is suddenly going to seriously decline and become a shell of his former self even though he hasn't showed it yet, but Muzzin has already shown serious decline and is a shell of his former self but he is great deal. I guess it all depends on the jersey each player is currently wearing.

it's not interesting at all, it's actually literally what happens to 99.999999% of players when they enter their early 30s and Kane is already at an age where most NHLers are retired or off to euroupe. 5 years at 7 million for any 35 year old player in a cap league is a dumb contract.
Lol at 'muzzin being a great deal" dude is literally used as a cap dump in like 20+ agms a day here while Kane gets massive returns and crazy extensions. Yeah, it does seem to depend on what jersey each player is currently wearing

You are not going to develope your good young prospects into top NHL players if you do not surround them with quality veteran leaders like Muzzen.

Please explain what personal issues you are referring to?

Furthermore, while players do decline and Kane will as well, he's shown little to no signs of slowing down. That said, there's a really slim slim chance Kane would ever sign for 5 years in Toronto...or anywhere in Canada...so don't worry....it's not happening anyway

It's amazing how hawks fans love to ignore their dude who was dead center of two of the worst nhl controversies in living memory, and no hand waiving it doesnt make them go away. The dudes entire career off the ice has been a controversy even without the recent stuff. But sure, keep pretending.

As far as declines go, they are called cliffs for a reason. It doesn't matter if its kane, crosby, or Gretzkey a contract for 1st liner money that goes until 40 with a tight cap is a terrible idea

Dead center of two of the worst NHL controversies? He was a 21 year old kid if you're referring to the KB incident with a player that never played on the hawks team. KB's own Rockford roommate and good friend said he knew nothing about what happened so why would Kane? Get out of the echo chamber...it's a poor unintelligent look.

His entire career off the ice has been a controversy? What??? You mean the cab driver incident 12 years ago? Okay fair enough like Matthews when he was out with friends on a drunk night.

I suppose you are also referring to the rape setup where the Buffalo police found the mother of the supposed victim planting evidence and quickly dropped the case...LOL OK...you're reaching again.

So there's one cab incident when he was a kid, what else are you referring to when you say "his entire career"? Kane is pretty quiet both on and off the ice and has been for years since the cab incident in Buffalo.

None of this matters like I said, Kane isn't signing long term in Toronto. Maybe he's waive as a TDL rental, but he's not moving to Canada long term. Regardless, he's not going to fall off a cliff, he will slowly start declining. You clearly don't understand the way he plays to suggest he will suddenly fall off a cliff.

yeah yeah yeah, we get it. You hawks fans have a million excuses for why your guy keeps being in the center of terrible things but is always mr clean and did nothing wrong. sure thing bud, but hey at least we know the personal issues eh?

And if you were paying attention to the actual conversation about Kane, the issue presented was the extension that the OP literally has written in the explanation. So that's what im refering to. And you clearly dont understand aging curves if you think signing a 35 year old to a 7x5 contract is a good idea just because he 'hasent shown signs of slowing down" despite his rate numbers starting to dip and the fact that he needed 82% offensive zone starts to put up the numbers last year.

LMAO but they aren't excuses, they are the facts, but of course you want to talk about a bunch echo chamber assumptions that aren't supported by any facts because the sensationalism is more fun! Hysterical

Kane isn't falling off a cliff. He's always had a ton of offense zone starts, usually in the 70s so not shocking the way a new coach played him a new system. You play to a players strength and his is obviously all offense. There's no signs he's slowing down right now, if you watch him regularly you will see that but you clearly don't. Players like Kane, who are slippery and not taking much physical abuse, are not falling off a cliff. Will there be decline...of course, but it will more then likely be a gradual decline.

lol, keep making excuses for your dude. we both know if he was on a different team you'd be all over him for one of his issues let alone the entire rap sheet.
Gotta admit, your steadfast refusal to even attempt to understand aging curves is wonderful. Literally look at any star player, any one of them and see when they started to decline, Kane is on the far edge and his heel is already off the cliff. But again, he's your guys so you gotta pretend everthing is ok.

