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

[therealkoho]

Reputable insiders have also said the expect the deal to start with a 13 and be five years, you seem to want to believe one is true and not the other.

Toews and Kane would've gotten and signed those deals regardless. Toews contract timeline is similar to Matthews, in fact. Winning had nothing to do with the money (10.5/15% of the cap, actually).

FWIW, you seem like the kind of guy that would eat week old donuts.

And you along with the insults are back on ignore, go back to connect where you belong

He’s not signing a modified no trade. He’s getting all the bells and whistles; short term, high salary, no move, as much signing bonus up front as possible.

He’s taking the leafs to the cleaners. He knows they have no choice.

Yeah but he's only thinking of the Leafs and winning a cup of course after which he'll demand a max %

 

[Stephen]

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.

I've never heard the theory that he would take a lower AAV on an 8 year deal than on a 5 year deal or that he wants an 8 year deal at all.

Of all the reports I've recalled seeing, it's the shorter the contract, the lower the cap, the higher you go the more prohibitively expensive it gets.

 

[therealkoho]

Kopitar is nearing the end of his career of course he took less, he currently has a cap hit of 10 million far from a discount especially when he signed it.

And when he signed that 10m dollar deal, he'd already led the Kings to 3 conference championships and 2 Stanley Cups. He got paid after he proved he was a champion.

Does anyone think he would've gotten the money just because he told them he wanted it?

 

[Mess]

I've never heard the theory that he would take a lower AAV on an 8 year deal than on a 5 year deal or that he wants an 8 year deal at all.

Of all the reports I've recalled seeing, it's the shorter the contract, the lower the cap, the higher you go the more prohibitively expensive it gets.

That is 100% true for players coming out of their ELC contracts and looking at 8 year deals where the first 4 years are RFA cost controllable by team and then the last 4 X UFA years, with each extra year of free agency you purchase the expensive years from a player the higher the AAV goes while these contracts are designed to cover a players "Prime" years.

Now all years are UFA years for Matthews and the longer the term the older the player and age plays a part in decline.

Look no further than Tavares who already in year 5 of his 7 year deal at age 32 showing decline in speed and effectiveness that Leafs can't wait until this contract ends and they can cut his cost significantly. He had 3 year ELC + 6 year bridge + 7 year term deal. If JT's current deal was up now he would be getting significantly less and reducing AAV cost.

Often on these 3rd contracts the length are generally intended to add throw away years to the end of careers/contracts at lower amounts (accounting for decline) that then through averaging bring the contract down on term overall. The NHL even changed the CBA to stop teams from abusing this system with too many toss away years at the end as cap circumventing deals.

 

[Clark4Ever]

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?

I'm good with that on a lower AAV under 13 million.

 

[Da Mash]

Hopefully Mathew’s sets the tone on contracts. Was rumoured he would take less so we could dress a more complete team.

Just do it then….be the leader. You will be a leaf icon for life

 

[Stephen]

That is 100% true for players coming out of their ELC contracts and looking at 8 year deals where the first 4 years are RFA cost controllable by team and then the last 4 X UFA years, with each extra year of free agency you purchase the expensive years from a player the higher the AAV goes while these contracts are designed to cover a players "Prime" years.

Now all years are UFA years for Matthews and the longer the term the older the player and age plays a part in decline.

Look no further than Tavares who already in year 5 of his 7 year deal at age 32 showing decline in speed and effectiveness that Leafs can't wait until this contract ends and they can cut his cost significantly. He had 3 year ELC + 6 year bridge + 7 year term deal. If JT's current deal was up now he would be getting significantly less and reducing AAV cost.

Often on these 3rd contracts the length are generally intended to add throw away years to the end of careers/contracts at lower amounts (accounting for decline) that then through averaging bring the contract down on term overall. The NHL even changed the CBA to stop teams from abusing this system with too many toss away years at the end as cap circumventing deals.

Agreed. The 8 year contract satisfies a desire to have more certainty to roster construction but it's not the perfect solution for a player in Year 9 to Year 16 of his career. The best application is Year 4 to Year 11.

