Leafs, Maurice reflect on Scheifele's performance for Jets after father's death
TORONTO - Scott Laughton has crossed paths with Mark Scheifele through the years.
As hockey players of the same Ontario vintage, they run in similar circles from time to time.
Laughton, a Maple Leafs forward preparing for the biggest game of his life, was a huge Scheifele fan Saturday.
He wasn't alone.
The Jets centre suited up with Winnipeg facing elimination in their second-round playoff series against the Dallas Stars just hours after learning his father, Brad, had died suddenly overnight.
Scheifele not only tied up his skates with a heavy heart for Game 6, he scored the Jets' only goal in a 2-1 overtime loss that ended a memorable season in the Manitoba capital.
'It's very heartbreaking,' Laughton said Sunday morning as Toronto prepared to play Game 7 of their series with the Florida Panthers. 'The courage and leadership that he showed … watched the game and saw him score the first goal. I was rooting for him.'
Panthers head coach Paul Maurice, who was behind Winnipeg's bench from 2014 through 2021, opened his media availability with a statement, but politely asked reporters to refrain from any followup questions.
'The display of courage and focus for Mark to do what he did,' Maurice said of what stood out. 'And possibly an even greater display of the power of the family — the Scheifele family, but the Winnipeg Jets family for him to have played with his brothers.'
Leafs defenceman Morgan Rielly has competed at five international tournaments alongside Scheifele, including the 2013 world junior hockey championship and the 2016 World Cup of Hockey for Team North America.
'Something that I can't imagine,' Rielly said. 'All the credit in the world to him and his teammates and everyone in Winnipeg for pulling together. (Saturday) night and then moving forward here, we'll be thinking about Mark and his family.'
Many of the Stars players took time to console Scheifele — including captain Jamie Benn, who punched him in the face in Game 5 — in the traditional post-series handshake line
'Everyone in our locker room and certainly in the hockey world is mourning and feeling for him,' Toronto centre John Tavares said. 'Incredibly difficult news, extremely sad … pretty incredible effort.
'I can only imagine how difficult it is for him right now.'
Leafs head coach Craig Berube said he understands why it was important for Scheifele to play despite the emotions of the moment.
'It's a terrible situation,' he said. 'That's a tough day for everybody there.'
Laughton experienced something similar to what Scheifele is going through earlier this season while playing for the Philadelphia Flyers when his father-in-law, Rocco Negri, died suddenly in January.
'It's devastating and doesn't feel real,' he said. 'My heart's with his family, but really impressive from him to play through that. You see how close the hockey world is in just the respect shown from both sides.
'I hope he finds some peace through it all.'
This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 18, 2025.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
9 hours ago
- New York Times
Blues fan survey results: High confidence in Doug Armstrong heading into final year as GM
ST. LOUIS — If The Athletic had posted the Blues offseason fan survey when the playoffs ended in May, there might have been more emotion involved. So we let the sting of a 4-3 double-overtime loss to the Winnipeg Jets in Game 7 simmer for a bit before asking for your votes to our 20 questions. That was the right call, because there appears to be a lot of rational thinking in the responses. Advertisement In all, nearly 1,800 subscribers participated in the survey, which is a great turnout. Thank you, and enjoy the read! Many wondered how much the Game 7 loss to Winnipeg changed the outlook of the season, and now after some reflection, we have our answer. The majority of you were still impressed (51.3 percent), while the number of those left disappointed was slightly less (45.3 percent). Now I'm curious what the percentages would have been if the Blues had beaten Winnipeg and lost to Dallas in the second round. Maybe 80-90 percent? There were a lot of good options, and when I put together my rankings, I chose the hiring of Jim Montgomery. Part of the reason I went with Montgomery was because he signed a five-year contract and touches the entire organization, while Holloway and Broberg have one season left on their contracts and occupy a couple of roster spots. But I can make a case for Holloway and Broberg, who could be re-signed, being the right answer. It's crazy to think that in Year 15 of a general manager's career in the same city, more than half of the voters awarded him a perfect 5. In fact, Armstrong got a 4 or better from 95 percent of voters, which is the highest grade he's received outside of the 