Maple Leafs rumors: Mitch Marner not expected to return to Toronto in free agency
The Toronto Maple Leafs have several key players hitting NHL free agency, and arguably the biggest of them all is Mitch Marner. By the sounds of it, he won't be returning.
Advertisement
NHL insider Andy Strickland reported Friday that Marner is expected to be playing for a new team in 2025-26:
'Can confirm Mitch Marner will not be returning to Toronto. Will be playing for a new team come next season.' Strickland wrote on X.
If this is indeed true, it's not a huge surprise. The Maple Leafs reportedly attempted to trade for Mikko Rantanen at the deadline, offering Marner to the Carolina Hurricanes, but he ultimately remained with the team. Marner has stayed rather quiet on his future, and after Toronto's brutal exit at the hands of the Florida Panthers, he refused to speak on what the next move will be:
'I've always loved my time here. I've loved being here,' Marner said on the team's locker clean-out day. 'Like I said to you guys the other night, I have been so grateful and, you know, haven't processed anything yet. It's still so fresh and losing sucks.'
Advertisement
'In the next couple of weeks, I'll sit down with my wife and we'll start talking,' Marner continued. 'Trying to figure out what's next.'
Marner decided not to negotiate a new deal with the Maple Leafs during the regular season and instead wanted to wait until free agency. The reality is that many teams will be vying for his signature. The veteran led Toronto in points in 2024-25, scoring 27 goals and tallying 75 assists.
While he is a crucial piece for the Maple Leafs, this current core hasn't been able to get the franchise over the hump and make a Stanley Cup. Perhaps they do need a new recipe for success, and that likely won't include Marner.
Wherever he ends up, the superstar will secure a major payday.
Related: Maple Leafs rumors: Insider calls out John Tavares 'stretch' in contract talks
Related: NHL rumors: Pierre LeBrun makes Maple Leafs prediction for Brad Marchand
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
19 minutes ago
- New York Times
Getting a new CBA without a lockout is bad, actually: The Contrarian returns
It's late July, we're two months away from games that matter, and NHL GMs have apparently taken the rest of the summer off. Let's get Contrarian. This is the feature where you send in your most obvious takes, and I tell you that you're wrong, whether I believe it or not. In the past, we've made the case that Mark Messier was a great Canuck, Ray Bourque's Cup win was bad, but Brett Hull's crease goal was good and Bobby Orr's flying goal photo is overrated. Last time, we made the case for Alex Ovechkin being an overrated bum, and also for Alex Ovechkin being an underrated legend, because we're flexible like that. Advertisement This time, we've got a new CBA, an old legend and everything in between. Let's dive in. Note: Submissions have been edited for clarity and style. The NHL and NHLPA agreeing on a new CBA quickly and without any work-stoppage drama is a good thing. — Kevin S. On the contrary, Kevin S., you twit. Unless, of course, you're an owner. Are you an owner, Kevin? Are you? Because if not, you should be concerned about what we just saw play out. We had the two sides of this multibillion-dollar industry come together, and the result was a one-sided victory for the owners, one that appeared to come with next to no resistance from the players. Sure, they got a few minor concessions in the form of payroll taxes and an increased playoff fund. But in today's NHL, those 'wins' represent pennies on the dollar. Meanwhile, the owners got more games, shorter contracts and smaller bonuses. And they'll keep all the coming expansion money, a multibillion-dollar windfall that the players didn't even seem to try to get a piece of. And sure, you can see why it played out that way. After all, this is Gary Bettman's NHL, where history shows us how these things usually go. If the players try to stand up for themselves, even a little, Bettman shuts everything down. Sometimes the players win, sometimes they lose, and sometimes nobody's even sure, but it always comes with a cost in a league where careers are short. When it comes to work stoppages, Bettman isn't bluffing. He's proven that over the years. So why even try? The position was summed up perfectly by a player quoted in this excellent piece. 'What can we do? There can't be another lockout,' the player said. 'Those don't go our way. It's better to get it done.' 'What can we do?' indeed. That's rational, on some level. But it's not healthy. And it's not fair to the players, who are the reason we watch this league. Nobody thinks that Marty Walsh should have come in with guns blazing, trying to recreate the animosity of the Bob Goodenow era. But if this were a hockey fight, it sure looks like the owners wiggled their gloves and the players immediately turtled. Advertisement After three decades of Bettman's 'shut it down' approach, we now have labor peace. But that peace apparently just means the players roll over without any sign of a fight, while the owners tilt the ice even further at every opportunity. That's good news for fans who just wanted to watch hockey without hearing from the accountants and mediators. But it's not a good thing for the game. The 4 Nations Face-Off was