Edit Avatar
  • png, jpeg
  • Recommended minimum size 800px by 800px
  • Maximum size: 1MB
Drag image to reposition


Muskoka Five
Member Since
Mar 29, 2020
Favourite Team
Toronto Maple Leafs
2nd Favourite Team
New York Rangers
Forum Posts
Posts per Day
Forum Threads
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb 14 at 12:11
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>Again, that's an entirely valid point. But I'd like you to re-consider the premise about having to give up additional assets to protect Rakell. Which would you rather have -- Rakell and one of Holl and Dermott (because Seattle can't take them both), or one of Holl and Dermott protected and one exposed? It's not as simple a question as it may seem at first glance; I think it matters only if you believe that there's an appreciable difference between the two defensemen. Note that if you acquire Rakell, you get to protect Kerfoot, too.</div></div>

I’m not a Kerfoot fan, he is miscast on Leafs. At 3.5 mil I expect more for a 3C, he can’t win faceoff’s, limited offence, don’t get me started. Would be delighted if Seattle took him off the books. I don’t want to lose Dermott or Holl. I worry the Leafs will not have the cap space to keep Rielly and believe Dermott and Sandin plus Muzzin can carry the load on LD with Morgan’s departure. Holl has become better than I ever imagined, even after a very poor play in the series against CLB he has improved he’s play considerably. IMO if Dermott is not traded for FWD help this year they will need to spend prospect/pick to have Seattle take Engvall or Kerfoot. If we trade for Rakall, then we are out those prospects/picks and he’s own protection from Seattle. To big a price. I think also the biggest factor that hasn’t been addressed is the two week waiting period for Rakall to quarantine. If the Leafs make a roster move, it’s in division
Forum: Armchair-GMFeb 13 at 8:15
<div class="quote"><div class="quote_t">Quoting: <b>OldNYIfan</b></div><div>That's an absolutely valid opinion. The point that I was trying to make is that the objections that he's (1) fallen off from his prior years' production, and (2) Leafs have equivalent talent in the system are spurious arguments, because he's every bit as productive as Hyman, better than everyone else you've got now (why else would you be trading for him?), and cheaper than most top-6 LWs. I've had lots of discussion with highly knowledgeable Toronto adherents LeafsFanForSomeReason and PleaseBanMeForMyOwnGood and we agree that (a) there IS an intelligent range for a Rakell acquisition that would be sensible for the Maple Leafs, (b) you'd have a decision to make about Dermott and Holl vis-a-vis the expansion draft, and (c) there are some other entirely reasonable alternatives to Rakell out there. But rejecting a Rakell trade out of hand, or even for the wrong reason, is not a knowledgeable action.</div></div>

Appreciate your points, I’d argue not knowledgeable. My basis for the post wasn’t to start a feud only the cost of Rakall with retention is way too costly. The only way it could possibly work was if the Ducks has a need or want for Kerfoot. The salaries work, money in money out. But to give up the assets to attain Rakall with 50% retention then we’d need to give up another prospect or pick just to keep Seattle from selecting him. This move does not make sense for all those parts. Again, not hating but he’s not the same player he once was. If the Leafs are giving up a ton I hope it’s for a sure thing and not ‘we hope he regains his scoring touch’. That’s it.