2018-19 Stanley Cup season. It's more than justified with the quantity and quality of strong moves he made, putting the Blues in position to return to the playoffs. As someone who's covered Steen since he came to St. Louis in 2008, I believe he'll do well because he's a hard worker and drips hockey knowledge. But I cherish honesty and the results show fans being honest, with slightly more voters voicing skepticism (16.7 percent) than those saying he'll do a great job (14.2 percent). That said, Steen has a lot of fans in his corner, with the majority (65.8 percent) saying they'll be supportive. After the seasons Holloway and Broberg had, most agreed keeping them in the fold is No. 1. The rest of the results are interesting. For a team that needs a center, I would've thought that option would've won more heavily than it did over trading Justin Faulk and/or Nick Leddy (28.1 to 25 percent). I also would've thought the vocal group of fans wanting to trade Jordan Kyrou would've been, well, more vocal (5.5 percent). I don't really agree with the results on the contracts for Holloway or Broberg. I understand the desire to play it safe and have them prove a little more, but I think we saw enough to know that they're going to be in the league for a long time. So if you can get them signed to maximum eight-year extensions for $1 million more AAV ($7-8 million), that would've been my choice. Advertisement For Broberg in particular, the Blues have been looking for a lanky, left-shot defenseman who can skate for a long time, and they finally found him — and he's only 23 years old. Sure, Armstrong has handcuffed himself with a few long-term deals to Justin Faulk, Torey Krug and Nick Leddy, but mainly because they were older. That's not the situation here. What if Blues fans were asked about signing an unnamed player who had 100-plus points last season? I wonder how much of the resounding result (77.3 percent) is the fact that the Toronto Maple Leafs have underachieved for years as a team and Marner has been a focal point of that. I'm not saying that's the reason — there's also damning video evidence of him not being the grittiest at playoff time and a projected $13 million AAV. With the way Bennett has played for Florida this postseason, I figured he would win in a landslide. But while he did receive the highest total (39.1 percent), he will also likely be overpaid in free agency with a long-term deal will take him into his mid-30s. Thus, a lot of votes came in for Tavares, Granlund or Suter, who can add needed depth up the middle at a more reasonable cost. I figured this would be a high number, but wow! This offseason, Pittsburgh's Mike Sullivan and Vancouver's Rick Tocchet become available, and yet 93.5 percent of voters are thrilled with Montgomery. I feel like even if the Blues had missed the playoffs, the percentage of fans behind Montgomery still would've been high, but certainly he helped his cause. It'll be interesting to see what he can do with a full training camp. I reported in a recent mailbag that it could take until after the Stanley Cup Final before we know whether the Blues' entire coaching staff will be back. There might be other opportunities for some, but again, we'll know soon. In the meantime, we asked fans who should return, and Ott, an assistant for eight seasons, got the most support. David Alexander, who's worked wonders with the goalies, was deservedly next. Thomas didn't get much love from the Selke Trophy voters, finishing 21st behind Buffalo's Alex Tuch (15th), Minnesota's Marcus Foligno (16th) and LA's Phillip Danault (17th). Two things: First, he missed 12 games and full-season numbers would've helped. Second, he's still just 25 years old, and with the Blues missing the playoffs two of the last three seasons, it's difficult to get attention. But Blues fans have spoken. I figured with Buchnevich's role in the Game 7 collapse against Winnipeg, being partly responsible for one of the six-on-five goals against, that there might've been more criticism of the contract. But I've got to give credit to fans for their level-headed reaction — again, that's why we let the end-of-the-season emotion dissipate — in giving him the benefit of any doubt. Some fans are still concerned, but not as many as maybe expected. Fowler was mighty impressive in his 51 regular-season games with the Blues, registering nine goals and 36 points. He was equally impressive on the top defensive pairing with Colton Parayko, and they could be formidable again in what is scheduled to be the final season of Fowler's contract in 2025-26. I thought Blues fans might pick a two-year extension for the 33-year-old, but with the way Fowler skates, three doesn't seem far-fetched. Fans fell in love with the Blues' fourth line and Faksa in particular. He's a low-maintenance glue guy and assuming he wants to return, he'd come reasonably