Salary Cap: 2019-2020 Salary Cap Crunch

[4thline]

If he suits up I would be very surprise and wrong. Which unlike some on here I would admit it. I am just going by his contract as it sure appears that the intent is for him not to play.

Does your insurance signify your intent to burn your house down?

 

[diceman934]

Does your insurance signify your intent to burn your house down?

What the hell does that have to do with the price of sugar?

 

[4thline]

What the hell does that have to do with the price of sugar?

Having an exit strategy to walk away from a hypothetical bad outcome with minimal harm is not proof that you're set on that outcome happening, it just means that you're being prudent.

You think that Marleau retires after another 25+ goal, 40+ point season? Gives up on at least 1 and who knows how many shots at the cup?

 

[diceman934]

Having an exit strategy to walk away from a hypothetical bad outcome with minimal harm is not proof that you're set on that outcome happening, it just means that you're being prudent.

You think that Marleau retires after another 25+ goal, 40+ point season? Gives up on at least 1 and who knows how many shots at the cup?

I have answered that question several times in this thread why ask it again.

 

[4thline]

I have answered that question several times in this thread why ask it again.

To see if your conclusion is based entirely on terrible logic or if you had insight/info into whether Marleau is purely mercenary or driven by pride/winning

 

[diceman934]

To see if your conclusion is based entirely on terrible logic or if you had insight/info into whether Marleau is purely mercenary or driven by pride/winning

Terrible logic...ha ha. Why would the Leafs pay a old man 6.25 for 3 years when they knew they had to sign the big 3 to long term deals and still attemp to improve moving forward and then sign JT. My conclusion is that they know Marleau is not playing past this coming season and hence the contract structure that shows the only money due to a player is 1.25m making the contract easy to move.

I have been wrong before and will Likely be wrong again I just do not think it is this time. Time will tell if I am correct or not.

 

[Mess]

To see if your conclusion is based entirely on terrible logic or if you had insight/info into whether Marleau is purely mercenary or driven by pride/winning

I believe fans that think Marleau is suddenly going to retire and then Leafs deal his contract away to avoid a $6.3 mil cap hit to solve pending cap concerns are going to be disappointed.

Leafs have pending cap issues due to the pending upcoming large contracts, but I don't believe Marleau is going to willingly help resolve them.

Marleau accepted a Leafs 3-year deal, leaving his only/original team of 20 years and his 2 year contract offer on the table in hopes of winning a Cup.. Now that Leafs added JT the odds have improved significantly, and he suddenly pulls the plug on his NHL career to help the Leafs compete better using his cap space in year 3 for that benefit.. I'm personally not buying it, and baring injury or a significant drop in his own play this seems more fiction than fact.

If Marleau had any intention of retiring after this year he could just have stayed in SJ and played and ended his entire career there. Ironically SJ was more Cup competitive last year than the Leafs were, so Patty might already be having doubts about leaving in the first place.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I believe fans that think Marleau is suddenly going to retire and then Leafs deal his contract away to avoid a $6.3 mil cap hit to solve pending cap concerns are going to be disappointed.

Leafs have pending cap issues due to the pending upcoming large contracts, but I don't believe Marleau is going to willingly help resolve them.

Marleau accepted a Leafs 3-year deal, leaving his only/original team of 20 years and his 2 year contract offer on the table in hopes of winning a Cup.. Now that Leafs added JT the odds have improved significantly, and he suddenly pulls the plug on his NHL career to help the Leafs compete better using his cap space in year 3 for that benefit.. I'm personally not buying it, and baring injury or a significant drop in his own play this seems more fiction than fact.

If Marleau had any intention of retiring after this year he could just have stayed in SJ and played and ended his entire career there. Ironically SJ was more Cup competitive last year than the Leafs were, so Patty might already be having doubts about leaving in the first place.

Unless he just wanted more money in which case you're simply wrong.

 

[ACC1224]

I believe fans that think Marleau is suddenly going to retire and then Leafs deal his contract away to avoid a $6.3 mil cap hit to solve pending cap concerns are going to be disappointed.

