Toronto Maple Leafs GM Brad Treliving said after day one of free agency: “We got work to do yet.” Considering he revamped his blue line and signed two goaltenders, that must mean he’s looking at the forwards. Job number one will be to entice players to come to Toronto because he doesn’t have a lot of cap room left to maneuver. One way to do that is to brag about the elite-level skill the team possesses at the top of the lineup. That includes Mitch Marner and interestingly, Treliving is rumored to be pitching that opportunity to potential free agents.
Reports have surfaced that Toronto is telling UFA forwards they have a chance to play with some of the best offensive talents in the league as a way to interest them in considering the Maple Leafs. And, by dropping Marner’s name, it has to mean the Maple Leafs have no immediate plans to trade him.
What Are the Maple Leafs Telling UFAs?
According to NHL insider Chris Johnston, the Leafs specifically went after Jeff Skinner and pitched the idea of playing on a line with Auston Matthews and Marner. Skinner ultimately signed with the Edmonton Oilers, but the report is telling. That means the GM is using Marner as a selling point to recruit players and we have to assume he’s telling potential signees that Marner will be on the team in 2024-25. You don’t do that if the plan is to trade him.
Imagine what would have happened if Skinner (or another forward) had chosen Toronto because of that pitch, only for the Maple Leafs to turn around and deal Marner in a blockbuster trade days or weeks later. It would be one thing if the season started and chemistry was non-existent. It would be another if the Leafs struggled out of the gate and the team needed to make a change. Those are acceptable reasons that a top player would be moved and that other players would understand. But, to sign new arrivals under the impression that Marner would be a linemate only for Marner to be gone before that player arrives? Those kinds of unethical business practices and empty promises get around quickly.
Related: 5 Depth Forwards Maple Leafs Can Still Add in Free Agency
And, as good as Skinner might turn out to be for the Oilers and could have been for the Maple Leafs, he’s not the kind of player that forces a team to pivot on trade plans. In other words, Treliving isn’t on the fence about trading Marner. He’s not telling Skinner that Marner will be on the team and then keeping Marner only because Skinner might say yes and he’ll have a new dynamic trio.
What Does This Mean for Marner?
This news confirms what many have reported: the Leafs intend to hang onto Marner. If they’re going to parade the playmaking forward in front of would-be UFAs, we can assume he’s not going anywhere. At the very least, Toronto intends to start the year with Marner on the roster and see where things go.
It’s also safe to assume that using Marner as a selling feature isn’t working. If the pitch to Skinner — and whoever else the Leafs might have made this offer to — was to play top-line minutes with Matthews and Marner, they’ve already gotten at least one no. That’s potentially a bad sign. Granted, Skinner chose Connor McDavid and/or Leon Draisaitl (which is a solid Plan B.. wink, wink), but Matthews and Marner are Toronto’s big guns. Who wouldn’t want to play with them?
If the answer winds up being no one of significance, does it change Treliving’s thoughts about keeping Marner? Perhaps it should.