an overwhelming success for the NHL. — James On the contrary, James, you clodpoll. Was it fun? Of course. Did it blow away expectations? I'd say so. Did the best team win? Indisputably. But that last bit is the problem. You're talking about what's best for the NHL. And when it comes to best-on-best tournaments, here's what's best for the NHL: Team USA finally winning one of these things. That's it. That's what needs to happen. If you could hook Bettman and friends and up to lie detectors, they'd tell you that's the whole point. From the league's perspective, shutting down a season for a best-on-best showdown is ultimately a marketing exercise. And when it comes to marketing this sport in the USA, only one result moves the needle. And Team Canada winning — again, like they always do — isn't it. Short of a Team USA win, this year's tournament delivered everything you could ask for, including a signature moment: The infamous Nine Seconds from the round robin, the rare hockey game that seemed to take over the sports discourse for days. Fans of other sports were hooked because what they were watching didn't look anything like the leagues they were used to. Unfortunately, it didn't look much like the modern NHL either, meaning that wild night in Montreal couldn't draw in new fans on its own. The tournament needed the right outcome, and it didn't get it. American sports fans will dip in to sample best-on-best hockey, as the record ratings for the 4 Nations final show. But they want to see a happy ending. They didn't get it this year, just like they didn't in 2002 or 2010 or any other year beyond 1996, which is too long ago to matter. And that's why they don't stick around. Less than four months later, we got a Stanley Cup Final featuring a rematch between Connor McDavid, who scored the OT winner, and Matthew Tkachuk, who worked hard to make himself the face of Team USA. Nobody watched. Advertisement (Well, they watched in Canada, as they always do. But the NHL has been clear over the years: When it comes to Canada, the only priority is to cash as big a check as possible from Sportsnet every decade or so. Beyond that, they couldn't care less.) The bottom line: There's a reason that the typical American sports fan still thinks a round-robin upset from 1980 is the most important hockey game ever played. Until a Team USA can deliver that sort of moment again, nothing is going to be a 'success' for the NHL, in any way that matters to league leadership. American players can keep kicking the can down the road, always telling us that the next tournament is the one that matters. But eventually, they're going to need to do more than talk a good game. The decentralized draft was awful, and the GMs of this league proved their incompetence by voting for its return. — Jackson S. On the contrary, Jackson, you dumbbell. I mean, you're right about the first part — the decentralized draft that we all watched a few weeks ago was, indeed, awful. I wrote that at the time, and not many of you disagreed. But was it awful because it was a decentralized draft? Or was it awful because it was the first decentralized draft (of the modern era, that wasn't forced on us by a pandemic)? Or did the NHL just try a few things that didn't work, in a way they can learn from and fix for next year's edition? The answer is we don't know. But we'll find out, because they're doing it again next year. That's upset some fans, especially the kind of whiny babies who never like anything. But the reality is that we had decades of centralized drafts and one year of the alternative. We can't know if the new way can work. All we know is that it didn't, once. The league deserves a chance to ditch the cringey Zoom interviews, figure out a way to speed things along and try again. If that one stinks, then fine, attack the GMs if they insist on sticking with it. Just not yet. Comment sections are trash. — Paul W. On the contrary, Paul, you (tries to think of the most insulting label possible), commenter. Comment sections can be great … sometimes. If I had to guess, I'd bet that 90 percent of the commenters on a typical post of mine are pretty cool, even if they don't agree with what they've just read. Of course, that number can get a lot higher depending on whose post it is and what the subject matter might be. I generally get to play on easy mode, because how fired up can you really get over stuff like this? I've seen some really interesting discussions break out in my comment sections, not to mention having some really neat suggestions for future posts. Advertisement But it doesn't take much to ruin the vibe, even if 90 percent of people are cool — nobody's fine with 10 percent turd content in their punchbowl. And yeah, some of you are just weird. That includes the garden variety trolls and those who've made a permanent state of grievance into their whole personality. It also includes some sports- and hockey-specific types, like the super-homers, or the 'slow news day?' slugs, or the Leaf-pilled anti-fans who make everything about one team and then complain about it, or the single-issue obsessives, or the stick-to-sports losers, or Bruins fans. It is what it is. So what can you do? Not much, unfortunately. You can ignore the troll, upvote the first guy telling them they're an idiot, and then move on. (Piling on in the same thread just makes it look