inexpensive, too. Armstrong said in his end-of-the-year press conference that the Blues have interest in re-signing the 31-year-old, so fans may get their wish. Meanwhile, Ryan Suter was a steady and reliable player, but now at 40 years old, there are likely better options. This was a hot question after Binnington led Team Canada to the 4 Nations Face-Off gold medal in March. Since then, Binnington and the Blues showed everyone with their surprising trip to the playoffs that they may be further along the road to contention than people think, and moving Binnington would limit their chances of staying at the highest level. I think the number of people against the idea of exploring a trade (81.9 percent) is well higher than it would've been midseason. It's almost an unfair question because Blues fans only got to see Dvorsky play two games, and unless you traveled to Springfield, Mass., they didn't see Stenberg play at all. However, there's no way you could've watched Snuggerud down the stretch and in the playoffs and not picked him. People have been waiting since he was drafted in the first round in 2022 to see his shot, and after a sneak peek, it'll be on a full-time basis next season. A lot of credit goes to Armstrong, but the ownership group led by chairman Tom Stillman make it possible. They spent to the $88 million salary cap and beyond in 2024-25 if you count the injured players. And when Armstrong makes a decision like firing Drew Bannister and hiring Montgomery, thus having two coaches on the payroll, it's Stillman who must approve. Fans are critical of owners in many cities, so the 'A' speaks volumes. With a few questions, we like to look ahead, and whether the Blues will make the playoffs is always a popular one. Remember when Armstrong admitted a couple of seasons ago that he didn't expect the team to finish too high in the standings? Fans loved the honesty. So after a season in which the Blues ended up in the second wild-card, where will they end up? The sentiment from voters — excluding Armstrong — is that No. 3 in the Central is possible. Finally, we'll wrap up with one that gives context to the fans who are casting these votes. Just because someone goes to a lot of games doesn't make them any more knowledgeable than someone who watches every game from their comfy couch, but it does provide some insight as to who's putting their ticket dollars behind their opinions. I feel with the percentage of voters who are attending at least one game, we have good representation. (Photo of Dylan Holloway: Steph Chambers / Getty Images)
New York Times
10 hours ago
- New York Times
No, the Maple Leafs should not (and cannot) run it back: Mirtle mailbag
A couple weeks ago, we put out the call for mailbag questions from Maple Leafs fans after another disappointing playoff exit for Toronto. Subscribers didn't disappoint in contributing nearly 350 for us to filter through, something I plan on doing between now and free agency. We'll start with these two, which hit on a theme I've heard a lot since the Leafs were eliminated on May 18. Advertisement From Curtis P.: 'The core of the Leafs hasn't gotten it done yet, but every season is a new opportunity — just like rolling dice, past outcomes don't dictate future results. This team is different; they've grown, adapted, and learned. The right move isn't to dismantle everything, but to plug that second-line centre hole and tweak the depth. If the price is right, why not run it back with a team that's already shown it can compete at the highest level? The Atlantic Division is the toughest in the league, and if we can get through that, the sky's the limit. A few adjustments could be the key to finally breaking through.' From Danny A.: 'Are we holding the Leafs to different standards than other teams? Why isn't 'perennially in the mix in a league where anyone in the playoffs had as good a chance as any other' at least considered a mild success? Mitch Marner seems as good as gone, but it feels to me like re-signing him and keeping the core as a bridge to the rising cap (which was the original plan that a frozen cap killed) would be as good a plan as any.' Even though I've been around this team and fan base for a long, long time, I've been surprised how many of you want the status quo. Even after all of the losing. Even after the way they were eliminated in the second round this time around. If what happened this year — an ugly Game 7 loss in the second round against a terrific opponent — was happening for the first, or second, or even third or fourth time, then you could rationally argue to run things back. Leafs management did just that for years, after some really tough outcomes in the playoffs in the six seasons between 2019 and 2024. (I'm counting 2017 and 2018 as a young team going through growing pains and losing to more experienced opponents.) But as we sit here, three weeks