I had a bit of a different take but similar starting point as you have:
https://www.capfriendly.com/armchair-gm/team/4223899


Long story short, I don’t think Kempe would be in the deal because LA would look to add Matthews to help Kempe keep his scoring pace. & if Toronto trades Matthews it signals a full rebuild. Change Kempe to Iafallo and I think it’s close to what it would take.

But heads up, Kings fan don’t wanna give up anything good for “a guy they can have for free in a year” so you’re bound to get a bunch of comments like that.

cbj accept

I'm from WPG and doing LAK a favor for the proposed trade.

LAK says... HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Looks like you're keeping Auston Matthews next season.

Yeah good luck with that, pal

I mean.... yeah? Are you implying thats a bad take? Toronto doesn't need to look any farther than how they waited out Tavares' contract with the Islanders. If Matthews wants to sign in LA, he's just as likely to in UFA as he is in a trade. He's going to get paid no matter what. So why would the Kings send their 2 best future pieces AND a 40 goal scorer AND another 1st round pick?

Add into this proposal the fact that LA is taking on ~4-5mil in cap depending on if Clarke plays in the NHL next year while taking consideration the Kings cap situation... proposals like this just frustrate us Kings fans. There's no consideration for the other team in the trade.

Ah yes. Just how Florida waited a year to sign Tkachuk..

They needed to move Huberdeau and Weegar because they weren't going to resign those two players to massive contracts into their late 30s. Instead Florida got great value for those two in a much younger Tkachuk. Completely different situation than what you have here.

Unless you are implying the Kings won't sign their top 2 prospects still on ELCs AND want to move their first 40 goal scorer since Luc Robataille two decades ago who is on a contract worth half of Matthews for 3 more years.

The trade would be more similar to the Florida one if you had guys like Matt Roy and Arvidsson (obviously not at the level of a Huberdeau, but the only other comparable would be Fiala who just started his new contract instead of being in the last year, so that doesnt work) in place of Kempe and Byfield/Clarke.

Sorry a 40 goal scorer making 5.5 mil, a blossoming potential Doughty replacement and a young potential top 6 mainstay plus a 1st for a guy who potentially could bolt in the offseason. I hate Kings as a Sharks fan so part of me wants them to do it but another part of me loves when both teams are good and Battling. But regardless I doubt this happens and I have a feeling that deal wouldn’t go well for Blake, it just isn’t smart asset management as Kings may be decent playoff team now but in 2-3 years they could be lethal with the prospects coming up and if they can add a star goalie.

I just find it funny how all the posts on here think it’s dumb to give up good players to get Matthews. He’s a top 10 player in the league for a reason - they don’t come cheap. You don’t get a player like him for guys like Matt Roy and Viktor Arvidsson.

The different scenario between Florida and Toronto is that if Toronto trades Matthews then they’re signalling a full rebuild. And when you rebuild and trade your top star players you get a variety of top picks and prospects back. Any deal with Matthews is almost guaranteed to have an extension as part of the deal so you’re likely getting him for almost a decade of hockey. Which is absolutely worth your best prospects. & for the record I think it’s Byfield + Clarke + Iafallo as the starting point for Matthews. I’ve agreed that moving Kempe doesn’t make sense. But Toronto not getting top prospects back also doesn’t make sense (take into view the other teams view as you said). And as good as they are as prospects, they’re still just prospects. They’re not sure things. Byfield hasn’t shown the hype of a #2 overall pick and Clarke still hasn’t even played a game in the league, he could be a star or a bust. Fans on here place way too much value on prospects than they should.

So many Leaf fans think it's their right to get great assets for an upcoming UFAs. Leafs didn't pay anything for Tavares, Bunting, Kampf, Brodie, Jarnkrok, Brodie, Samsonov

I agree that the notion that "you can just get Matthews for free next year" is silly because only one team can sign him (I like Chicago's chances the best even if they aren't a playoff team unless Bedard proves to be all hype). That being said @PuckLuck_77 has a point, LA isn't going to give up 3 of their best assets, when they will try to give none. It's pretty easy to rule out Clarke just based on the future need of a 1D and the value of the ELC due to the cap crunch they are facing (just how the Leafs probably won't trade Knies any time soon). It could be a C prospect + Kempe+former 1st that needs contracts now/soon like Vilardi and then other futures, possibly another roster player (maybe Roy) to make the cap work.

