Quoting: Terry_AkiSauce
How do the Canes have a lot more leverage?
Pesce didn't have his best season and is older while Nylander potted 40 and was a point per game. Not sure how they have equivalent value
Come on now....you should know better
Trades aren't about swapping players who are 'equally good', it's about the value they bring to that specific team...and even more, the effect it has on the overall health of the franchise.
Toronto has no cap space and has to consider raises to two guys already making north of $10m. They have to move Nylander. And they want to improve their 'meh' defense.
So I'm sure the rebuttal will be....'but the Canes need more offense', which is partly true. But they had enough offense to win the division. Do they need Nylander's 40 goals in the regular season....not really. Do they need that scoring at the cost of probably more then $8m for at least 3 years, absolutely not.
Pesce will be cheaper to extend...so there you go, the inequity you were looking for.
But ok, so how are the Canes going to get the offense they need. Again, to be more accurate, they need more scoring in the playoffs.
With Svech coming back, and assuming improvement from a young core, and now adding Bunting, it's a fair assumption that playoff scoring will increase. It's not as if they need a ton of scoring, they were four goals away from the SCF.
And hey, if they are wrong and still need more scoring that will certainly be available at the deadline.
Also keep in mind, even with his 40+ goals, Nylander was only +10 in the regular season and -4 in the playoffs.
This isn't to say Nylander is not a great scorer....he is. But given the cost both in giving up Pesce and what it would it take to extend him....he doesn't represent exceptional value for the Canes.
With the embarrassment of riches on D, as well as some cap space remaining, the Canes don't need to target a rental or $8m x 3 year player....they can target someone younger, cheaper, who is a better two-way player.
It's just not a move the Canes have to make