out from free agency in 2025, we know that's not what has happened. The loss to the Panthers wasn't the second or third time something like this has occurred. It's not a new phenomenon for a talented Leafs core to no-show in two of the biggest games of the year. It has happened again and again and again in remarkably similar fashion. Advertisement The Leafs' core isn't young anymore. They aren't learning lessons. William Nylander is 29. Mitch Marner turned 28 during the playoffs, and Auston Matthews will join him there in September. Key veterans like Morgan Rielly and John Tavares are on the back nine of their careers at 31 and 34. Can we chalk up the implosions in Games 5 and 7 to bad luck that can be overcome with another roll of the dice? Are we sure these aren't loaded dice, set to land on snake eyes more often than not? Is next season a new opportunity if you attempt the same thing again, for an eighth consecutive season, with those five players making up the majority of your star power and cap space? And how can you be sure that's the right course of action when it hasn't been so many times before? We aren't holding the Leafs to a different standard than other teams. What they've done in running it back for so many years is unlike anything an unsuccessful franchise in pro sports has done. It's hard to find a good comparison for an organization keeping that much of its core together for that long with this little to show for it. (The closest comp would likely be the 2018 Washington Capitals who won the Stanley Cup after years of failed attempts, but even then, it was really only Alex Ovechkin, Nick Backstrom and defenceman John Carlson who were together for seven-plus seasons before winning, which would be akin to keeping Auston Matthews, William Nylander and Morgan Rielly — not all five members of the Leafs' core. The Mike Greens, Alexander Semins and Brooks Laichs weren't kept in Washington through that many years of postseason disappointment.) Most management groups in this situation would have pulled the plug on this configuration and tried to adapt three or four years ago. Certainly by 2023, when they still had an out to make major moves. Advertisement As for if being 'perennially in the mix' is considered a mild success, sure, we can call it that. These Leafs are a mild success! Nine consecutive years in the playoffs in the Matthews era, something no other NHL team has done. Tenth in playoff games played — and 11th in wins — since drafting him first overall. Two trips out of the first round and none past the second. But no one is arguing that the Leafs have been an unmitigated disaster the way they were previously. They're arguing that mild success isn't good enough, not when the goal is to win the Stanley Cup. They're arguing about what the best path forward is to be more than a mild success. How do they win it all? What do they need to get over the top, before the inevitable rebuild comes 'round again? Maybe you believe that's possible with this group. But what we're seeing in these big games is repeated evidence that something is wrong, and that gets reinforced when I talk to people behind the scenes. At this point, they very much agree they need a rethink. The GM isn't coming out after the postseason and saying his team needs to change 'some DNA' for show. This core has been kept together so long that it's become stale and dysfunctional, on and off the ice. They've been kept together so long that they don't even believe in themselves anymore. Think about it: If Marner truly believed they were right there, just about to break through, and there was a good chance of winning the Stanley Cup in his hometown with the Leafs, why wouldn't he have been willing to negotiate throughout the year for an eight-year deal worth massive money? Why did he seem so withdrawn and noncommittal? To me this goes beyond negotiating strategies and a players' camp trying to push for the maximum dollar figure on July 1. It's about something being fundamentally off, for Marner and for this organization. The strange thing is the player seemed to recognize it before management did, which puts the Leafs in a real bind. It appears almost certain at this point that they'll lose one of the best players in the NHL for very little in return, which is why some fans are getting cold feet about breaking up the core. Even if you believe this group needs change, these are hardly ideal circumstances under which to do it. Advertisement However, the next steps in Toronto shouldn't be the mass destruction of the roster. For one, that's not even going to be possible, not with free agency coming fast and so much of this group under contract, with no-movement and no-trade clauses. What GM Brad Treliving and his staff need to do instead is to try to identify how they can change the cast around the core members who stay in such a way that it resets the environment and allows them to be better in critical situations. Watch those playoff failures and analyze the team's shortcomings — not just with the core, but at every position, up and down the lineup. There are a lot of different ways the Leafs need to be better, but realistically, only some of them can be addressed this offseason. Assuming Marner is leaving, the change has to be focused on building a more well-rounded and less top-heavy roster, one that gets contributions down the lineup the way Florida has this postseason. One that can control play better and produce more offence when games get tight in the playoffs. That is going to be challenging with the Leafs' lack of trade assets, a weak free agent class, and the number of quality players Toronto needs to add, but challenging does not equal impossible. The best front offices in the league have made transformations like this in recent years — swapping out core players, making bold trades and underrated signings — and been better for it on the other side. The Panthers, for example, had terrific regular season success — winning the Presidents' Trophy in 2022 — but were swept in the second round and decided they needed to make major changes. Four of the eight biggest-minute players on that roster were gone the next offseason. They've continued to adapt and evolve over the last few years, adding key core pieces through trades and free agency, including Seth Jones, Brad Marchand, Matthew Tkachuk and Niko Mikkola. That's not to say the Leafs haven't changed. The blue line, especially, has undergone a dramatic makeover in a similar time frame, with defensive defenders Chris Tanev and Jake McCabe replacing T.J. Brodie and Jake Muzzin. But you'd be hard-pressed to call Toronto's moves a successful re-envisioning, given how similar (and how small) they look when up against a championship-level opponent in a playoff series. It's time to try something new, to cut deeper and ask the tough questions about why things haven't worked. Advertisement In an ideal world, the Leafs would have properly identified the need for this level of change before Marner was set to walk for nothing. We're going to be litigating the fallout of that for years to come, but that doesn't change the fact that trying the same thing again next season should have been out of the question either way. The only positive out of Marner's decision is it finally removes the 'run it back' option from the equation. It gives the Leafs a chance to reimagine what that $11 million in cap space can do for them in the playoffs if deployed differently, in support of the players who remain. And to acknowledge that mild success isn't good enough after nearly a decade of trying. (Top photo of Brad Treliving: Steve Russell / Toronto Star via Getty Images)
New York Times
10 hours ago
- New York Times
Who says no to these NHL trades (involving things that cannot actually be traded)?
In the NHL, you can't trade coaches. There was a time when you could, and it happened in 1987, when New York Rangers GM Phil Esposito sent a first-round pick to the Quebec Nordiques for head coach Michel Bergeron in a surprise swap. It was a creative move. It also didn't work, with Bergeron lasting less than two seasons, and the league quickly moved to make sure it wouldn't be tried again. These days, coaches are one of many assets a team is not allowed to trade. Advertisement Or are they? After all, we occasionally see coaching quasi-trades, like when John Tortorella and Alain Vigneault essentially swapped teams after being fired in 2013. More recently, the Rangers and Penguins didn't actually pull off a Mike Sullivan and David Quinn for Dan Muse trade, but it kind of worked out that way. Let's use that as inspiration. We've got time to kill between Stanley Cup Final games, so I put out a call to readers: Send me your 'who says no?' trade proposals involving things that cannot actually be traded. And you sure did. Can we pull off a blockbuster, or will it just be too complicated to make a trade in the cap era NHL? Let's find out. Note: Submissions have been edited for clarity and style. What are the Leafs lacking? Heart and grit. They vowed to change their DNA in the offseason. They need to disrupt their core even if it means losing some skill and finesse. So: To Edmonton: Carlton the Bear To Toronto: Hunter the whatever that is — Mike H. As mascots go, Hunter is a lot worse but also more intimidating, which is probably exactly the sort of move the Leafs will be looking to make this summer. After all, if you're going to acquire a vicious, ugly animal with crazed eyes and no instincts beyond preying on the weak and vulnerable, at least Hunter comes cheaper than Sam Bennett. But what's in it for the Oilers? Is the upgrade from Hunter to Carlton enough to justify disrupting a winning mix? I wasn't sure, so I reached out to the world's foremost experts on NHL mascots: Mark Lazerus' children. Here's what his daughter had to say: 'I think that a Hunter and Carlton trade wouldn't be good because real lynxes live in Alberta. Also, Carlton doesn't wear pants and Edmonton is really cold, so Carlton would freeze. In conclusion, Hunter is with his family and Carlton won't freeze his butt off.' Advertisement The no-pants thing is a strong catch. Sorry, Leafs fans, but the Oilers say no. To Pittsburgh: The rights to 'Brass Bonanza' To Carolina: Exclusive naming rights to Sebastian Aho — Dan H. I kind of love this one. Both teams are getting something of value. We might have a match. And sure, it looks lopsided at first glance. 