Matthew's full NMC would complicate things though, he's likely not going to get traded and either end up signing a deal or testing FA.

We can have differing opinions and that's alright. As someone who follows the Kings I don't think they do what you think would be feasible. It doesn't make sense for the team.

I have a couple of nitpicks with your statement:

1) Clarke HAS played NHL games. Not a ton, mind you. But he has. And he looked VERY good in those games.
2) The pressure on Byfield to match "the hype of a #2 overall pick" is so blown out of proportion. Everyone wants results in the immediate, but he's a 20 year old that the Kings went into the draft KNOWING would take a few more years. They are aware it's the long game with Byfield. By the end of the season and into the playoffs, Byfield was playing on the top line with LA forming a great trio with Kopitar and Kempe. Would I have liked him to progress faster? Sure. But this season matched about what I was hoping for to start the season for him -- ~40 point pace over 82 games. I think he ended with a ~35 ish point pace after recovering from injury.

I could absolutely argue that fans place too much value on Matthews, as much as you argue fans place too much value on prospects. Players don't get that kind of return in trades. It just doesn't happen. Eichel was the closest, but even he didn't bring back two top 10 picks, a 40 goal scorer, and another 1st round pick. And despite his injuries, he has cost certainty of 5mil less than what Matthews is likely to demand.

Tbf, I can see the point about Clarke and just meaning more to LA because they see him as the future #1 defenceman in a weaker defensive prospect system. That’s tough to give up. But if you look at it from Toronto’s view, I don’t think there’s much of a chance that anything gets any traction if Byfield isn’t the starting point at minimum. I get it, he’s young and expected to be good. But you’d be getting Matthews in his prime for almost a decade (again I believe any deal for Matthews comes with an extension for him). So you’re getting the sure thing as a superstar top 15 player in the game, for a guy that you’re hoping develops into a top 6 centre. So it HAS to start with him. I would think Kempe stays in LA - if your the Kings you get Matthews to help Kempe maintain the best production he can get, not move him. So for cap purposes I think Iafallo fits. So I’d say now for the starting basis we’re at Byfield + Iafallo + 1st round pick (if not 2 1sts). And probably add in another good prospect as well. Maybe Clarke, but a different defensive guy. For the record I also think that if Matthews is moved then Toronto should consider retaining 50% of his contract for next season to help maximize the amount of suitors and the return. The extension is 100% on the acquiring team cause they’d be signing him to it in free agency anyways. But Matthews at 50% retained even for 1 season plus an extension is not going to come cheap

See, that's a deal that I wouldn't be surprised at all to at least gain traction in discussions with LA. It addresses the fact that the Kings aren't giving up all of their future (Clarke will still replace Doughty), it gives the Kings the 1C that they want Byfield to be once Kopitar gets moved down to 3C, and it addresses cap concerns if there's retention on the deal. If there's no retention, there still needs to be cap going the way of Toronto.

I can't see Toronto being thrilled about it, though. There's not enough future in it for the Leafs, and as you said if they trade Matthews they are signaling a rebuild of sorts.

I just think there's no way teams make it work with superstars of this level. Acquisition cost is too high for the other team, and risk of blow-back for not enough return is too high for Toronto.

You know, it IS possible to win the Stanley Cup WITHOUT Auston Matthews. Every team since Matthews came into the League in 2016 has done so, so if we don't get Matthews in 2023 OR 2024, it won't be fatal to our Stanley Cup hopes. But what probably WILL be fatal to them is overpaying for Matthews while depriving our team of players who would be instrumental supporting cast members in any long playoff run.

Your comparison is valid.....,as both are top centres. One difference. Eichel was traded with four full years years , and part of fifth as he was injured on contract at 10mm per
Matthews has no guarantees for term or salary....therefore Matthews trade value is lower.
By the way, I thought the Sabres did very well in the Eichel trade. Tuch, futures and cap space.

Personally I don't see what'a the big fuss about Matthews. UFAs come and go all the time. If the Leafs decide to "go for it" next season with Matthews/Nylander and Brodie so be it. If three I mentioned don't get traded....and leave as UFAs, well that's 23m the Leafs can spend on other players.
Now I am a "seller" of the Leafs, I would prefer a trade....a think TDL is more likely scenario.

Yup. I mentioned Eichel's "cost certainty" in my post, and that's exactly what I was referring to.