5-6 years on the upcoming deal is good.

 

[Stephen]

Hopefully Mathew’s sets the tone on contracts. Was rumoured he would take less so we could dress a more complete team.

Just do it then….be the leader. You will be a leaf icon for life

The question Matthews may want to ask himself is, let's say the Edmonton Oilers win the Stanley Cup next year and a majority of the bumper crop of forwards coming up in the game between 2013 and 2016 like McDavid, Draisaitl, Mackinnon, Rantanen, Point, Eichel have Stanley Cups.

At that point, is it important to have a franchise back breaking contract to push the NHLPA agenda and be signed to a contract nobody can win with? Or do you stay on the high side of typical superstar contracts so that you and your team could plausibly win a cup and join the winners circle, no question about your abilities as a team leader.

I couldn't tell another guy what's more important in life, but there's got to be some balance if you want to hit all the marks.

 

[egd27]

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.

The only option within the Leafs control is a 21 team trade list for Nylander. All other options are predicated on Matthews being reasonable. If he decides not to be they're fked.

Sign Matthews, trade Willy, and figure out a plan of action to take advantage of Tavares contract ending in two years.

 

[Stephen]

The only option within the Leafs control is a 21 team trade list for Nylander. All other options are predicated on Matthews being reasonable. If he decides not to be they're fked.

Sign Matthews, trade Willy, and figure out a plan of action to take advantage of Tavares contract ending in two years.

The alternative approach is to just sign Matthews at the Matthews rate, sign Nylander for anything in the $9 million range and just ride through a scheduled down year in 2024-25 and worry about contending once the Tavares contract runs out.

 

[egd27]

IThe alternative approach is to just sign Matthews at the Matthews rate, sign Nylander for anything in the $9 million range and just ride through a scheduled down year in 2024-25 and worry about contending once the Tavares contract runs out.

Assuming 88 is fine with that, then sure. But it's the same failed run it back strategy that ends up burning two more years of prime 34, 16 and 88.

IMO it's time to go with another approach.

 

[Stephen]

Assuming 88 is fine with that, then sure. But it's the same failed run it back strategy that ends up burning two more years of prime 34, 16 and 88.

IMO it's time to go with another approach.

I don't mind anything short of moving Matthews himself, just has to be executed correctly. None of the Dubasisms of "who could have predicted that" if it blows up.

 

[Clark4Ever]

Assuming 88 is fine with that, then sure. But it's the same failed run it back strategy that ends up burning two more years of prime 34, 16 and 88.

IMO it's time to go with another approach.

It could very well be regardless if their top priority is money.

 

[Divine]

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

It costs the Leafs money and they don't get a discount for doing it. They're the only team that did it, and it resulted in the highest contracts in the league.

Seriously, the players want to be the highest paid. The highest signing bonuses (costing the owners money which passed down to the fans), and the shortest term. Why give them everything? If they want signing bonuses for the whole contract, they can lower their AAV.

Matthews specifically pays much lower taxes because of his signing bonus. He pays taxes like he's in Florida but won't take the Florida discount that Tampa/Florida players do.

It's time they start making concessions. You want max signing bonuses? Interest rates are rising, lower your AAV. You don't want to lower your AAV? Find another team who gives max signing bonuses and the highest AAV. Even Pastrnak only got like 1/3 of his contract in signing bonuses coming off more goals and points than Matthews has ever scored in his career, on a 8 year deal, and lower AAV than Matthews RFA contract.

The only other player that got nearly full signing bonuses outside of Toronto is MacKinnon, and he didn't even get the full signing bonuses every year like Matthews/Marner/Tavares.

 

[Mess]

Agreed. The 8 year contract satisfies a desire to have more certainty to roster construction but it's not the perfect solution for a player in Year 9 to Year 16 of his career. The best application is Year 4 to Year 11.

5-6 years on the upcoming deal is good.

