News Article: Auston Matthews - August 1st., Contract Crickets

[egd27]

May as well just give Matthews whatever he wants since they have zero leverage, move Nylander for the best return you can get from the 21 possible destinations, and turn the page on the Dubas debacle.

 

[Clark4Ever]

May as well just give Matthews whatever he wants since they have zero leverage, move Nylander for the best return you can get from the 21 possible destinations, and turn the page on the Dubas debacle.

His average production last season (by his standards) dictates that we should absolutely not give him whatever he wants. It would set yet another terrible precedent.

He should be given a fair contract extension that makes sense for both sides based on our current circumstances.

 

[pcruz]

His average production last season (by his standards) dictates that we should absolutely not give him whatever he wants. It would set yet another terrible precedent.

He should be given a fair contract extension that makes sense for both sides based on our current circumstances.

Did you just label a 40 goal, 85 point season as "average"?

 

[egd27]

His average production last season (by his standards) dictates that we should absolutely not give him whatever he wants. It would set yet another terrible precedent.

He should be given a fair contract extension that makes sense for both sides based on our current circumstances.

And if he doesn't agree to the Leaf's definition of "fair", then what ?

 

[CelticDruid]

I think there’s virtually no chance of that happening. Lots of talk out there, best to ignore all of it

I'm going to use public bathrooms there is bound to be a few rumors on the toilet stall walls. DDOS

Dog
Days
Of
Summer

 

[Gary Nylund]

Did you just label a 40 goal, 85 point season as "average"?

Did you miss the last 3 words?

"His average production last season (by his standards)"

 

[Clark4Ever]

Did you just label a 40 goal, 85 point season as "average"?

As I initially wrote, by his standards, yes.

Not nearly enough to warrant being the highest paid player in the NHL in my opinion.

And if he doesn't agree to the Leaf's definition of "fair", then what ?

Then we will see how much he wants to stay in Toronto.

 

[egd27]

Then we will see how much he wants to stay in Toronto.

Heck of a plan

 

[pcruz]

As I initially wrote, by his standards, yes.

Not nearly enough to warrant being the highest paid player in the NHL in my opinion.


Then we will see how much he wants to stay in Toronto.

Did you miss the last 3 words?

"His average production last season (by his standards)"

Then, you will both agree that the standard you hold Matthews to is far higher than almost every other player in the league.
A special standard.

Because he is better than just about everyone else.
And he will be paid as such, because even his detractors know it to be true.


Thank you for playing the game.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Then, you will both agree that the standard you hold Matthews to is far higher than almost every other player in the league.
A special standard.

Because he is better than just about everyone else.
And he will be paid as such, because even his detractors know it to be true.


Thank you for playing the game.

I'm not playing any game, I was just helping you understand the post you quoted as you clearly misunderstood the content.

Matthews has one of the highest cap hits in the league so of course he gets held to a high standard. It's a standard that he's mostly lived up to when he's healthy during the regular season. He however seems to have trouble staying healthy and his level of play hasn't been quite so high in the playoffs but sure, he's no doubt looking for a raise and he'll no doubt get it. Whether he ends up being worth it or not, we'll see but based on what we've seen so far, it's a massive gamble.

 

[MCR74]

His average production last season (by his standards) dictates that we should absolutely not give him whatever he wants. It would set yet another terrible precedent.

He should be given a fair contract extension that makes sense for both sides based on our current circumstances.

Honestly if next sesson is a repeat of 2022-2023, l'd let Matthews walk instead of giving him a raise.

 

[Divine]

If Matthews wants to stay in Toronto, he should show it in contract negotiations.

Him not signing a max contract because he wants to maximize his pockets, wanting the entire salary in signing bonuses to again, maximize his pockets, and then wanting to be the highest paid player in the league, to once again, max out his pockets is not an indication he wants to be in Toronto.

If he's asking 14M X 3 with max signing bonues after coming off an 85 point season - it doesn't seem like he wants to be in Toronto to me.

I too, would like to work for the highest bidder... because I value that company. I don't want to go anywhere else, as long my employer pays me the most of everyone in the field globally.