'Brass Bonanza' is a legitimate star in this league. It's solidly in the GOAT conversation when it comes to novelty goal songs. But it's also the source of controversy among Hurricanes fans, with some embracing it while others see it as nostalgia for a team that they have no personal connection to. So you could argue that the Hurricanes would benefit from making a clean break from the Whalers stuff, and getting the exclusive naming rights to your biggest star isn't a bad way to do it. And of course, the Penguins get a fun new goal song that they can play (checks current roster) dozens of times during the season. I honestly think this one is a win-win. (In related news, Other Sebastian Aho apparently signed with the Penguins last summer. Who knew?) The PWHL receives: The Lady Byng, the Mark Messier, the Jennings, the King Clancy, the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl, the Prince of Wales trophy and a sixth-round pick The NHL receives: The PWHL expansion process and the PWHL Gold Plan — Peter B. Terrible trade. The PWHL doesn't just say no, it hangs up and immediately blocks the number as spam. Seriously, what kind of HFBoards madness is this? It's a classic 'seven nickels for a silver dollar' trade proposal. You're bundling up all the trophies that nobody wants and trying to get not one but two superstar-level concepts in return. This kind of lopsided offer would get you kicked out of my fantasy football league, Peter, do better. St. Louis receives: the 2012 and 2014 Stanley Cup runs Los Angeles receives: the Greatest Show on Turf success and the 1999 Super Bowl — Dylan C. As if L.A. would ever care about Rams football. Advertisement To the Arizona hockey ownership group: Terry Pegula To Buffalo: Alex Meruelo Meruelo is immediately placed on waivers and goes unclaimed. — Todd C. Yeah, we had a lot of Sabres fans trying to offload Pegula, and let's just say you weren't asking for much in return. Real buy-low opportunity right here. I can't imagine why. Still, Arizona says no. This is a classic salary dump, where a big-money player who hasn't been productive in years gets sent out to pasture. Given that, having the destination be Arizona is a nice touch. But while you're taking a bad contract bad in Meruelo, I think Arizona's going to want a few assets in return for taking Pegula's bigger commitment. To the Rangers: Jim Ramsay To Montreal: Dancin' Larry — 'Zach' Other fan bases may need an explainer on this one. Ramsay is the trainer the Rangers fired a few years ago. He was hired in Montreal, but many Rangers fans still view his exit as a symptom of the dysfunction of the Chris Drury/Jim Dolan era. So from the New York perspective, you could view this as trying to right a wrong. But Dancin' Larry, the Rangers superfan and scoreboard regular? He's fine, I guess, but I'm not completely sure he's a fit for Montreal. They're not really a dancing bunch, you know? Maybe if it was 'Telling a Boring Story About Some Guy From the 1930s Larry' we'd have a fit, but right now I think Montreal says no, holding out for more. Maybe toss in a proper hot dog recipe, New York. (By the way, I can't recommend Dancin' Larry's Instagram page highly enough. Just page after page of photos of him with Rangers fans, and he's doing the exact same face and pose in all of them. Not a pixel of difference. Seriously, it might just be a template. How do you move this guy? Get an NTC in that next extension, Larry, this can be a cruel business.) To Dallas: Hosting the Minnesota state high school tournament through 2030 To Minnesota: The Stars/North Stars name, mascots, colors, jerseys — Anonymous I'll admit, I was surprised how many of you want to trade the old North Stars branding back to Minnesota. Apart from trades involving palm trees going to Buffalo or lower tax rates for California and New York, the North Stars stuff was the most common concept by far. Does this deal work? It might. At least Dallas is getting something of value, which it could use to continue to build its fan base. I think the price is just too steep, given it'd be losing its name and branding. Dallas says no, but I could see a counteroffer involving just