like that comment is the most important one on the piece.) Other than that, just be cool, remind yourself that we're talking about a game here, and remember that sometimes it's OK to just not post anything. That story about the Oilers learning how to win from the Islanders in 1983 is one of hockey's best. — Sean M. On the contrary, Sean, you … wait, this is me. I'm submitting my own questions. That's kind of pathetic, but in my defense, I basically asked you guys to send this one in a few weeks ago and nobody took the bait. So yeah, on the contrary, Sean, you absolute beauty. The Oilers/Islanders story is bad, and we need to stop bringing it up every year at playoff time. If you've somehow missed it, the story goes like this: It's 1983 and the upstart young Oilers are facing the Islanders in the Stanley Cup Final. They're the better team, in terms of regular-season record, and have all the pieces in place. But the Islanders are a dynasty, having won three straight Cups. Sure enough, the Isles sweep the series. After the deciding game, various Oilers players (including Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier in most tellings) walk by New York's dressing room, expecting to see a raucous celebration. Instead, they see a bunch of beaten-up players with ice packs, barely celebrating at all because of how much they've left on the ice. At that moment, the Oilers finally understand what it takes to be a winner, and they go on to beat those same Islanders one year later for the first of five Cups in seven years. Here's Gretzky himself spinning the tale: It's an awesome story. You can see why fans love it. It's also completely fake. I mean, come on. Let's use some common sense. We're supposed to believe that the Islanders have just won the Stanley Cup, and they're all sitting in their locker room with the door open for some reason. Nobody's celebrating. Nobody's happy. They're just all strapping ice packs to their broken limbs or whatever, not even so much as cracking a beer, even though just a few minutes earlier they looked like this. Advertisement You're buying that? Really? Because if so, I'm inviting you over to play the new Super Mario that I got from my uncle, who works at Nintendo. Now, does this mean I'm calling Gretzky a liar? Not necessarily. He's not a historian, he's a storyteller, and he's going back 40-plus years for this one. He's not making things up out of nothing. I don't doubt that he may have walked past that room, and maybe things weren't as boisterous as he expected. He's just exaggerating, being dramatic and shaping a story over the decades in a way that plays best. But what he's describing didn't happen that way. And if you don't believe me, why not ask somebody who was there: Islanders' legend Bryan Trottier. He was on a podcast a few months ago and mentioned the legend of the quiet dressing room. He says it's not true, or at least not accurate, the way Gretzky tells it. 'That's not the way we remember it,' he says. Instead, he says that somebody told the Islanders players when the Oilers were on their way past the room, so they quieted down the ongoing celebration out of respect for their opponent, not wanting to seem like they were rubbing it in. But they were celebrating. Of course they were. They'd just won the Stanley Cup! That version makes sense, and squares with where Gretzky (and others) got this idea in the first place. But over the years, it's morphed into the Islanders' post-Cup room being a morgue. That's not true, it was never true, and it's not a good lesson about how to win. When you achieve a lifelong dream, you absolutely should celebrate. And the Islanders did. You know who else did? The Oilers! If the story had really played out the way the modern version does, and was so instrumental to Edmonton learning how to win, shouldn't their celebrations have been muted? Instead, this is the team that invented the Cup handoffs and team photos and maybe did some other things. Does that sound like a team that had learned that the key to winning was being too beat up to be happy about it? No, because that never happened. Let's stop pretending it did. If you'd like to submit a take for future editions of The Contrarian, you can do that here. (Photo of Islanders' Bryan Trottier hoisting the Stanley Cup in 1983: Bruce Bennett Studios via Getty Images Studios / Getty Images)
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Rangers' Brett Berard played with shoulder tear for most of season
Access the Rangers beat like never before Join Post Sports+ for exciting subscriber-only features, including real-time texting with Mollie Walker about the inside buzz on the Rangers. tRY IT NOW Brett Berard revealed that he tore his labrum in his shoulder during his fourth NHL game last season, which lingered throughout the remainder of the 2024-25 campaign before forcing him to withdraw from Team USA at the 2025 World Championship. 'That happened [on Nov. 30] against Montreal, right when I got called up,' the 22-year-old said Thursday before participating in the Shoulder Check Showcase at Terry Conners Rink in Stamford, Conn. 