 

[al secord]

This place is funnier than a Jeff Dunham special.

 

[ACC1224]

If Matthews wants to stay in Toronto, he should show it in contract negotiations.

Him not signing a max contract because he wants to maximize his pockets, wanting the entire salary in signing bonuses to again, maximize his pockets, and then wanting to be the highest paid player in the league, to once again, max out his pockets is not an indication he wants to be in Toronto.

If he's asking 14M X 3 with max signing bonues after coming off an 85 point season - it doesn't seem like he wants to be in Toronto to me.

I too, would like to work for the highest bidder... because I value that company. I don't want to go anywhere else, as long my employer pays me the most of everyone in the field globally.

What’s wrong with his salary being in signing bonuses?

 

[ULF_55]

As I initially wrote, by his standards, yes.

Not nearly enough to warrant being the highest paid player in the NHL in my opinion.


Then we will see how much he wants to stay in Toronto.

The team has been around for over 100 years.

If Matthews leaves it isn't going to relocate to Atlanta!

It would hurt, but it would open up about 15% of the cap for free agency.

 

[Stephen]

Here's the problem with that:

If Matthews is supposed to be the legit superstar he wants to be paid as, then the Leafs absolutely need an 8 year deal. This way, if/when the cap goes up in 2-3 years, the Leafs have Matthews under wraps and can use that extra cap bump to surround him with better talent for the last 5-6 years of his contract in hopes of winning a Cup or two. This is the only way top-heavy teams with hefty cap hits can eventually build something.

If Matthews and Marner keep signing short-term, they get to reset their cap % when it goes up, which removes the opportunity of having extra cap dollars to spend on a better "team."

Do you think any other fanbase doesn't want their young superstar to commit long-term? Why do we? Do you think the Oilers, Bruins, Avs, Devils, and Avs didn't want McDavid, Pasta, MacKinnon, Hughes, and Stutzle to commit long-term so they have cost certainty?

The only reason we wouldn't want Matthews for 8 years is because we honestly don't trust him, his game, his dedication, or his body to hold up. But this kid is only 25 years old. Could you imagine having reservations about a 25 year old supposed megastar? Lol.

Kinda disagree with the notion of length on the 8 year deal.

Typically, NHL teams seem to benefit from a max term run because it allows for the AAV to amortize over time, % of cap hit to go down in an environment where the cap goes up year over year.

This works best when a player signs the 8 year deal post ELC, which means you capture the majority the best years up to the age of about 29 assuming the player started around 18 post-draft, and the ELC was completed in typical 3 year term.

The two-fold problem with the Matthews negotiation and a notion of 8 year deal on Contract 3 is you would be buying 3 years of the above mentioned prime, taking him to about 30, and then packaging about 5 years of 30's hockey. Not expecting him to fall off a cliff or anything, but it's less of a slam dunk than if you were buying all of his 20's years.

Second, the reported ask is already a moon shot, future proof, baking in highly speculative cap increases (which are always 1.5y ears away) so the contract may not even amortize over the full 8 year term. Will superstars even make $14 million AAV in 2031? Who knows. So at least a shorter 4-6 year deal offers the team flexibility if things aren't working out too well.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Heck of a plan

The crest comes first. If he's not willing to sign for a reasonable AAV that allows us to build a competitive team around him, Treliving should be open minded to other options.

The same mindset should apply to Nylander and Marner as well.

Matthews and Marner in particular have already gotten sweetheart deals the last time around because Dubas caved. If they want to win, they should be willing to take a fair market deal. I'm not asking for a discount (heaven forbid), just don't take us to the cleaners again FFS.

 

[ALine]

I disagree with term. Should be 5 yrs, providing three is No clause that stops us from trading him in year 4 or 5. If we are winning a cup great, if not using this asset to rebuild is essential. I don't give a flying fig if he spends his entire career as a Leaf...win a Stanley is the issue.
Sittler never won a cup and didn't play entire career in TO,

We all want a cup, don’t assume your disagreeing means I don’t. It’s not about having a legacy player here, it’s all about the cup. I’m willing to hitch my horse to Matthews long term because he is a phenomenal player.