the classic North Stars stuff heading to Minnesota instead. Then again, what if there were a way for Dallas to acquire new branding? Well, about that … Vancouver needs new ownership and it's always better if it's someone local. If only there was a Vancouverite who randomly owned another team in the league … and if that team happened to have bad uniforms, that would be great, since the Canucks have three completely different logo/uniform/color schemes in their arsenal and can't seem to decide which one to run with. To Vancouver: Owner Tom Gaglardi, who has always wanted to own the Canucks anyway To Dallas: The orange, red and black 'Flying Skate' uniform/color scheme, and an agreement to pay all costs associated with rebranding Dallas to something more appropriate, like Outlaws. — Phil G. Hmm … I mean, part of the art of pulling off a truly great trade is finding an asset that's underappreciated, maybe because it's stuck down the depth chart. As Phil points out, the Canucks have one of the greatest uniform designs of all time just sitting around. The Flying Skate should be Vancouver's primary uniform — it never should have lost the job in the first place — but for whatever reason, it's not. OK, so let's send it somewhere that will give it the chance to be the superstar it should be. The logic is solid. Advertisement That said, you're not getting Gaglardi for a uniform. The owner may be the most important position on a modern NHL team, and Gaglardi would be a massive upgrade for the Canucks franchise. Dallas says no. But it's amicable. It's not closing the door if the Canucks wanted to circle on something down the road. In the meantime, one more for the Canucks … To Vancouver: The Leafs' 1950-51 Stanley Cup win To Toronto: The Canucks' 2011 Stanley Cup Final appearance The Canucks get a Stanley Cup, but one so long ago they'll still be mocked by opposing fans. But one is better than zero. Did they exist in 1951? Let's not worry about the details. The Leafs get yet another devastating loss to the Bruins in the playoffs, but at least this time in a Stanley Cup Final and all the good memories that go with that sort of run. A team that locals mostly like and have fond memories of, legends in the market. (Do not ask what other markets think.) All it costs is a Cup so long ago most fans don't remember it. Note: Canucks retain the riot, due to a NMC. — Greg P. On the surface, this one makes a lot of sense. The Canucks are getting the better asset — a Cup win is obviously better than a near-miss — but the recency bias plays a factor. And the Leafs are dealing from a position of strength, with the 'old Cup wins that nobody really remembers' cupboard pretty much overflowing. That said, Greg mentions the potential problem. While Vancouver fans hate how 2011 ended, it's still a pretty beloved version of the team. If you trade the whole run, that means you lose the Game 7 OT win over the Blackhawks, the Kevin Bieksa bank shot and other fun memories. Do you give all of that up just so you can ditch the Sabres at the 'zero Cups in franchise history' table? You have to give up something to get something, but that's pretty steep. My gut is that Vancouver says no, partly because it just doesn't want to let Leafs fans be happy. But I'd like to hear from Canucks fans in the comments to confirm. And since we're trying to end some Leaf droughts … To Montreal: The 1967 Stanley Cup championship To Toronto: The 1993 Stanley Cup championship The 1967 Cup would give Montreal the last Original Six win and a second run of five straight Cups within a decade. And having won in 1986 would mean their current drought wouldn't be appreciably longer. The '93 Cup reduces Toronto's drought dramatically, and gives them the honor of being the last Canadian team to win a Cup. Plus, we could stop talking about Kerry Fraser forever. — Sean B. Who says no? Every other fan base. They lose out on making fun of the Leafs' record Cup drought, the Habs get even more ammo for their history-firehose, and the last Canadian Cup win somehow becomes even more of a thing because Toronto won't shut up about it. The only gain for the other fan bases would be Leafs fans giving the Fraser stuff a rest after 33 years, and let's be honest, we wouldn't honor that part of the deal. Advertisement So yeah, everyone else hates this deal … which means there may be something here for the two teams involved. As beloved as that rag-tag band of old-timers from the 1967 team has become, I think this is a pretty easy 'yes' for the Leafs. It's a little dicier for Montreal, although I think Sean B. is making a decent case. Ultimately, while it's close, I think Montreal probably says no. Somebody break the bad news to Marty McSorley. Want to send in your trade proposal for a future version of this column? Email this address. (Top photo of Hunter the Lynx: Steph Chambers / Getty Images)