'Just kind of lingered all year, wore a brace all year. It was good to kind of get that situated. It feels good, it feels strong. So just trying to get it all better, but we feel a lot better now.' Advertisement No surgery was required, and Berard expects to be 100 percent ready to go for training camp. At the time of the injury, Berard had just been called up for the first time since the Rangers drafted him No. 134 overall in 2020. After the injury, the Rhode Island native missed just three games before returning to the lineup. Advertisement Brett Berard plays in the third annual Shoulder Check hockey showcase game at Terry Conners Rink on July 24, 2025, in Stamford, CT. Corey Sipkin for New York Post 'It was really just kind of a normal hit, I just went in weird. … It didn't feel great at all,' said Berard, who appeared in 35 games last season with the Rangers. 'I was out for a week or so. But it's one of those things where you're up in the NHL, you work your whole life for it. I felt like I was playing pretty good hockey, too, so you don't want to really lose that. So, just tried to play through it.' As first reported by The Post in May, Berard pulled out of the international tournament at the last minute due to what was described as 'physical limitations' at the time. Berard said he committed, skated once or twice and his shoulder didn't feel great. Advertisement Brett Berard plays in the third annual Shoulder Check hockey showcase game at Terry Conners Rink on July 24, 2025, in Stamford, CT. Corey Sipkin for New York Post When he realized he'd have no rehab time, Berard made the tough decision not to participate in the tournament. The injury hasn't affected his offseason training. Read the expert take on the Blueshirts Sign up for Larry Brooks' Inside the Rangers, a weekly Sports+ exclusive. Thank you Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Enjoy this Post Sports+ exclusive newsletter! Check out more newsletters Advertisement 'It stunk. I was rooting for everybody, it was awesome to see them win gold there,' Berard said of Team USA, which won its first standalone world championship title since 1933. 'It makes you a little bit jealous, but I know a ton of those guys, a lot of best friends with them. So it was awesome to watch them. … It was deserved. They had a great team. It was a ton of fun to watch them, but it did stink.'
UPI
5 hours ago
- UPI
All 5 ex-Hockey Canada players acquitted in sexual assault trial
July 25 (UPI) -- All five players of the gold medal-winning 2018 Canadian world junior hockey team who were accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a hotel room have been acquitted of all charges in a trial that has shaken the Canadian hockey world. "The accused are free to go," Superior Court Justice Maria Carroccia said Thursday in a London, Ont., courtroom, about 120 miles southwest of Toronto, after finding Michael McLeod, Carter Hart, Alex Formenton, Dillon Dube and Cal Foote not guilty. The five hockey players, four of whom played for NHL clubs when charged in 2024, pleaded not guilty to allegations of sexually assaulting a woman, known as E.M. in court documents, in a London hotel room in June 2018 following a Hockey Canada fundraising event. The London Police Service had been contacted the following morning after the alleged assault and closed the case without charges in February 2019. The allegations became public in May 2022 when it was first reported that E.M. had, a month prior, filed a $2.56 million lawsuit against Hockey Canada over the alleged assault. The lawsuit alleged E.M. was supplied with alcohol by one of the players at a downtown London bar. She then went back to the player's hotel room where they engaged in sexual acts, after which the player allegedly invited the other men into the room, which she did not consent to. Hockey Canada reached a settlement with E.M., but public anger and media attention prompted the London Police Service to announce a review of its initial investigation, resulting in the charges against the five athletes, who were then suspended from their NHL teams and surrendered to the authorities. Carroccia said that she largely did not find E.M.'s testimony credible or reliable and that she sided with the accused's version of the night that saw her as the sexual aggressor. She also said there were discrepancies in what E.M. told police in 2018 and Hockey Canada investigators in 2022. Karen Bellehumeur, lawyer for E.M., said her client was "very disappointed with the verdict and very disappointed with her honor's assessment of her honesty and reliability." "She's really never experienced not being believed like this before," Bellehumeur said during a press conference outside the courthouse. She said E.M.'s purpose in testifying was "to stand up for herself and for others who have had similar experiences. She felt the sexual violence she experienced should not be concealed. She felt there needed to be accountability." Following the verdict, the NHL issued a statement saying the five players are ineligible to play in the league amid a review of the judge's findings, stating the allegations were disturbing even if not criminal. The National Hockey League Players' Association also released a statement saying the five players should have "the opportunity to return to work." "The NHL's declaration that the players are 'ineligible' to play pending its further analysis of the court's findings is inconsistent with the discipline procedures set forth in the CBA," the union said, referring to Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and the league.