A) He's not my dude. I'm a fan of the team, I don't get emotionally invested in individual professional athletes like a lot fans. I've hung out with Kane multiple times in our younger years as our social circles intertwined years ago, and anytime i was around him he was a arrogant douche as many star athletes are outside of the spotlight, so I've got no love loss for him on a personal level.
B) I'm looking at the facts of what did or did not happen, it's called being objective. Objectively, there is only 1 incident and that is with the cab driver. Again, I think he's a arrogant douche, but at the same time I'm not going to join the echo chamber to yell at him for incidents that factually don't implicate him just because he's not playing for the Leafs!
C) That's completely inaccurate. As all professional analysts say, Kane will be playing at a top level well into his late 30s based on the way he plays and having no injury history. This happens in hockey.
D) "Kane is on the far edge and his heel is already off the cliff".....LMAO despite his production still producing well over a ppg rate. Even at a ppg rate, which he will likely drop off to in the next couple years or so, he's far from falling off a cliff.

Lastly, and I'll keep saying this, none of this matters to you...Kane isn't signing long term in Toronto so don't worry, move on, and be an adult instead of trying to flame a star player not wearing blue and white because you're bored.

A) you literally are an echo chamber of all the excuses people have made for him for every single incident. he is totally your dude and you've clearly compartmentalized so you can keep cheering for him. Im not even going to try and convince you otherwise because you've made up your mind and dont wanna understand what you've been doing.
B)no, you arnt.
C) This is comletley accurate. As anyone who can look at an aging curve can say players, even those without injuries, even without massive physical play fall off massive cliffs between the ages of 33 and 36, elite ones still rack up points, because they can be used on the power play, but they get slower and slower and then they fall off a cliff. Kane is right in that wheel house. He very well could be 'productive' until his late 30's, but that means he'll be a 50-60 point guy a couple years before he's washed out.
D} yes, that's what it means when you are 35 years old in the NHL, it means the cliff is right behind you. Joe Thornton was PPG at 36 then fell off to 50 the next year and was never elite again. Marleau went from a 70+ point guy at 34 to a 57 point guy at 35 and trailed off even more after that, Jagr? 70 point guy at 35, declined after etc etc etc.
So you think locking a guy up at 35 to 7 mill for 5 more years is a good idea because he had a great scoring season in sheltered zone starts last year? well you're gonna be surprised how quickly that deal looks bad

A/B) LMAO no echo chamber needed guy, I'm objective to a fault and I'm sharing the objective facts, not making assumptions and implying guilt by association which is what you are doing. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty, and there are no facts to support any guilt in either the KB scandal or the rape case. Now if you have some undisclosed information that points to Kane being guilty in either case, then please do share, but you are simply flaming on a forum without knowing the facts because it's fun to do apparently.
C) I know what I said is completely accurate thank you for admitting that. There is a difference between slowing down, slowing down production, etc. versus falling off a cliff and you are confusing the two. Skaters who play a very physical game, also riddled with injuries, tend to fall off a cliff over the course of a season or two into their mid 30s. Seabrook is a good example of this. Kane is a bad example, a player who is turning 34 in two months, who's seen little fall off. Yes, his game will get slower and production decline, nobody is arguing that, but you are suggesting he will fall off a cliff from a 1st line winger to a 3rd liner in the next year or two...that's so highly unlikely it's comical to assume that.
D) I'm not saying locking up Kane at $7M for 5 years is a good idea. This is where you mistake my response to you. What i'm saying is you suggesting one of the most elite players this game has ever seen who just put up 92 points in 78 games is all the sudden going to fall off a cliff simply because of his age without understanding the type of game he plays (Thornton ,Marleau and Jagr all played much more physical roles then Kane). The game he plays is what will allow him to still produce at a high level the next couple years or longer. Falling off a cliff would suggest Kane is going to go from 92 points to under 50 points simply because of age in the next season or two...I'm willing to bet any amount of money that is just not going to happen next season, or the season after. In 5 years, sure, but it won't be falling off a cliff, it will be a slow decline. Next season he probably puts up 80 points give or take, season after it 70 points, season after it 60 points, etc. etc. Kane's game doesn't translate to falling off a cliff sans a freak injury happening despite never having one in the past.