Leafs have pending cap issues due to the pending upcoming large contracts, but I don't believe Marleau is going to willingly help resolve them.

Marleau accepted a Leafs 3-year deal, leaving his only/original team of 20 years and his 2 year contract offer on the table in hopes of winning a Cup.. Now that Leafs added JT the odds have improved significantly, and he suddenly pulls the plug on his NHL career to help the Leafs compete better using his cap space in year 3 for that benefit.. I'm personally not buying it, and baring injury or a significant drop in his own play this seems more fiction than fact.

If Marleau had any intention of retiring after this year he could just have stayed in SJ and played and ended his entire career there. Ironically SJ was more Cup competitive last year than the Leafs were, so Patty might already be having doubts about leaving in the first place.

Was already to say I agree 100 % until the bolded.

 

[Mess]

Lou Lam knew exactly what he was doing when he signed Marleau and was using the CBA rules and Leafs financial wherewithal to give the Leafs a Salary Cap advantage.

Because money is of no concern to MLSE and the CBA allows you to replace an injured player with a healthy one and for all intents and purposes count as only 1 player in terms of cap the Leafs are using Horton's LTIR $5.3 mil contract to overspend the hard cap ceiling by his contract through the reimbursement option.

Hard Cap $79.6 mil + Horton LTIR $5.3 mil (long term injury reimbursement) = Leafs actual hard cap = $84.9 mil allowed to be spent. (MLSE has no $$ concerns spending every allowable penny)

Marleau @ $6.25 mil designated as the Horton injury replacement @ $5.3 mil means that Marleau actually costs the Leafs only $950k (needed below the hard cap ceiling which is the difference of their there contracts AAV). When Horton's contract ends after 2019-20 so does Marleau overlapping one and both go away.

So despite Patty Marleau cap hit of $6.25 mil he is essentially costing the same Leafs cap as Auston Matthews $925k ELC below the $79.6 mil cap ceiling this year.

This is good cap management being employed by Leafs to their advantage to be able to ice the most cap compliant and cup competitive team the CBA allows !!!.

 

[Mess]

Was already to say I agree 100 % until the bolded.

The bolded is only true if SJ wins Cup now in the next 2 years and Leafs don't. If that should happen it would likely haunt Marleau for the rest of his life about his decision to leave if the goal was to hoist a Cup in the process.

SJ swept Anaheim aside easily 4-0 in round #1 and then lost to Vegas an expansion team in round #2, but odds might have suggested SJ match-up favoured the Sharks going in over an Cinderella expansion team in round on the path to the final 4.

Had Marleau stayed in SJ could he have help the Sharks advance any further? You have to think that after 20 years of service that Marleau was watching their playoff run closely and some doubt creeping into his decision to leave, particularly if Marleau only ever planned on playing 2 of his 3 year contract in TO.

 

[diceman934]

I believe fans that think Marleau is suddenly going to retire and then Leafs deal his contract away to avoid a $6.3 mil cap hit to solve pending cap concerns are going to be disappointed.

Leafs have pending cap issues due to the pending upcoming large contracts, but I don't believe Marleau is going to willingly help resolve them.

Marleau accepted a Leafs 3-year deal, leaving his only/original team of 20 years and his 2 year contract offer on the table in hopes of winning a Cup.. Now that Leafs added JT the odds have improved significantly, and he suddenly pulls the plug on his NHL career to help the Leafs compete better using his cap space in year 3 for that benefit.. I'm personally not buying it, and baring injury or a significant drop in his own play this seems more fiction than fact.

If Marleau had any intention of retiring after this year he could just have stayed in SJ and played and ended his entire career there. Ironically SJ was more Cup competitive last year than the Leafs were, so Patty might already be having doubts about leaving in the first place.

The sharks were a lot closer then the Leafs were for winning the cup when he signed. So obviously he came for the money and not to win the cup as he would have just stayed with the Sharks. You keep saying he came to win the cup but that is false.