8 years gets more savings on his aav. He can have his deal structured as he wants with whatever trade protection he desires, as long as that aav is as low as it possibly can. The lowere the cap hit, the more flexibility we have to add elsewhere.

5 years would mean highest cap hit, less flexibility, and no way you get that with no trade protection. That’s pie in the sky thinking.

It’s a shite or get off the pot scenario here.
Lock him up long term, take the risk in order to reap any benefits from that, or just move him now. There is no sense in being half pregnant about this.

 

[Stephen]

Then, you will both agree that the standard you hold Matthews to is far higher than almost every other player in the league.
A special standard.

Because he is better than just about everyone else.
And he will be paid as such, because even his detractors know it to be true.


Thank you for playing the game.

I think you're misunderstanding the game; the high AAV that Matthews commands is tied to the elite production he is expected to produce, not for the prestige of having him in our collection of talent.

Where people seem to be most upset is Matthews had a massive down year by his standards and by the sticker price he's putting on his future contract.

 

[Stephen]

8 years gets more savings on his aav. He can have his deal structured as he wants with whatever trade protection he desires, as long as that aav is as low as it possibly can. The lowere the cap hit, the more flexibility we have to add elsewhere.

5 years would mean highest cap hit, less flexibility, and no way you get that with no trade protection. That’s pie in the sky thinking.

No, 8 years does not necessarily give us more savings on the cap. Whatever you think you're buying over a longer term deal with cap increase to ballast it would have to be measured out against what you expect a 33, 34 and 35 year old Matthews will be producing. You're buying decline years and you don't know the angle of that decline. Don't focus on 8 years.

 

[authentic]

Auston Matthews doesn't plan on leaving the Toronto Maple Leafs Anything.​

 

[ALine]

Not just savings as the cap goes up, but savings over a 5 year deal, which would surely be a higher cap hit than an 8 year deal.
No we don’t know what those later years will look like, it is a risk I’d be willing to take to keep the cap hit lower. There could be benefit, there might not be. But that’s ignoring the already baked in benefits or a lower cap an 8 year deal would bring.

By doing only a 5 year, that is asking Matthews to take all the risk, therefore he gets the reward. A reward of a much higher annual salary than over an 8 years deal. No risk no reward.

If we aren’t willing to weigh that, we might as well trade him now. If a decline comes, and it is steep, there’s no trade value there. If there is decline, but only the slightest signs of it would a resign then be any less than what what we could do now over 8 years. Considering where the cap might be at then, I would guess it might be negligible.

If so, you just pissed away 5 years that could have come in a fair bit cheaper.

No, 8 years does not necessarily give us more savings on the cap. Whatever you think you're buying over a longer term deal with cap increase to ballast it would have to be measured out against what you expect a 33, 34 and 35 year old Matthews will be producing. You're buying decline years and you don't know the angle of that decline. Don't focus on 8 years.

 

[Martin Skoula]

What’s wrong with his salary being in signing bonuses?

Because he’s supposed to reject all the things MLSE can do for him so he can sign a 5 mil x 20 year contract to prove he loves the team just like they do in my Disney movies. If Matthews doesn’t use the power of friendship to train a golden retriever to play at a 3rd line level minimum he doesn’t really care about the team and should be traded immediately.

 

[BallardEra]

So Dave Poulin is saying Matthews might want a 3 year deal so he can cash in when the cap has gone back up at the age of 28?

 

[ALine]

Because he’s supposed to reject all the things MLSE can do for him so he can sign a 5 mil x 20 year contract to prove he loves the team just like they do in my Disney movies. If Matthews doesn’t use the power of friendship to train a golden retriever to play at a 3rd line level minimum he doesn’t really care about the team and should be traded immediately.

I don’t see why that’s a problem. My Aussie could easily be a middle six, heart and soul, grinding wing with a scoring touch to boot. And she’s just a puppy so she’s only on her elc.