Just not sure any of those offers are close, and those teams will get better offers fairly easily. Sometimes its not about what you want to offer, but what they need or want.

Tanner J, an 800k RFA, for a late in the round 2nd TWO drafts away is just a real light offer. If NSH is going to make moves, I just cant see them moving Jeannot unless its an overpayment and thats not an overpayment.

If STL is going to tear it down, expiring UFA Kerfoot is really worth nothing to them, so its promising prospect, but no sure thing in Minten and a probable late in the round 1st TWO drafts away and a 3rd for Reilly and 50% retention, just think thats light. OTT 3rd in 2023 is probably the better offer and probably have to add something for them to take (what is to them a cap dump) in Kerfoot, like a midlevel prospect like Steeves.

But the worst offer is a an expiring/underachieving cap dump in engvall, a waiver wire borderline NHLer in Gaudette and 3 nice picks for Meier and 50% retention. Its kind of two negative assets SJ doesn;t want, so while Meier and retention easily gets those 3 picks, they probably also get a top 4 prospect from the Leaf system and want no part of gaudette or engvall unless that prospect is what THEY want.

Since the start of last season:


Alex Kerfoot:

115 = Games Played
063 = ES Points (#57 in NHL)
2.74 = ES Points / 60 Mins
0.55 = ES Points / Game
(+28) = Plus / Minus
15:10 = Time on Ice
$3,500,000 = Cap Hit

Ryan O'Rielly:

112 = Games Played
053 = ES Points (#93 in NHL)
2.15 = ES Points / 60 Mins
0.47 = ES Points / Game
(-13) = Plus / Minus
18:50 = Time on Ice
$7,500,000 = Cap Hit

The narrative that Alex Kerfoot is a cap dump is so radically incorrect it's kind of mind blowing.
He kills penalties, gets zero powerplay time, and produces like 1st liner at even strength.
Kerfoot has out produced O'Rielly lately, but O'Rielly is still CLEARLY a better player.
However, the difference between them is no longer a 1st + 2nd + 3rd round pick.
I wouldn't make this trade from the Leafs perspective. Kerfoot's too useful.


Side Note:
Every selling team takes back salary at the trade deadline.
Otherwise, no good team has the cap-space to trade with them.
And expiring deals (Kerfoot, Engvall, Gaudette) are ideal for sellers.
You complain about really weird stuff.

I agree what I’d do is trade away engvall, a couple of prospects, a first rounder. Have another team retain some salary and boom we still keep kerfy and we now have oreilly

Uhh...

Shut let me have my moment and dream

Yeh nashville just holds onto jeannot if thats the offer. A 2nd two drafts away is terrible value

In the context of a potential deadline deal for ROR, Kerfoot isn't necessarily a cap dump, but he's just offsetting cap. I'm not going to buy the argument that Toronto needs to add an asset to send him in a deal, but some folks around these parts treat him like a positive value asset in a trade, which he just wouldn't be to a seller.

Try adding a top prospect for Meier and it’s closer

That quote while statistically correct doesn;t address the difference in teams, team philosophy, team production or state of the team (rebuild/contender/etc...) or anything else, and as dannibal pointed out above, its NOT that Kerfoot doesn;t have value or is a scrub, hes not, but what does he bring to the other team and why would they want him? Of course STL would take his cap hit to make the deal work, if they like the other pieces, but the player himself has no value to STL if they are tearing it down.

PHI, for instance has a lot of cap space and could act as a dumping ground, but they wouldn;t take say kerfoot for a 3rd, because kerfoot has no real value to them this season or moving forward. So they'd view Kerfoot as a negative or neutral asset at best and want to be paid for taking him, ala Marty Murray.

IMO, Leafs need to keep kerfoot if they can, hes their best option for offense on that 3rd line. Teams that would want Kerfoot or could view him as a positive asset are probably similar playoff bound clubs, who are also looking for an upgrade so probably wouldn;t offer an equal player.

Your analysis was excellent until the part where you said that the Leafs would have to add something for the Blues to take Kerfoot which implies a negative value.

If we merge and consolidate, between the things said by you, drewjenkins, and dannibalcorpse, what we get is: Kerfoot is just a cap component that most if not every team looking to add O'Reilly will have, he's neutral in the trade so wouldn't require any additional asset for being in there. However, let's just assume that the Leafs are giving the best offer, but there's another team with a similar offer but is only giving futures OR giving a cap component with term OR an expiring ufa that is more/less useful than Kerfoot, then whether or not Kerfoot tips the scale in the Leafs' favor or they are asked to add to beat the other offer depends on the Blues preference which could be different depending on if they still have an outside chance at making it or not (they could be sellers and buyers), or if they would just rather tank if they sell.

Same applies to the Meier trade (they might not mind Engvall at all, no reason for them to take Gaudette though, or the Leafs to even trade him). The biggest issue here is the light offers, maybe the Leafs manage to get one guy (I would assume that it would be O'Reilly if I was told one of those mock trades actually happened) but the chances that they get two top "rentals" with low offers are slim to none.

Nicely put, however, the only thing I'll disagree on is in this example, Kerfoot being a neutral asset, neither positive or negative. The one reason why IMO I think this isn;t the case, is that a team rebuildiing looking to make moves for picks/futures, might not view taking on a cap hit of 3.5 UFA as neutral, but it uses up something they could use as an asset itself, the cap space in another deal. So really it comes down to whether the other pieces are enough.

There's also the issue of both wanting retention AND shedding cap at the same time. Yes, it would be prorated amounts during a season, but it's not solely a cap issue. There's also actually salary responsibilities changing hands and the last time I checked money isn't free.

The Blues aren't really rebuilding though even if they are sellers at the deadline. However, even if this was Kerfoot to Chi, for example, it really depends on the other offers, but initially, a 3.5m UFA cap with less than 750K in salary to be paid (750K pro-rated) isn't going to be an issue at all if cap space isn't an issue. In the case of SJ, they might be rebuilding but they don't have cap either so there a 3.5m cap hit could make a difference. Sure, a team like SJ or the Blues could use cap space in other deals, but it's much more important to get assets for their marquee UFAs than through retaining as a 3rd party or taking on a cap dump. For sure 1st and foremost, the offer needs to be the best one out there (probably won't be), and then from there Kerfoot somewhat positive/negative depends on the other equivalent offers and what the Blues' goal is. If today, was the trade deadline, the Blues still have a chance at a playoff spot, but they probably don't consider themselves a contender, so they may decide to trade O'Reilly and Tarasenko, but a guy like Kerfoot might allow them to get the best of both worlds. So in that case Kerfoot would have some positive value vs an equivalent offer but maybe that other team is offering a more useful player. On the other hand, if Armstrong is saying okay, let's just sell and secure a top 10 pick then, Kerfoot could be a slightly negative asset such as if the equivalent offer doesn't have a cap component.

Kerfoot's salary at the beginning of the season was 750k, so salary won't be much of an issue. Retention and shedding cap could definitely be an issue but again that goes back to what the other equivalent offers actually are.

Salary, yes. I have no idea if his considerable bonus has been paid yet.

Was paid before the season.

Okay, well, perhaps Kerfoot wasn;t the best example.