Well, Marner was not his usual self even before he got injured.
Honestly, Marner had a bad season, it happens to any players. Just leave it as that.
All Purpose Mitch Marner Talk II
- Thread starter Mess
- Start date
- Status
Honestly, Marner had a bad season, it happens to any players. Just leave it as that.
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,376
- 11,467
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,376
- 11,467
Wafflewhipper
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2014
- 14,114
- 5,694
So Thornton is the setup guy added to the Matthews line now. That activates Marner to go to the net and shoot more. Keefe said this himself, i agree. Marner needs to go to the net more, keefe think that also.
He needs to shoot more and needs to go to the net more. Thats what his game needs and it makes no difference how much he makes. He needs a better shot,go to the net more,get stronger. Big deal. Tell me a player that isn’t working on something to improve their game.
He will likely be a 30 ish goal scorer soon. He has to pass and it becomes predictable if he over does it. He’s been over doing it. Now he will be going to the net more. His numbers in goals will go up when he activates more in to the paint. He will draw some penalties doing it too which will help. He’s not drawing anything over on the wall.
He needs to adjust his game and will.
He needs to shoot more and needs to go to the net more. Thats what his game needs and it makes no difference how much he makes. He needs a better shot,go to the net more,get stronger. Big deal. Tell me a player that isn’t working on something to improve their game.
He will likely be a 30 ish goal scorer soon. He has to pass and it becomes predictable if he over does it. He’s been over doing it. Now he will be going to the net more. His numbers in goals will go up when he activates more in to the paint. He will draw some penalties doing it too which will help. He’s not drawing anything over on the wall.
He needs to adjust his game and will.
Stephen
Moderator
- Feb 28, 2002
- 83,171
- 62,117
Patrick Kane's post ELC deal is completely inappropriate as a comparison to Mitch Marner for a number of reasons.
It was signed 10 years prior to Marner's, under a completely different CBA when the player to owner split was 57% to 43% vs 50% to 50% now, and has more than a 2% difference in cap percentage as you outlined, and even then you're looking at a cap hit difference of $6.3 million to $10.893 million.
Other than superficially similar statistics based on PPG averages, there's nothing suitable about this comparison. And you had to go back ten years to find this.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
Even in the 2009 playoffs the Blackhawks still advanced to the Western Conference Final, with Kane getting 9 goals, 5 assists for 14 points. That's still better than Marner's 9 points in seven games against Boston in 2018.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
In other Marner related news I was just looking at his career stats and at some point this season he's going to get 300 points for his NHL career. Right now he has 291 points with 300 games played.
Not sure why you think the CBA split matters in this discussion. The gap in time is only an issue when you do something like post raw AAVs for some reason, instead of the cap hit percentages that are used in valuation. The 2% gap in cap hit percentage is to account for the fact that Marner was a significantly better player and got an extra year of term. Nothing you stated makes Kane a bad comparable, but I also did a more thorough breakdown in the Dubas thread, using your own chosen comparables.
Their P/GP in the playoffs was essentially identical at time of signing (0.88 P/GP vs. 0.85 P/GP), and Marner had done it against tougher opponents, defences, and goalies, over a bigger sample, with much less PP time. When Kane had faced an opponent like Marner had been facing, Kane was horrible and Chicago lost in 5.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
At least Kane advanced to the Western Conference Final the first time he was in the playoffs, because I wish Toronto can get out of the first round.
Leafs at Knight
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know hockey's back when some of the boomers are back complaining about over paying one of the best leafs of the last 20 years by 1~ million per. Bring back Lou or Burke to overpay some crappy depth playing by the same amount, and not glasses boy.
We'd all like to get out of the first round, but player contracts are not based on what round a team got to. Chicago also lost quite convincingly that year when they ran into the type of team we had been facing.
Chicago was absolutely stacked... Toews, Kane, ladd, byfuglien, Bolland, Sharp, Havlat, Versteeg, Brouwer on forward.... defense included Keith, Campbell, Seabrook... Khabibulin in net.
That team was much deeper and more physical than recent Leaf teams.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
So even though Kane had a better playoffs the first time he made it with the Blackhawks and they were able to advance, you still think Marner has been the better playoff performer even though the Leafs have not yet won a playoff series with him.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
Kane did not have a better playoffs though. His team missed the playoffs the first year and then his team advanced the next year against easier opponents than Toronto faced, before having a worse loss than Toronto when they encountered a similar team.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
So even though Kane and the Blackhawks missed the playoffs in his rookie season, despite making it next year and advancing to the Western Conference Finals and putting up better numbers than Marner did in 2018 against Boston means he wasn't as good? I can not see that logic and it's no wonder you have a reputation among non Leafs fans for crazy statements like that.
