NHL analysts Chris Johnston and Darren Dreger recently weighed in on pre-trade deadline rumors surrounding Toronto Maple Leafs forward Matthew Knies, specifically addressing speculation that linked him to the Montreal Canadiens.
During a discussion, Bryan Hayes questioned the veracity of these reports: “After the fact, it became the Leafs and the Habs we’re talking, and maybe Matthew Knies and his name was out there. What is the reality here? What was actually being discussed? Was Matthew Knies and his name out there? What can you tell us?”
Johnston confirmed that the Maple Leafs “100% had discussions involving Matthew Knies.” However, he believes the degree to which any deal neared completion has likely been “overstated” in some circles. Johnston explained that Knies stands out as a highly valuable asset for the Leafs because he lacks contractual protection. Unlike players with no-movement clauses, whose trade value is limited by their ability to dictate destinations, Knies represents a true open bidding opportunity on the market. While Johnston didn’t think a deal was imminent, he suggested it made strategic sense for the Leafs to “listen” to inquiries to assess Knies’ market worth, implying that such conversations could potentially be revisited in the future.
Let’s consider why one might trade Matthew Knies. He has no protection in his contract and is likely the most valuable asset the Leafs possess. I’m not suggesting he’s their best player, but if they were to trade a player with a no-movement clause, that player wouldn’t be as valuable on the market because they control their destination, preventing a genuine open bidding process.
Dreger elaborated, stating that while most teams have a core group of “near-untouchable” players, opposing general managers will still make speculative calls, often posing “what if” scenarios. He believes this is exactly what transpired with the Montreal Canadiens, who likely presented a hypothetical “real healthy package” for Knies. Dreger speculated that the Maple Leafs’ response would have been to inquire about significant assets, such as “Michael Hage, two first-round draft picks, something else?” to even initiate a serious conversation. However, he clarified that “it never got to that point.”
CJ is correct; there were other teams, though not many. For instance, when the Maple Leafs merely ‘kicked tires’ on Robert Thomas of the St. Louis Blues, what do you think Doug Armstrong (Blues GM) would expect in return if you’re engaging at that level? It would have involved Knies and other assets. But Toronto was never actively ‘shopping’ Matthew Knies.
Dreger emphasized a crucial distinction: “There is a big difference between putting players in play and having general managers call you and say, ‘What sort of deal would it take for you to entertain that possibility?’ And that was where Knies and Maple Leafs were.” He reiterated that while other teams made inquiries, the Leafs were not actively seeking to trade Knies. He cited the example of the Maple Leafs’ past interest in Robert Thomas, suggesting that Knies would have been a significant piece in any potential high-value trade package.
