Opinion | The Maple Leafs can create a bidding war for captain John Tavares. Here’s how and why they should do it

It was interesting to watch the Nashville Predators get out from under Ryan Johansen’s hefty contract with their weekend trade with the Colorado Avalanche.

It didn’t come cheap, with Nashville retaining 50 per cent of the $8 million (U.S.) owed on each of the remaining two years for what was once seen as an untradeable contract.

Back in 2017, Predators general manager David Poile was desperate for a No. 1 centre and it showed. Johansen had decent years in Columbus after being selected fourth in the 2010 draft — back-to-back 60- to 70-point seasons before a mid-season move to Nashville, and he maintained that pace for the season and a half that followed — but the trade and his eventual eight-year, $64-million deal was based on his potential and the promise of him reaching another level.

The money he got from Poile a few days before his 25th birthday set a new bar for centres who record 60-point seasons. And if Johansen’s move to Colorado on Saturday taught us anything, it’s that every contract in the league, no matter how we look at them, has value.

A few days later, Kevin Hayes was sent packing from Philadelphia to the St Louis Blues, with the Flyers retaining half of Hayes’ $7.14-million salary cap hit for the next three years.

And that brings us to San Jose Sharks defenceman Erik Karlsson. He’s more valuable than Johansen or Hayes, with a third Norris Trophy win Monday night, but it doesn’t really matter, does it? With four years left on a contract that has the fifth-highest cap hit in the league — $11.5 million — even being labelled the best defenceman in the world leaves him beyond reach for any other NHL team.

So until Sharks GM Mike Grier convinces ownership to eat part of the 33-year-old’s contract — whether it’s 25 per cent, 30, 40 or maybe more — he’s not going anywhere. When asked why San Jose wouldn’t go the Predators’ and Flyers’ route, Grier responded: “Because it’s a lot of money.”

“For people who think we’re going to eat 50 per cent of his contract and all this type of stuff, it’s probably not going to happen,” Grier said. “Erik’s a special player. He’s on the path to being a Hall of Fame player. He’s healthy, I think he proved that last year. He’s a special player who drives offence like not many others in this league … He’s not someone who we’re just going to toss aside and not take things into account and try and help the organization out.”

(For what it’s worth, former Leafs general manager Kyle Dubas showed a lot of interest in acquiring Karlsson last March. With San Jose only willing to discount them a paltry $2 million, the Leafs were forced to go in another direction.)

But this brings us to another contract that is believed to be unmovable: John Tavares. If this is truly a copycat league, will the discounted Johansen and Hayes trades inspire Leafs GM Brad Treliving to take another look at his captain’s contract?

A willingness by the Leafs to retain salary on a Tavares trade (and yes, we’ll get to the no-move clause later) could easily put a dozen teams in a bidding war and, more importantly, completely reconfigure the Leafs’ salary cap.

What it could do for the Leafs is immeasurable. Whether it’s re-signing Auston Matthews and William Nylander, acquiring a top defencemen via trade or free agency, or even adding an experienced playoff goalie, each of those scenarios would be back in play in a more meaningful way.

And whatever direction Treliving goes in after this substantial salary dump — Tavares has two years left with an $11 million average annual value — alters their look going into training camp. The 32-year-old may have put up 80 points last season, continuing his career point-a-game pace, but the skill set is on the decline and the money can be better spent elsewhere.

The issue, of course, is his no-move clause. Some may argue a deal is a deal and consider it dirty pool for Treliving to ask his captain to waive it. But is it?

It was a fascinating turn of events when St. Louis GM Doug Armstrong attempted to complete a trade with the Flyers earlier this week. It involved defenceman Torey Krug, who exercised his right not to waive his complete no-trade clause, one that Armstrong gave Krug back in 2020 when he signed him to a seven-year, $45.5-million deal.

If Armstrong’s purpose was to publicly pressure Krug to waive his clause, we’ll have to see if it worked in the days and weeks ahead. It’s possible Krug might change his mind as early as this weekend if he dares to read social media; many fans are angry about his decision.

So where would Leafs Nation sit if Treliving asked that of Tavares? The captain made it clear after the Leafs bowed out of the playoffs against Florida what his position was in relation to his contract.

“I love it here,” Tavares said. “I made a commitment here for seven years to be a Leaf and I want to be here. That’s how I feel.”

Would Treliving be willing to go where Armstrong did? Would a Canadian fan base like Toronto be more sympathetic to local boy Tavares even if it means not being able to improve the lineup dramatically? Or are we past that now and players shouldn’t take requests to waive no-move clauses so personally? At the end of the day it’s just business, right?

Some have suggested it’s not Treliving’s style to play hardball with his players. Perhaps that’s the case.

But I also can’t help thinking about his recent words in describing his Core Four: “Oh, I don’t think there’s ever any assurances in this business.”

Kyper’s Korner

As the July 1 date approaches, allowing players with one year remaining on their current contracts to sign extensions, there’s lots of talk this week that a Matthews one with the Maple Leafs will fall between $12.75 million and $13.5 million annually on a short-term deal, leaving money on the table to offer the club a better chance to win. It’s a far cry from his comment five years ago when discussing Brendan Shanahan’s remarks about the club’s leaders taking less to fit everyone in: “That’s why we have agents, right?” he said back then. As far a Nylander extension goes, the Leafs are taking the same approach the Los Angeles Kings did with Pierre-Luc Dubois, essentially “we can make this work but it has to be at this specific number.” Dubois took the $8.5 million a season on an extension that set off the sign-and-trade with Winnipeg … I really like what general manager Tom Fitzgerald is doing in New Jersey. He’s currently working on a Tyler Toffoli extension after acquiring him from Calgary but as of mid-week it had yet to be completed. Some question whether Toffoli’s foot speed will allow him to keep up over the next few years but he’s never been a player who relied on his speed to be effective … Speaking of Fitzgerald, the word out of the draft is that he’s taking a real good look at Jets netminder Connor Hellebuyck. I still do question how many teams really have an appetite to spend top dollar on a goalie. Rumblings are Hellebuyck, who has one year remaining on his deal, wants his next contract to be in the Andrei Vasilevskiy range — $9.5 million AAV … Add the Montreal Canadiens to the list of teams willing to eat 50 per cent of a contract in order to get rid of it. Mike Hoffman, with one year remaining on his deal at $4.5 million, can be had.

Change(d) my mind

On no-movement clauses. They are pure evil in a salary-cap system. Good on players who get them included in their contracts but I’d never give them out if I ran a hockey club.

Nick Kypreos is a former NHL player, Stanley Cup champion and current host of Sportsnet’s Real Kyper and Bourne radio show. He is a freelance contributing columnist for the Star and is based in Toronto. Follow him on Twitter: @RealKyper

SHARE: