Quoting: KingExLeafs
Yes, Nylander is the better player and more valuable long term, but the trade is not one for one. The Leafs address other areas in this trade that will make them more competitive.
You have 1m, here and the cap goes up 1m, so that's Samsonov's money. Guessing you want to trade/buyout Murray which would more or less cover Huberdeau's cap increase. So, I guess for next year the money could work, so I was wrong about that.
I still don't think Huberdeau would be a better fit than Nylander but maybe I'm wrong, however, I'm certain that the Leafs wouldn't be getting Huberdeau+all that in a trade.
The problem though is your trade is replicate the Tkachuk trade but the major differences that you overlooked are:
1) The Tkachuk trade is one of a kind, it was considered the best offer by far by Treliving. Just because he accepted that package for Tkachuk, doesn't mean he s willing to offer it for him or another player.
2) Huberdeau and Andersson have term (vs Huberdeau and Weegar), and they are going to be more valuable than if they were on expiring deals. If Huberdeau has absolutely no value, then there is no merit for Toronto to move out Nylander to acquire him.
3) Nylander and Andersson are the same age (Tkachuk is younger than Weegar)
4) CGY can afford to keep Andersson (Florida couldn't afford to keep Weegar beyond this season which is why they were willing to add him as a throw-in)
5) CGY has no cost certainty with Nylander, they can't talk to him about an extension until next season. (Flr knew how much Tkachuk was going to cost). Nylander will be a ufa after his deal, so that can't be overlooked.