Its kind of ironic in a Salary Cap World now where a player now entering his 3rd contract is looking for term and long-term security of a guaranteed contract trying to leverage his most productive years of the next 4-5 against the later years of his career when his play falls off. For the team the throw away final years at cheap cost $$ should lower that AAV over the term of the deal factoring for decline.

If Matthews hypnotically said "I want $15 mil for the next 5 years upfront most in signing bonus with full NMC" and then I'll give you steep discount for the final 3 with a limited NTC.

ie. $15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + $15 + $7.5 mil + $3.5 mil + $2.0 mil = $88 mil over 8 years = $11.0 Mil AAV X 8 years for Toronto with CH% lower than current on a $92 mil. ceiling.

Auston would be getting paid at a rate of $15 mil ($75 total) for the next 5 years of service cashing in HUGE, and then Leafs team gets the benefit of averaging over term to come in at $11.0 mil annually and actually slashing $600k mil AAV off his current amount and able to move on in the later years if they want to. With each passing year the cap increases the C.H% goes down and better surrounding depth.

That is a team friendly and player friendly contract that benefits both sides and why I can see Treliving pushing for more term to lower the AAV based on this concept.

Matthews wanting only 4-5 years at his +$14 mil only hurts the team with an AAV at that rate.

Same concept applies to Willy ... You want $10.5 mil per (front loaded) for the next 4 years fine, then Leafs get the next 2 extra years at $5.5 mil = 6 years at $53 mil total = $8.83 AAV.. (which is the AAV BT is rumoured to be offering),

When both player and team are pulling in the same direction its a WIN -WIN for both sides of the equation. But Leaf players seem to want to Win, but they also want the Leafs team too Lose.

Dubas handed out Zero-Sum contracts, and I'm hoping that Treliving an experienced GM will be looking for Non-Zero-Sum deals this time around, and convincing the players to buy-in.

That is how a SMART GM does a Doover or Reset to buck current trending on past mistakes.

 

[notbias]

And when he signed that 10m dollar deal, he'd already led the Kings to 3 conference championships and 2 Stanley Cups. He got paid after he proved he was a champion.

Does anyone think he would've gotten the money just because he told them he wanted it?

And since then it has worked out terribly, as well as the Kane/Toews contracts that were paid as a "thank you".

Seems like a backwards way to pay players.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It costs the Leafs money and they don't get a discount for doing it.

It doesn't cost the Leafs money, and they benefit from it too - increasing trade value down the road. You don't get discounts for paying in signing bonuses. It largely just helps mitigate the tax disadvantage we have.

 

[Divine]

It doesn't cost the Leafs money, and they benefit from it too - increasing trade value down the road. You don't get discounts for paying in signing bonuses. It largely just helps mitigate the tax disadvantage we have.

Sorry - let me clarify. It costs MLSE money, which gets passed down to the fans.

It's a net benefit for no one but the players, and it does not help the Leafs. It does not make the player easier to trade, it makes them harder to trade because very few teams want to or can pay the signing bonus upfront every single year. If you're trading the players any sooner than their last year - the other team is now stuck with the signing bonus every year - making it harder to trade. If anythng, the Leafs can just give the player a full signing bonus on the last year and that would make it easier to trade the last year and every other year.

Why should the Leafs be the only team to give full signing bonuses and still pay the players the highest AAV in the NHL? What concessions are the players making?

 

[Dekes For Days]

Sorry - let me clarify. It costs MLSE money, which gets passed down to the fans.
It's a net benefit for no one but the players, and it does not help the Leafs.
Every player with full signing bonuses gets a full NMC, mitigating any chance of it being easier to trade them.

It doesn't cost MLSE money. They pay the same amount. They just pay a portion of it a bit earlier. And it is mutually beneficial with no downsides for both the team and player when there are no cash flow issues. The player gets their money earlier, it increases their future trade value and options, and it helps mitigate tax disadvantages.
NMCs are completely unrelated to signing bonuses, and trades can still occur. NMCs are common for players of this quality too.

 

[Divine]

It doesn't cost MLSE money. They pay the same amount. They just pay a portion of it a bit earlier. And it is mutually beneficial with no downsides for both the team and player when there are no cash flow issues. The player gets their money earlier, it increases their future trade value and options, and it helps mitigate tax disadvantages.
NMCs are completely unrelated to signing bonuses, and trades can still occur. NMCs are common for players of this quality too.

What? Paying up front costs any business money. Businesses either have to borrow the money, or take out money they could be investing to pay earlier.

It's the same as if an employer paid your yearly salary upfront. You could take that money and put it in a savings account, bonds, stocks, GIC's, etc. and would end up with more at the end of the year. The employer loses the 8 month interest they would gain on that investment. That's why most businesses offer a discount for paying a lump sum instead of monthly - having money immediately allows you to make more in the same time frame.

It makes the player harder to trade. You realize the signing bonus is every year. Teams don't want to pay full signing bonuses, if they did, they would be ubiquitous in the NHL, they are not. The Leafs are the only team doing it. It limits your trade partners to rich teams. The only year it may benefit the Leafs is the last year AFTER July 1st. You can get that same effect just paying the signing bonus the last year.

Now - I ask again, because you're not answering. What is the benefit to the Leafs. I am well aware it's a great benefit to the players - but what is the benefit to the Leafs? Is the player signing a lower AAV for the bonuses? A longer term? No.

 

[Jojalu]

And when he signed that 10m dollar deal, he'd already led the Kings to 3 conference championships and 2 Stanley Cups. He got paid after he proved he was a champion.

Does anyone think he would've gotten the money just because he told them he wanted it?

Of course he would have still been paid.

Look at today's top 20 highest players.

14 out of the 20 or 70% have never won. It was 75% until Eichel won this year.

 

[Martin Skoula]

Its kind of ironic in a Salary Cap World now where a player now entering his 3rd contract is looking for term and long-term security of a guaranteed contract trying to leverage his most productive years of the next 4-5 against the later years of his career when his play falls off. For the team the throw away final years at cheap cost $$ should lower that AAV over the term of the deal factoring for decline.

If Matthews hypnotically said "I want $15 mil for the next 5 years upfront most in signing bonus with full NMC" and then I'll give you steep discount for the final 3 with a limited NTC.

ie. $15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + $15 + $7.5 mil + $3.5 mil + $2.0 mil = $88 mil over 8 years = $11.0 Mil AAV X 8 years for Toronto with CH% lower than current on a $92 mil. ceiling.

Auston would be getting paid at a rate of $15 mil ($75 total) for the next 5 years of service cashing in HUGE, and then Leafs team gets the benefit of averaging over term to come in at $11.0 mil annually and actually slashing $600k mil AAV off his current amount and able to move on in the later years if they want to. With each passing year the cap increases the C.H% goes down and better surrounding depth.

That is a team friendly and player friendly contract that benefits both sides and why I can see Treliving pushing for more term to lower the AAV based on this concept.

Matthews wanting only 4-5 years at his +$14 mil only hurts the team with an AAV at that rate.

Same concept applies to Willy ... You want $10.5 mil per (front loaded) for the next 4 years fine, then Leafs get the next 2 extra years at $5.5 mil = 6 years at $53 mil total = $8.83 AAV.. (which is the AAV BT is rumoured to be offering),

When both player and team are pulling in the same direction its a WIN -WIN for both sides of the equation. But Leaf players seem to want to Win, but they also want the Leafs team too Lose.

View attachment 727227

Dubas handed out Zero-Sum contracts, and I'm hoping that Treliving an experienced GM will be looking for Non-Zero-Sum deals this time around, and convincing the players to buy-in.

That is how a SMART GM does a Doover or Reset to buck current trending on past mistakes.

I don’t think you understand what zero-sum means. GMs and players don’t have a zero sum relationship, they’re not competing for the same limited resource (cap money). Players are in a zero sum relationship with other players, if one forgoes money someone else gets it unless the team doesn’t spend to the cap.

