Around the League - Offseason Edition

[Antropovsky]

Dubas and Treliving could have probably extracted other concessions here and there in exchange for these massive bonus heavy deals… but other than not leveraging to the full advantage of the team on other items - and making them buyout proof, not that they’ll ever be bought out - it isn’t that much of a factor that impacts us at the fan “enjoyment” level.

I don't disagree, s.bonuses are less of a bargaining chip I'm sure. However, the bonuses are definitely beneficial to the player, which is why I'm unsure its being argued that it isn't.

S.bonuses was just one of the points I made, and it was extracted out of my argument and used as a stand alone argument. Which is a strawman fallacy.

I disagree with the entertainment factor. If we pay Marner less, we might retain Hyman. I also think the size of Marners contract and also how he did it, has affected our ability to keep players or sign them for less. They see the me first attitude and want the most too. Most in any firm would do the same (if there was a cap structure) We are seeing it with Nylander. He won't take a cut if no one else does.

 

[conFABulator]

I don't disagree, s.bonuses are less of a bargaining chip I'm sure. However, the bonuses are definitely beneficial to the player, which is why I'm unsure its being argued that it isn't.

S.bonuses was just one of the points I made, and it was extracted out of my argument and used as a stand alone argument. Which is a strawman fallacy.

I disagree with the entertainment factor. If we pay Marner less, we might retain Hyman. I also think the size of Marners contract and also how he did it, has affected our ability to keep players or sign them for less. They see the me first attitude and want the most too. Most in any firm would do the same. We are seeing it with Nylander. He won't take a cut if no one else does.

I don't disagree that the Matthews (previous) and Marner (current) contracts established some parameters and comparables. Neither player took 8 years or below market value. However who did that impact on our team? Nylander was already signed, Tavares was getting what he was getting, and Rielly seems to have given us term at below market value.

To me it seems that Matthews took a fair number on his recent one too. Yes, some would want more years but I personally like not having to commit to him for 8 more years...and I like Matthews. If this team hasn't won a cup by the time he is 31 I am not sure that I want to commit to him beyond that. Maybe I do, if so I sign him and if it is at a big number it will be because he earned it.

What players have we had difficulty re-signing because of these two contracts? Hyman? Maybe if all of Hyman, Marner and Matthews took $1.5M below what they got then we could have kept him. That doesn't seem reasonable to expect though.

A couple of other points...Marner and Matthews were signed pre-Covid. If the cap had increased by +/- $15M over the past four years we are not considering any of these contracts to be anchors or impediments.

Also, signing bonuses can make a player more attractive in a mid season trade. It makes the real cash component much less and that has some value.

 

[Menzinger]

The only tangible downside to a bonus is if one thinks there's a legit chance you will have to buy out the contract down the line. Otherwise there's essentially no downside to the team giving them out. Imo they get too fixated on,. especially for younger guys

 

[francis246]

I don't disagree that the Matthews (previous) and Marner (current) contracts established some parameters and comparables. Neither player took 8 years or below market value. However who did that impact on our team? Nylander was already signed, Tavares was getting what he was getting, and Rielly seems to have given us term at below market value.

To me it seems that Matthews took a fair number on his recent one too. Yes, some would want more years but I personally like not having to commit to him for 8 more years...and I like Matthews. If this team hasn't won a cup by the time he is 31 I am not sure that I want to commit to him beyond that. Maybe I do, if so I sign him and if it is at a big number it will be because he earned it.

What players have we had difficulty re-signing because of these two contracts? Hyman? Maybe if all of Hyman, Marner and Matthews took $1.5M below what they got then we could have kept him. That doesn't seem reasonable to expect though.

A couple of other points...Marner and Matthews were signed pre-Covid. If the cap had increased by +/- $15M over the past four years we are not considering any of these contracts to be anchors or impediments.

Also, signing bonuses can make a player more attractive in a mid season trade. It makes the real cash component much less and that has some value.

We also could have kept Hyman. The AAV wasn’t the issue, it was the term. Dubas did not want to go max term with Hyman. They were comfortable giving Hyman the same AAV he got in Edmonton on a 3 or 4 year deal. Hyman wanted that 8 year contract and left.

