Matt Roy is the Kings' best defensive defenseman, and doubly critical to Los Angeles while his defense partner is week-to-week. Trading him would be tantamount to abandoning any hope of going far in the playoffs and maybe even reaching them in the first place unless they got an asset of equal and immediate value in return. My conviction is that the only guy on your roster for whom they would trade Roy is Morgan Reilly*, and that ain't happening because he's untouchable.

* because it's inconceivable that one of the Big Four would be available

Seeler deal isn't bad or anything I think but I'd just prefer a 2nd straight up, which I think we could get considering his cap hit and playstyle that GMs love.

I think there's a pretty significant difference between Rielly and Roy though considering Roy is on an expiring contract and will become a UFA. If LA isn't fully confident he resigns would this not be enticing enough to move him?

I also don't think it's inconceivable one of the big guns will move anymore. I just don't think Rielly would be the one to go, I'd guess Marner first.

Fair point. Nice to know the value is at least realistic even if a 2nd would be more preferable.

That's always the tough part making these trades, nobody knows every teams players and prospects inside and out lol so I appreciate you not coming armed with a pitchfork when you provided your opinion.

Of course there's a significant difference between Reilly and Roy. That's why I characterized Reilly as untouchable.

The idea that you have to trade every player on an expiring contract in order to avoid the catastrophe of getting nothing for him when he walks is poor strategy when it weakens your contending team in the short run. Roy being a UFA was an argument (although a horribly weak one) to be made in the summer of 2023. It's no argument now.

I was under the impression you were calling him untouchable in a sarcastic manner. Sorry, just so used to random pot shots at every Leaf player all the time.

I do think it's a stretch calling LA a contending team. I don't really see them competing with Colorado, Dallas, Edmonton, Vegas or Vancouver but I guess anything can happen in the playoffs.

I also don't think an expiring contract for a pending UFA is a weak argument at all, especially for a defender. It's not very common to see a defender with value walk in free agency for nothing unless they were trader for by a legitimate top contender at the deadline.

You keep missing the point, which is context. Trading a pending free agent solely because his contract is expiring is idiotic if it weakens a contending team (i.e., not Calgary) to do so.

I don't see Toronto winning more than one round if they have to face Boston and then either of the two Florida teams. Does that justify trading Morgan Reilly for seven or more seasons of Brandt Clarke and two firsts?

If I were the VP or president of hockey operations and my GM came to me and said I don't think that we have a chance to go far in this year's playoffs with the team I've assembled, so I think that we should just give up on this season and trade one of our best defensemen because I'm afraid I won't be able to re-sign him and then I'll trade him for futures, I'd fire the guy on the spot.

You guys seem to have weathered the loss of Zach Hyman for nothing okay, and look at the career he's had since leaving Ontario.