 

[Buds17]

The sharks were a lot closer then the Leafs were for winning the cup when he signed. So obviously he came for the money and not to win the cup as he would have just stayed with the Sharks. You keep saying he came to win the cup but that is false.

Going by the season that had concluded prior to his signing, the Sharks lost a 2nd vs 3rd divisional matchup to the Oilers (the Oilers had the better regular season finish by a handful of points) while the wild card Leafs lost to the President's Trophy Capitals, both in the 1st round. I'd argue the Sharks were more of a veteran/win now mode team in comparison to the Leafs, so the eliminations may not have been seen as equal.

The Leafs might have given him the biggest deal (in term and overall $), but it's not like the Sharks didn't make him an offer at all (one year less than the Leafs), or other teams weren't interested (LA, Dallas, Anaheim IIRC). He could've signed here for multiple reasons.

 

[ACC1224]

The bolded is only true if SJ wins Cup now in the next 2 years and Leafs don't. If that should happen it would likely haunt Marleau for the rest of his life about his decision to leave if the goal was to hoist a Cup in the process.

SJ swept Anaheim aside easily 4-0 in round #1 and then lost to Vegas an expansion team in round #2, but odds might have suggested SJ match-up favoured the Sharks going in over an Cinderella expansion team in round on the path to the final 4.

Had Marleau stayed in SJ could he have help the Sharks advance any further? You have to think that after 20 years of service that Marleau was watching their playoff run closely and some doubt creeping into his decision to leave, particularly if Marleau only ever planned on playing 2 of his 3 year contract in TO.

I think he sees the Leafs as a team on the rise and that with the chance to play a few years in a hockey mad environment is what he found attractive.
I'm sure he has no regrets at all. I'm sure over the past 20 years he's had opportunities to walk for more money and never did. I don't think money was his top priority.

 

[4thline]

Unless he just wanted more money in which case you're simply wrong.

If it's all about the money- why would he retire with more earning potential still on the table. The player he was last season gets 4+ as a UFA easily. This isn't a Hossa situation where a player is looking at playing through discomfort for peanuts for 4 years straight.

 

[IBeL34f]

Dude hasn't missed a game in 9 seasons, and hasn't seen a decline in his production in 3 years.

Based on his health, productivity, and chances for success throughout the remainder of his term, I'd at least like to see some kind of real regression in him before I'd feel comfortable assuming he's planning to retire any time soon.

 

[Mess]

I think he sees the Leafs as a team on the rise and that with the chance to play a few years in a hockey mad environment is what he found attractive.
I'm sure he has no regrets at all. I'm sure over the past 20 years he's had opportunities to walk for more money and never did. I don't think money was his top priority.

I agree, I think winning a Cup was his #1 priority in his decision making process believing Leafs gave him a better chance at that.

 

[Gary Nylund]

If it's all about the money- why would he retire with more earning potential still on the table. The player he was last season gets 4+ as a UFA easily. This isn't a Hossa situation where a player is looking at playing through discomfort for peanuts for 4 years straight.

Yes, that's a good question. He doesn't seem like he's ready to pack it in, if that is the case than he's hiding it really well.

Dude hasn't missed a game in 9 seasons, and hasn't seen a decline in his production in 3 years.

Based on his health, productivity, and chances for success throughout the remainder of his term, I'd at least like to see some kind of real regression in him before I'd feel comfortable assuming he's planning to retire any time soon.

Haha me too. I know diceman is insisting that he's retiring (and to be fair, that's certainly possible) but I'm skeptical myself. If he's not planning on retiring then do they have a handshake deal that he will agree to be traded? Or have we committed to him for 3 years (and to be fair, that seems a bit fishy too).

I think this is one of these situations where there are arguments to be made for both sides and nobody can possibly be certain of what's going on. Will be very interesting to find out though and I sure hope we're not stuck with 3 years of Marleau, not that he's been bad or anything but that cap space could be put to better use next year for sure.