 

[conFABulator]

We also could have kept Hyman. The AAV wasn’t the issue, it was the term. Dubas did not want to go max term with Hyman. They were comfortable giving Hyman the same AAV he got in Edmonton on a 3 or 4 year deal. Hyman wanted that 8 year contract and left.

That's right, I forgot that was how it went. We threw our money at Mrazek and Ritchie...we also signed Kampf and Bunting...we made the choice on Hyman, it was not being handcuffed by the cap. Good spot, thanks.

 

[LeafEgo]

The only tangible downside to a bonus is if one thinks there's a legit chance you will have to buy out the contract down the line. Otherwise there's essentially no downside to the team giving them out. Imo they get too fixated on,. especially for younger guys

That's true, but they are still relevant when assessing a players contract as they hold value - quite a bit actually. A player will take less money if they get most of it upfront, so it's an advantage over other contracts in the market.

 

[Stephen]

I don't disagree, s.bonuses are less of a bargaining chip I'm sure. However, the bonuses are definitely beneficial to the player, which is why I'm unsure its being argued that it isn't.

S.bonuses was just one of the points I made, and it was extracted out of my argument and used as a stand alone argument. Which is a strawman fallacy.

I disagree with the entertainment factor. If we pay Marner less, we might retain Hyman. I also think the size of Marners contract and also how he did it, has affected our ability to keep players or sign them for less. They see the me first attitude and want the most too. Most in any firm would do the same (if there was a cap structure) We are seeing it with Nylander. He won't take a cut if no one else does.

I have my issues with various Leaf core players. But at the end of the day, I'm not looking for an adversarial, zero sum relationship where I just want to withhold things from them, and bonus structure isn't that big of a factor because we aren't restricted from doing it by the league.

My only critique is we haven't given out these bonus perks while extracting more favorable AAV and term. Such as, give Matthews the world (up front)- but let's round off to $12.9 million. And we'll give you the full NMC, but let's tack on the 5th year... that kind of extra value...

Other than that, the only other place it can hurt is you don't save any money when considering a buyout. But with the caliber of a Matthews and the short length of the contract, a buyout scenario isn't that likely.

 

[Stephen]

We also could have kept Hyman. The AAV wasn’t the issue, it was the term. Dubas did not want to go max term with Hyman. They were comfortable giving Hyman the same AAV he got in Edmonton on a 3 or 4 year deal. Hyman wanted that 8 year contract and left.

Letting Hyman walk at $5 million turned out to be a straight up poor hockey decision. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[francis246]

Letting Hyman walk at $5 million turned out to be a straight up poor hockey decision. Nothing more, nothing less.

100% especially since we likely could have had Hyman and still got Bunting on the cheap.

 

[ToneDog]

I don't disagree, s.bonuses are less of a bargaining chip I'm sure. However, the bonuses are definitely beneficial to the player, which is why I'm unsure its being argued that it isn't.

S.bonuses was just one of the points I made, and it was extracted out of my argument and used as a stand alone argument. Which is a strawman fallacy.

I disagree with the entertainment factor. If we pay Marner less, we might retain Hyman. I also think the size of Marners contract and also how he did it, has affected our ability to keep players or sign them for less. They see the me first attitude and want the most too. Most in any firm would do the same (if there was a cap structure) We are seeing it with Nylander. He won't take a cut if no one else does.

IIRC one of the reasons Petro left St. Louis was because they refused to give him bonus money that would have made his contract buyout proof.

Googled and found:

It is presumed that one of the major sticking points in the Blues negotiation with Pietrangelo was the amount of signing bonuses included in any potential contract. The ongoing pandemic has limited the cash flow of many businesses throughout the world, and the NHL is not immune to that reality. Before the pandemic hit, the NHL salary cap was anticipated to increase substantially for the upcoming season, but the league decided to keep the salary cap flat for the foreseeable future. The flat salary cap put the Blues in a bind when it came to fitting Pietrangelo in under the salary cap for the upcoming season, which further complicated negotiations. In his deal with Vegas, he will receive $35 million of signing bonuses throughout the life of the seven-year contract, which likely has major tax benefits for the former Blue.

