Yes, he is.

And, no we didn't.

The only similarities in both scenarios, is that both players would bring back less than they were worth in a potential trade. That's it.

1) Guerin wasn't forced to trade Fiala because he couldn't afford to sign him, he could of moved out the money needed and kept and resigned Fiala. Instead he chose to not move out multiple players with the express purpose of keeping just one, and instead get a haul for said player.

At that time, the Wild were still $1.3M under the cap ceiling. In essence, they were still cap compliant.

2) Fiala is/was a PPG 85+ point elite high-end top-line winger at the time he was traded. Even at a loss, Fiala is going to command a decent return.

Kerfoot is not, and will never be that type of player. He's coming off a career year, and still only has a career high of 65 points. Like I said, he's a good player, but he's not going to get a good return like normal.

3) As of right now, the Leafs are $1.4M OVER the cap.

Kerfoot in this instance, isn't being moved for normal reasons or even to keep someone else on the roster. It's entirely because Dubas needs to become cap compliant.

THAT MAKES KERFOOT A CAP DUMP!

Simply, stated. You're not getting a B-level prospect for Kerfoot. Not when the goal is to clear enough cap space to become cap compliant.

Just look at the Pacioretty trade, that's your comparable. Because it's not the Fiala trade.

I love reading replies that double down on how wrong they are. 25% of your scoring comes from your bottom six. Do you have BAD depth scoring from your bottom six? No, but you don't have GOOD depth scoring either. Soooo, moving one of your better bottom six producing will hurt. Basic math.

Yeah, I didn't. It's simple elementary school math. I made it very easy to understand. It's not subjective.

So if we can afford him but want to move him to make other changes, that is a cap dump, but if you can't afford to keep a player because you can't fit him is or isn't a cap dump? This is confusing. It seems to me and really everyone else who isn't just trolling leaf fans considers a cap dump a player with no value who makes too much and needs to be moved to afford to keep better players. By your own admission, TO doesn't need to move him, so does that not mean he isn't a cap dump. Of course it does but you aren't trying to have a reasonable conversation are you.

1.4 over with a 22 man roster. They can run a 20 man roster and be cap compliant. So they technically are not in fact over the cap. Meaning they can run their lineup as is. So I guess your argument is wrong.

Fiala would have gone to arb and MIN would have lost and put them in an impossible position to do an actual cap dump. I know you're miffed about being wrong on the other issue, so you're trying with this situation.

The situations aren't relatable.

We aren't giving you Kerfoot for Kerfoot whose a cap dump. Minnesota wouldn't give you Beckman to take on Kerfoot

What you're saying here is inaccurate; teams RARELY run a 20 man roster. Does it happen? Sure, but it's not only uncommon, it's not something teams try to do. Right now TOR doesn't have any waiver protected players, so while you can still send players down, you risk losing them.

Technically, we could of afforded Fiala, provided we moved out the appropriate contracts to keep him. Instead, Guerin chose to keep our depth intact over keeping Fiala.

There was Boldy next year to consider as well.

Right and you would have had to do REAL cap dumps to keep him. Unlike what the other guys are trying to understand.

1. Fiala's QO is added to your offseason cap putting them well over the cap.

It's just unfortunate that leads aren't allowed to move other contracts like the wild are. I think it's very dumb that leafs are held to the "cuz some random on cap friendly said rule" in the cba.

2. Doesn't matter since by your own rules Fiala was a cap dump.

3. Kerfoot is healthy and doesn't need surgery. He also makes half of what pacioretty does and leafs aren't 15m over the cap. Vegas is a scum organization.

So why can't leafs move out different contracts in the same context? Or just run a 20 man roster like last season?

Yes and no.

With the contracts coming off the books next offseason, Boldy can safely be bridged.

Unless Fiala was kept, then yeah we would of had to dump some contracts next year.

Because teams don't like to run 20 man rosters if they can avoid it. They can, it's just not ideal.

Please define "real cap dumps" ones that would exclude bjorkstrand and somehow include kerfoot.

By your own "elementary math" TO's bottom 6 scored 81 goals. Pittsburgh's bottom 6 scored 85 goals. Your top 6 and defence scored 70% of your offence. But I bet you don't lack depth scoring somehow. I guess you must lack depth scoring and top end scoring if your math is law.

The wild do not have the cap space to make this move and still have a 23 man roster. Doing this trade would either force them to make another move to shed salary or run only 22 man roster.

Not every team is like the leafs who have an army of capologists and compliance personnel to help them stay cap compliant while running a 22 or 21 man roster. Most teams prefer to have 3 spares to avoid things like emergency recalls, playing a man short, playing a Dman at forward, etc.

Considering there are cheaper options available on the UFA market (Milano, Rodrigues, Statsny, eakin, ZAR, motte, Ritchie, ennis, etc.) that the wild could sign to fill out their roster withOUT giving up a decent prospect and putting themselves in cap troubles, I don’t see a single reason why they should make this trade

A player performing above his contract on a team that by your own admission can keep him is a cap dump. So how is every player anywhere not a cap dump if that's how this works?

Well, there's no cap to dump when you're trading rights.

I am pretty sure they can send Simmonds and Clifford down without trouble. But tell me, how is what I said inaccurate? Reading the response above again, "Teams rarely run 20 man rosters. Does it happen? Sure" I am failing to see where the fact they can run a 20 man roster and be cap compliant is inaccurate? It's funny how often you contradict yourself over and over but somehow everyone else is wrong.

So you're creating an argument about the Penguins that has no relevance to this conversation. Another sign you know you've lost an argument.

I made no claims about the Pens, but while we're on the subject, the Pens dealt with a major depth scoring shortage in the second half of the season and it was well publicized.

By any team offensive metric, Leafs are top 3 - gf, xgf, scf, hdscf. Offense is not the problem, defense is not the problem, goaltending was well below average past few years but we still finished top 5.
Our biggest issue is that we play in the toughest division (by a fair margin) and we’ve had some bad luck in very close playoff series. That’s not an excuse - we lost those series but claiming anything else is the problem (like no depth scoring 🤦🏽‍♂️) is ridiculous. We needed a big save or a big goal or a call to go our way and it didn’t happen; we roll it out again and take a shot b/c this team is top 5 and has a shot at winning as long as Matthews and Marner are in their prime (aka many years).

It's inaccurate because you're making it sound like a video game move. There are risks involved that you glazed over.

His QO of 5.1m was against their offseason cap. Then there was his ask of 8m to consider as well.

Because they're NOT the same context?

Because if they are.

Which multiple players are you moving out to keep one player around for?

I'm highly interested in finding that one out...

Getting cap compliant and keeping good players are two very different things. As it's been said before, you're not losing Kerfoot because you're trying to keep someone else. You're moving Kerfoot to become cap compliant.

There's a major difference between those two scenarios.

And hey, if you want to run the risk of a 20 man roster. And are comfortable with the injury concerns that entails should someone go down. Be my guest.

But don't expect other teams GM's to do Dubas a favor and gift him a B-level prospect while also giving him cap compliancy in the same breadth.