A) LMAO indeed. you dont even understand that the presmuntion of innocence is simply a legal decree to prevent bias when a court proceeding takes place to prevent innocent people being assumed guilty. It also has zero standing outside that. The system is set up so that you have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that a person is guilty before they are punished.
Do you know what that means? That means that the court is supposed to lean on the side of caution towards jailing a person and that it is better to let someone who is guilty go free than to lock up someone innocent. It also means that it does.
And there are plenty of facts that point towards his guilt, they just could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that doesnt mean he's innocent and considering you're spouting the wonders of the US justice system, i bet you're also real familiar with it's track record on sexual abuse and assault cases involving rich famous people, especially ones who have cops as friends and on their pay roll.
Oh, and if you are as socially crossed up as you claim to be with Kane, you'd be just as privy to i was with how he allegedly treated people, especially women, in his jr days. It wasnt good. So yeah, im gonna go with the guy who has been a bad person since Jr, and is by your own words a 'd-bag' might actually still be an awful person angle.

And no one said he'd drop from 92 to 50 points in one season, it's just that he will indeed drop off from here on out, he might have a season at 70, then drop to 50 then whatever, he might hit 70 the next two years and drop to 20. the point is that he will produce significantly less than he is worth over the course of any contract he signs from here on out.

A) WOW...more you are lost man. You don't seem to understand that it's "proven guilty" which means the burden of proof is on the prosecution (in this case you) which you've shown none of. This is to avoid pointing the finger in a presumptuous manner (as you are doing) without proof. This is designed so innocent people are not unfairly punished...period full stop. There aren't plenty of facts other then both parties were at his house with other people. There are facts that the Mother of the victim was planting evidence which is why the Buffalo police stopped the investigation. There are also plenty of cases historically where "victims" were found to be extorting people of fame and money in effort to get rich quickly, much more common then to suggest famous people having cops on the payroll. And I'm privy to the way he treating people (not just women) in his early to mid 20s, but also privy to how he stopped the excessive drinking and choosing carefully who he surrounded himself with which is also the reason why I challenged your original statement with his "personal issues" which there are none of in the last 10+ years.

You did, which is what falling off a cliff is.

Yes, proven guilty is on the prosecution. IE an officer of the court, because they put people in jail. it has no bearing on the regular public, so no, not in this case me. Guilty people walk all the time because they cannot be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and yet people like you just love to pretend that means they are now innocent.
There is no burden of proof between you and me, and I dont care if you're willing to shelve the obvious to make yourself feel more comfortable about your sports allegiance. Dude is a bad apple straight through and his entire history is littered with examples. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Oh, and the rate of 'false reporting' for extortion is lower than 3% so yeah, shackle yourself to that.

I also love how you are blatantly ignoring the Kyle Beach scandle that he was very much a part of as 'everyone' knew about it. Your boy is trash.

you cant even fall off a cliff because the hole you dug defending that turd makes the concept impossible

It's as if you never even read the investigative report....actually I'm pretty sure you didn't. KB said "he believed everyone knew" and 1 veteran AHL call up who later retracted his statement as he said it was a incorrect generalization. So you have KB saying "I believe", yet even his own roommate and good friend in the AHL said he didn't know so why would you think all the blackhawks, a team in which KB never was on the ice with except training camp, would know? The people responsible for KB were the front office, coaching staff and NHLPA who all failed him. Players who didn't play with KB are not full stop.

In the world of cancel culture, you think it's socially acceptable to flame people without any first hand knowledge or without any burden of proof, and that right there is a failure of society in which clearly you promote in effort to troll. You made an uneducated comment to begin this discussion and have zero facts to back any of it up, look in the mirror pal.