Teams can only retain on 3 players per season, to think they will retain on two player in one deal is a stretch. Teams are not going to retain 50% on every player to help the leafs or any teams cap issues, the trade price goes up for retained salary and the price would depend on how much actual salary the player is owed this season as well.

I had no idea teams can only retain 3 players. You learn something new everyday lol

Haha no worries my friend, I think you are not the only one who didn't realize that based on a lot of ACGMs posted on here.

That's such St Louis is such an overpay by the Leafs. Barbashov isn't much different than Kerfoot, Sandin is at least as good as Mikkola but Sandin has years of Leafs control.
So in effect it's Konecky for a first, two seconds and a third. Then the Leafs have no cap next season to sign Bunting for from

While I agree with you mostly, Konecny would essentially be the Bunting replacement (/upgrade) for next season. I don't think he'll get anywhere close to this AAV, but likely wants a long term deal.

I hope Dubas isn't operating based on his ability to re-sign an accessory player to 6+ yr deal that pays him into his 30's.

With contracts like engvall, holl, simmonds etc expiring this season the leafs will have over 15 million to work with so I wouldnt be to worried about it. The leafs can always sign players on league min deals to fill the bottom lines. I also think Bunting takes a team friendly deal.

So, there isn't much logic in that statement. Holl, Simmons. Engvall makes a total of 5m.....so good luck in replacing those players and their value for 5m. Holmberg, Timmons, Samsonov both RFAs deserve more money. If the Leafs want to keep UFAs Bunting and Kampf that's more money. One reason the Leafs struggle is the conception they can spend cap on so called high end plays and then fill their roster with league minimum players. Just doesn't 't work.

I think it terrible assets management to give up so much for Konecky (and therefore Bunting). Bunting and Konecky (yea Bunting has had a shorter NHL career) have about the same per game production.
So to call Bunting an accessory player....well you're doing the same with Konecky.

All those players are replaceable. Filling out a roster with league min players is something a team has to do when they have 3 players making over 10 million per. I think the leafs will be fine if Holl and engvall and others walked.

I agree that they walk. But it's not like there is 15mn in new found cap. Those players have to be replaced in the lineup....and that takes cap. Somehow so many fans think they can have so many players making over 5m and and they can fill the 15 roster spots with 1m players . Ain't happening and it doesn't work

All I mean by accessory player, is that he's not the line driver. If he's on the 1st, or 2nd line, he's the 3rd option on that line. I don't think that's much of a stretch, or a discredit to him. Most players would be the 3rd option next to TOR's top 4 FWDs.

Also, put Konecny in the top 6 situation that Bunting is in (which to his credit, he's earned), and IMO Konecny far surpasses Buntings production. Put Bunting on PHI, and I can't say the same.
I like Bunting, but right now his greatest feature is that he makes sub $1million to play top 6 mins.

I hope Dubas can keep Bunting, but I'm not letting him specifically dictate how TOR should play out the deadline or offseason.

Bunting doesn't play that much on the PP (he has 8 points) because the Leafs use Tavares and Matthews as the centre/LW. Konecky has 18 points on the PP.....points he wouldn't be getting as a Leafs
So to say Konecky bypasses Bunting's production, that's certainly debatable . So I really think it's a horrid trade to give up all those futures to get a Bunting. aka Konecky.

1st, 3rd, & decent prospect for Konecny might be steep-- but PHI doesn't consider anything less with the remaining term.
I'm not advocating for this move to happen based on value in/out -- my stance is only that I don't plan how to spend the cap based on the the ability to keep Bunting. He's a cog, not the wheel.