 

[ACC1224]

Yes, that's a good question. He doesn't seem like he's ready to pack it in, if that is the case than he's hiding it really well.



Haha me too. I know diceman is insisting that he's retiring (and to be fair, that's certainly possible) but I'm skeptical myself. If he's not planning on retiring then do they have a handshake deal that he will agree to be traded? Or have we committed to him for 3 years (and to be fair, that seems a bit fishy too).

I think this is one of these situations where there are arguments to be made for both sides and nobody can possibly be certain of what's going on. Will be very interesting to find out though and I sure hope we're not stuck with 3 years of Marleau, not that he's been bad or anything but that cap space could be put to better use next year for sure.

IMO, they have always planned for him to be on the cap for the entire 3 years.
Be really shortsighted if they didn't.

 

[Gary Nylund]

IMO, they have always planned for him to be on the cap for the entire 3 years.
Be really shortsighted if they didn't.

One might argue that is would be shortsighted planning on having him for 3 years considering our cap situation next season.

 

[ACC1224]

One might argue that is would be shortsighted planning on having him for 3 years considering our cap situation next season.

That would seem out of character for this group.

 

[IBeL34f]

One might argue that is would be shortsighted planning on having him for 3 years considering our cap situation next season.

It's always been arguable that the 3-year term of the contract was short-sighted.

Now that the contract's been signed, however, expecting Marleau to play all of those years would be less short-sighted and more common sense, until given reason to think otherwise.

All we need is another $4-5M cap increase next year and all of these points become moot, though, as we'll have room to fit everyone under the cap without issue. Makes a lot more sense to wait and see what kind of cap we're dealing with before getting ourselves all twisted in knots trying to figure out what Marleau's intentions are.

 

[4thline]

I think this is one of these situations where there are arguments to be made for both sides and nobody can possibly be certain of what's going on. Will be very interesting to find out though and I sure hope we're not stuck with 3 years of Marleau, not that he's been bad or anything but that cap space could be put to better use next year for sure.

I disagree with both "sides". To me it looks pretty damn obvious that the Loophole Lou created was generating a hybrid team/player option under a CBA that doesn't allow for either.

If Marleau is still playing at his current level we're not "stuck" with him, losing him makes the team weaker. If that changes we have an issue, but it's an issue that was planned for with the "option" year.

 

[Gary Nylund]

That would seem out of character for this group.

Agreed.

It's always been arguable that the 3-year term of the contract was short-sighted.

That's true.

Now that the contract's been signed, however, expecting Marleau to play all of those years would be less short-sighted and more common sense, until given reason to think otherwise.

Meh, diceman and some others have made a case for the handshake deal explanation and they may yet be proven right.

All we need is another $4-5M cap increase next year and all of these points become moot, though, as we'll have room to fit everyone under the cap without issue. Makes a lot more sense to wait and see what kind of cap we're dealing with before getting ourselves all twisted in knots trying to figure out what Marleau's intentions are.

To be fair, it is summer time - what else are we supposed to do? As far as waiting for the cap - Marleau's deal was done before anyone knew what the cap would be so even if the cap goes up solving this issue, it was a pretty big gamble to take and it may be fair to call it a questionable gamble. Anyhow, I don't care all that much. I got over them not trading JVR and if we are stuck with Marleau for another year and that ends up looking like a dumb move I'll get over that too. Had we not signed Tavares I'd no doubt be more cranky but as it is, I'm quite content to sit on the fence re. Marleau and wait to see how it all shakes out. Maybe Marleau scores a dozen goals in the playoffs, we win the cup and we'll all be happy.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I disagree with both "sides". To me it looks pretty damn obvious that the Loophole Lou created was generating a hybrid team/player option under a CBA that doesn't allow for either.

If Marleau is still playing at his current level we're not "stuck" with him, losing him makes the team weaker. If that changes we have an issue, but it's an issue that was planned for with the "option" year.

So you also think there's a handshake deal in place?