 

[13pacheco31]

Its kind of ironic in a Salary Cap World now where a player now entering his 3rd contract is looking for term and long-term security of a guaranteed contract trying to leverage his most productive years of the next 4-5 against the later years of his career when his play falls off. For the team the throw away final years at cheap cost $$ should lower that AAV over the term of the deal factoring for decline.

If Matthews hypnotically said "I want $15 mil for the next 5 years upfront most in signing bonus with full NMC" and then I'll give you steep discount for the final 3 with a limited NTC.

ie. $15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + 15 mil + $15 + $7.5 mil + $3.5 mil + $2.0 mil = $88 mil over 8 years = $11.0 Mil AAV X 8 years for Toronto with CH% lower than current on a $92 mil. ceiling.

Auston would be getting paid at a rate of $15 mil ($75 total) for the next 5 years of service cashing in HUGE, and then Leafs team gets the benefit of averaging over term to come in at $11.0 mil annually and actually slashing $600k mil AAV off his current amount and able to move on in the later years if they want to. With each passing year the cap increases the C.H% goes down and better surrounding depth.

That is a team friendly and player friendly contract that benefits both sides and why I can see Treliving pushing for more term to lower the AAV based on this concept.

Matthews wanting only 4-5 years at his +$14 mil only hurts the team with an AAV at that rate.

Same concept applies to Willy ... You want $10.5 mil per (front loaded) for the next 4 years fine, then Leafs get the next 2 extra years at $5.5 mil = 6 years at $53 mil total = $8.83 AAV.. (which is the AAV BT is rumoured to be offering),

When both player and team are pulling in the same direction its a WIN -WIN for both sides of the equation. But Leaf players seem to want to Win, but they also want the Leafs team too Lose.

View attachment 727227

Dubas handed out Zero-Sum contracts, and I'm hoping that Treliving an experienced GM will be looking for Non-Zero-Sum deals this time around, and convincing the players to buy-in.

That is how a SMART GM does a Doover or Reset to buck current trending on past mistakes.

A player can't make less than 50% of their highest paid year in their contact. So if he gets paid 15m in his first year, his lowest paid year can't be less than 7.5

 

[ACC1224]

It costs the Leafs money and they don't get a discount for doing it. They're the only team that did it, and it resulted in the highest contracts in the league.

Seriously, the players want to be the highest paid. The highest signing bonuses (costing the owners money which passed down to the fans), and the shortest term. Why give them everything? If they want signing bonuses for the whole contract, they can lower their AAV.

Matthews specifically pays much lower taxes because of his signing bonus. He pays taxes like he's in Florida but won't take the Florida discount that Tampa/Florida players do.

It's time they start making concessions. You want max signing bonuses? Interest rates are rising, lower your AAV. You don't want to lower your AAV? Find another team who gives max signing bonuses and the highest AAV. Even Pastrnak only got like 1/3 of his contract in signing bonuses coming off more goals and points than Matthews has ever scored in his career, on a 8 year deal, and lower AAV than Matthews RFA contract.

The only other player that got full signing bonuses outside of Toronto is MacKinnon, and he didn't even get the full signing bonuses like Matthews/Marner/Tavares.

Seems like Owners being able to spend money like that is an advantage. I’m not worried at all about MLSE’s money. If they couldn’t do it they wouldn’t.
As a fan, all I care about is cap.

 

[Divine]

Seems like Owners being able to spend money like that is an advantage. I’m not worried at all about MLSE’s money. If they couldn’t do it they wouldn’t.
As a fan, all I care about is cap.

It's an advantage that they are not utilizing. That is my point.

Why are we giving players free things just because we can? The players have not given us anything in return.

If the Leafs didn't get them full signing bonuses, it's not like their AAV would be higher - they already set the highest AAV in the leagues for their terms.

When you give something for free, it has no value and gets taken for granted. If the Leafs did not give everyone full signing bonuses, and demanded a discount for it - now it's worthwhile for both parties.

Stop giving up full signing bonuses for free.