Seems to me signing bonuses are a bargaining chip.

 

[Larcos_Unal]

Officially 2 weeks till the first pre-season game baby!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dekes For Days]

Marner, on the other hand, went to the offersheet period and got nothing significant. We know enough of his dad; he wanted Marner to be the highest paid Leaf.
Yet, Dubas still gave him a deal that would've gotten the Leafs 4 first round picks, he also gave him bonuses that are unheard of and got only a 6 year term.

Marner got multiple offersheets. And both logic and reported rumours suggest they would have been worse contracts for us than what we signed. A team also could have offer sheeted a contract worse for us under the four 1sts threshold, by going 10.5m x 5. Also, bonuses are not "unheard of", and are there to help counter tax discrepancies.

The best drafted talent they had in decades and they didn't sign any of Nylander (Lou), Marner, or Matthews the summers they were first eligible for extensions.

You can thank Babcock for them not wanting to sign early.

 

[ToneDog]

Marner got multiple offersheets. And both logic and reported rumours suggest they would have been worse contracts for us than what we signed. A team also could have offer sheeted a contract worse for us under the four 1sts threshold, by going 10.5m x 5. Also, bonuses are not "unheard of", and are there to help counter tax discrepancies.

You can thank Babcock for them not wanting to sign early.

How exactly could the OSs been worse for "us" than the contract the Leafs gave him ?

 

[ACC1224]

How exactly could the OSs been worse for "us" than the contract the Leafs gave him ?

They weren’t negotiated by Dubas.
There were no serious offer sheets is my understanding. He was never going to sign one.

 

[ToneDog]

They weren’t negotiated by Dubas.
There were no serious offer sheets is my understanding. He was never going to sign one.

Not negotiated by Dubas favours the Leafs IMO but I agree that there were no serious offer sheets. IMO Leafs management were spooked by potential OSs to Matty and Marner and it caused them to soften in negotiations with them.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How exactly could the OSs been worse for "us" than the contract the Leafs gave him ?

Lesser term or higher AAV. And there were additional complications if it happened in-season.

 

[TheTotalPackage]

Officially 2 weeks till the first pre-season game baby!!!!!!!!!!

View attachment 742168

View attachment 742169

8 pre-season games is so stupid and completely unnecessary. Cut four games off and start the season the first few days of October.

 

[ACC1224]

8 pre-season games is so stupid and completely unnecessary. Cut four games off and start the season the first few days of October.

Cash grab.

 

[Stephen]

Quinn Hughes named captain of the Canucks.

See you somewhere else Petey?

 

[Stephen]

8 pre-season games is so stupid and completely unnecessary. Cut four games off and start the season the first few days of October.

Or just add 4 of the preseason games to the regular season and charge even more money.

 

[Fogelhund]

8 pre-season games is so stupid and completely unnecessary. Cut four games off and start the season the first few days of October.

The first four or five games usually only have half of the roster.... most veterans only play four games or so anyway... The rookies, prospects, PTO's... get to play the rest of the time, and it's not bad to see them in games with the regulars, to see where they are at, and what they need to work on.

 

[ACC1224]

Or just add 4 of the preseason games to the regular season and charge even more money.

You'd have to pay the players then.

 

[Stephen]

You'd have to pay the players then.

Oh right. So let’s just do 10 exhibition games and call it a day.

 

[supermann_98]

Marner got multiple offersheets. And both logic and reported rumours suggest they would have been worse contracts for us than what we signed. A team also could have offer sheeted a contract worse for us under the four 1sts threshold, by going 10.5m x 5. Also, bonuses are not "unheard of", and are there to help counter tax discrepancies.

You can thank Babcock for them not wanting to sign early.

I call shenanigans. This was never confirmed

 

[ACC1224]

Oh right. So let’s just do 10 exhibition games and call it a day.

I'm sure they would if they could.