The only thing I will agree with you is that in 2017, 2018, and 2019 Toronto did face tougher opponents in Washington and Boston. However that needs to stop being an excuse, although I guess it could still be said about Washington because no one and not even the most hardcore Leafs fans predicted them to make the playoffs in 2017.
Notsince67
Papi and the Lamplighters
- Apr 27, 2018
- 16,376
- 11,467
There seems to be an ongoing position the the excuse for playoff performance sits on Marners shoulders. I wonder which position seems more unreasonable.
Kane did not put up better numbers than Marner did. You're mistaking a team accomplishment for an individual accomplishment. Their P/GP in the playoffs was essentially identical at time of signing (0.88 P/GP vs. 0.85 P/GP). Both had two series under P/GP, and one series above P/GP. The difference is that Marner had done it against tougher opponents, defences, and goalies, over a bigger sample, with much less PP time. When Kane had faced an opponent of the quality that Marner had been facing, Kane had the worst series of either of them and Chicago lost in 5.
BAM
Registered User
- Nov 21, 2016
- 4,048
- 2,299
1. I referenced Mackinnon's rookie year because you acted like Mackinnon did nothing prior to Rantanen arriving. It's not Mackinnon's fault that the Avs were terrible for most of his formative years there ala Rielly and Kadri (seriously...Leaf fans should not be arguing against what having poor linemates does for your production)
2. Go make a poll on the mainboards and ask who benefits more from each other. Hint...it's not Mackinnon
3. Rantanen and Mackinnon both made a jump in production playing with each other, and since, Mackinnon has proved that he doesn't need Rantanen to produce at the level he has been.
Mackinnon's breakout actually started at the WHC and WC for Canada before his breakout year when he put up 15 points in 10 games. Anyone who watched those games could see that Mackinnon had turned a corner long before he was put with Rantanen.
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that believes that Rantanen benefits Mackinnon more than the other way around. There's no point further arguing this with you if this what you wanna believe. Do you seriously think Marner benefitted Tavares more than the other way around too?
I mean he was a mid 50s point player for 4 seasons until Rantanen came along and then he suddenly is a mid 90s point player. Whether he turned a corner at the WC or he turned a corner when finally put with high end complimentary talent it is hard to say. All I know and was being devils advocate for is that Mack's production almost doubled when put with Rantanen after being stagnant (actually getting worse) for 4 years. There has to be some sort of correlation.
I think maybe it was a confidence thing and that is why he now is able to play that well without high end guys as you were saying.
Not sure where your last point came from but honestly think Marner/JT benefited each other greatly. JT had his best 5 on 5 season by far and Marner had his best season by far after showing he could play at a ppg pace the previous half season with Kadri I believe. It also showed how good JT is at adapting his play to his linemates as he was more a setup guy with Lee on his line the previous couple years
LeafsNation75
Registered User
You are ignoring the fact that Kane and Chicago still went to the Western Conference Final in 2009, where as Marner and Toronto have not yet won a playoff series since 2004.
No matter what stats you mention that might make Marner look better people won't care about them if Toronto does not get past the first round, because that's why it's stupid to say Kane wasn't as good or saying how he missed the playoffs in 2008.
Oscar Peterson
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2015
- 805
- 1,378
He's not ignoring that fact, he's just pointing out that the team advancing a round is a TEAM accomplishment, not a personal one. To illustrate, if for example, in game 7 in 2017-18, after Marleau scored twice if Andersen was to stand on his head, save everything, and stop the Bruins from tying the game, thus allowing us to advance around, does that mean that Marner should now be worth more money?
Anyways, I don't really have any stake in a pure Marner vs. Kane debate, but conflating team success to individual success is a logical fallacy.
LeafsNation75
Registered User
I just think it's weird saying team success should not matter because history shows us Patrick Kane having a better playoffs than Marner, yet he's sticking to his guns that Marner has had better playoff performance because of reasons that have to do with point production.
Oscar Peterson
Registered User
- Jun 27, 2015
- 805
- 1,378
Point production is one of the best ways a player can help his team find success in the playoffs though. Though that being said, apart from his second year, I don't think Marner's playoffs have been as strong as his point totals would suggest.
I'm not ignoring anything. That is a team accomplishment, not an individual one. It's not relevant to a discussion about individual player contracts. Chicago advancing further than Toronto does not equal Kane being better than Marner. Beyond that, it wasn't even all that much more impressive as a team accomplishment than what Toronto had done. Chicago advanced against weaker opponents than Toronto faced, and then when facing a similar quality of opponent, Toronto did better.
- Status
