03 Oct 2021 11:48:29
To Buff
Kane 4m cap(3m retain SJ)
Retain 4m cap Burns
Engvall 1.25m cap
Eklund
Bordeleau
Dahlen
Holmberg
2023 SJ 1st




To Tor
Burns 2m cap(2m retain SJ)
Girgensons 2.2m cap
Gushchin



To SJ
Eichel 10m cap
Kerfoot 3.5m cap

San Jose 3.5m cap extra for 2 years then cap in cap out next 2 years then 10m cap extra 5th year. They give up 4 good prospects and a 2023 1st to get eichel. The 1st is in 2023 since that's when eichel is expected back and kerfoot is to replace Kane and add center depth till eichel returns plus they get rid of Kane. They must retain on both Kane and burns to make this deal happen.

Buffalo 2.95 cap savings yr 1 then save 4.2 cap yr 2 then 2 million savings yr3 and 4 then 10 million extra on 5th year. Yeah they lose eichel who doesn't wanna be there and they gain a horrible Kane at a discount and they must retain half of burns and lose girgensons who hasn't played in over a year but replace him with Engvall a downgrade but Engvall isn't hurt while gaining a 1st and 3 really good prospects including Rasmus dahlin buddy Jonathan dahlen and powers Michigan roommate plus an elite Swedish talent in eklund. I say great for a rebuilding team plus they get extra cap space to sign anything they want going forward.

Tor .55 savings 1 yr then .7 extra cap yr 2 then 2m extra cap next 2 years. Burns at this price ain't bad and could move back and forth between D and F whenever needed. He still has a cannon so the PP could be potentially deadlier. Girgensons if he gets back to 100% is a downgrade from kerfoot but his cap hit justifies that. Gushchin is a solid prospect to add to the pool

Overall all 3 teams get what they want or get rid of what they want while not killing 1 team financially if cap wise. About the best I could come up with for a 3 way trade lol

Creative if anything if u made it this far

03 Oct 2021 12:30:03
Leafs don't want burns at all. Not even for rw. Send that rif Raf to Arizona or someplace trashy.

03 Oct 2021 22:17:23
Man the hate for burnsy, I’d make that trade all day for him at 2m cap hit, he may not be what he was but he’s still better than anything else we have on 3rhd he has good hands as well (grew up a few years younger but was on the ice with him all the time) the guy would be a beast in front of the net, he’ll of a lot better than simmonds. So I’d consider him on a wing as well.

03 Oct 2021 22:49:41
I would definitely take burns at 2M cap hit. Even as a bottom pairing guy that isn't an overpay. Put him on the PP and give him sheltered minutes at 5v5.

04 Oct 2021 03:37:49
So Burns with 6m retained, Girgensons, Gushchin for Engval, Kerfoot, and Holmberg? How does that make sense?

04 Oct 2021 14:53:24
@D82. Yea, Leafs aren't giving up much to have $6M retained by other teams.

04 Oct 2021 22:21:23
So first burns makes too much and for too long to make you all happy so I come up with a creative way to get burns on the cheap while giving Buffalo tunnes of youth and San Jose berid some of Kane’s contract and eichel situation finally resolved.

Guess it’s a tough crowd
Least my brain had a workout.

05 Oct 2021 05:45:14
Needs tweeks but very interesting.
Buffalo has already had experience with Kane and I doubt they want to go through that again.
Buffalo would also likely shy away from Kane because of the potential negative impact he could/ would have on their young players.
Let's not forget that a number of SJS players have spoken out against having Kane on their team.

05 Oct 2021 12:34:04
@JdB. It is interesting and creative. There are some good things in it. But as WB49 said, does Buffalo want to go from the Eichel situation to a Kane situation? I would think that is the last thing they want. That and we don't seem to give up very much for the other teams to eat $6M of Burns contract for 4 years. If you go by your own formulas you have shown in the past for the cost of eating a contract, it would be like 4 1sts to eat that much.