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

[Dekes For Days]

Cool. And I'd still take Rantanen 10x out of 10 over Marner.

If you want the worse player, that's your choice I guess. Most would prefer the better player.

 

[Boxscore]

If you want the worse player, that's your choice I guess. Most would prefer the better player.

There's zero chance Marner is a better player than Rantanen, regardless of the voodoo stats you use to paint him as such. Factor in contract, size, playoff success, it's not even close. 10x out of 10, I take Rantanen. Look, the Leafs are my team, but I'm amazed how every post you make is to fluff our core up like they're the greatest players in hockey yet combined they've won a despicable 1 playoff round in 7 years. How is it possible that all these all-time greats -- who all deserve to be paid anything they want -- have 1 playoff win to show for it? Explain that to me.

 

[weems]

There's zero chance Marner is a better player than Rantanen, regardless of the voodoo stats you use to paint him as such. Factor in contract, size, playoff success, it's not even close. 10x out of 10, I take Rantanen. Look, the Leafs are my team, but I'm amazed how every post you make is to fluff our core up like they're the greatest players in hockey yet combined they've won a despicable 1 playoff round in 7 years. How is it possible that all these all-time greats -- who all deserve to be paid anything they want -- have 1 playoff win to show for it? Explain that to me.

"They got goalie'd"

 

[Gary Nylund]

Matthews is one of those "modern day athletes" who really haven't crept into the NHL yet in large numbers. He considers himself a celebrity, and a brand, and it's all about him, and maximizing his pay days. He's not driven by winning a Cup or being part of a winning team over his career. We see these players in every other sport, especially the NBA and MLB, but we're not used to them in the NHL. Hockey players have notoriously been a different breed -- from playing severely injured, to taking less money, to staying mostly drama-free off the ice, to putting their teams first. Matthews just isn't that guy. His priorities are living a celebrity life, hanging around celebrities, wearing bizarre clothing, and carrying man purses. Hockey is a means to an end for him. He's still an extremely talented hockey player, but he'll never be that heart-and-soul leader like Clark, playoff battler like Gilmour, and he'll never do the Leafs any favors on the contract front. It is what it is.


This is true. I've said, this core makes the regular season a lot of fun. But they also lead to playoff disappointment.

Exactly!

There's zero chance Marner is a better player than Rantanen, regardless of the voodoo stats you use to paint him as such. Factor in contract, size, playoff success, it's not even close. 10x out of 10, I take Rantanen. Look, the Leafs are my team, but I'm amazed how every post you make is to fluff our core up like they're the greatest players in hockey yet combined they've won a despicable 1 playoff round in 7 years. How is it possible that all these all-time greats -- who all deserve to be paid anything they want -- have 1 playoff win to show for it? Explain that to me.

Regular season Marner >>> playoff Marner, that's the problem right there.

 

[IPS]

The mental gymnastics really are something else today. Never seen EN points brought up to shit on a non-Leaf player but everyday is something new

 

[Dekes For Days]

There's zero chance Marner is a better player than Rantanen, regardless of the voodoo stats you use to paint him as such. Factor in contract, size, playoff success, it's not even close.

It's actually undeniable that Marner is a better player than Rantanen. There's really nothing that Rantanen has on Marner.
Size is nice, and an easy tool that individuals can utilize to make themselves better, but it does not inherently make one better.
It's nice that Rantanen is on a team that won the cup and has faced easier situations to produce in the playoffs, but that also doesn't make somebody better.
And Rantanen's contract is slightly lower, but that also doesn't make a player better, and Marner has provided more surplus value over his career.

How is it possible that all these all-time greats -- who all deserve to be paid anything they want -- have 1 playoff win to show for it? Explain that to me.

Matthews and Marner don't deserve to be paid anything they want. They deserve to be paid contracts that are consistent with their quality and impact relative to the history of UFA contracts throughout the cap era. As for why our team has had the playoff outcomes they have had, there are a variety of reasons that there isn't much point to getting into again here, but the most simple, all-encompassing answer is that playoff series outcomes are about a team, not just an individual, and are heavily impacted by external factors, that quite frankly, make the outcomes way more random and unreflective of team quality than many people would like to accept. The all or nothing aspect of it also tends to lead to more exaggerated perceptions than what actually happened.

That doesn't mean the Cup isn't important. The Cup is the most important thing, to fans, to players, to management, and it is the ultimate goal, because hockey society has collectively decided to put value on it, but fans really lag behind the other two in acknowledging the representative limitations of which round a team loses in, especially taken without context, as it tends to be.

 

[Stephen]

Marner and Rantanen do not have "VERY equal stats". Marner is a much better 5v5 producer, and an equivalent if not better PP producer. Then we add on the PKing impacts and the massively better defensive play, and it's easy to understand why he makes more.

As for Aho vs. Nylander, Aho does not score significantly more goals and points. Even just taking their raw production without context, they have an identical points per game over the past 3 years, and a goals per game within 0.03 of each other. Against actual goalies, Nylander scores more goals and points.

Using the exact same considerations as we did in Marner vs. Rantanen, we end up a different scenario than Marner vs. Rantanen. Unlike in the Marner vs. Rantanen example, where Marner was better than Rantanen at everything, in the Aho vs. Nylander example, one side is better at some things, and the other side is better at some things. Nylander is a better 5v5 producer, and a better PP producer, while Aho brings additional PK impacts, and slightly better defensive play. This makes them relatively comparable overall, and it makes sense that their contracts will be in a closer range to each other.

As for empty net points, I've talked about them and how they can skew perception of offensive impact for years. Not sure why you think this is new, or why anybody would choose not to acknowledge the difference between goals/points produced against a goalie, and ones produced by lobbing a puck into an empty net, in a scenario where there is a significant discrepancy and impact on the results.

To recap:

-centers are worth more than wingers, unless the winger is a Leaf player.

-goals are worth more than assists, unless the superior goal scorer is not a Leaf player.

-in which case superior penalty killing is the tie breaker due to defensive mindedness.

-but defending a 6 on 5 does not count like a 5 on 4 PK even if you score empty net goals, which we all know count for less than normal goals.

-5 on 5 production in the regular season is the gold standard, unless there’s an injury to the Leaf player which limits production.

-Then we move to a /60 or more favorable metric and shift away from less favorable raw points.

-Powerplay production is discounted since Oilers and Avalanche players tend to accumulate more points.

-Playoff production isn’t that important so we’ll throw out that whole category completely. Small sample size and whatnot, and lack of Leaf success.

-Stanley Cups? Not even worth talking about.

 

[andora]

To recap:

-centers are worth more than wingers, unless the winger is a Leaf player.

-goals are worth more than assists, unless the superior goal scorer is not a Leaf player.

-in which case superior penalty killing is the tie breaker due to defensive mindedness.

-but defending a 6 on 5 does not count like a 5 on 4 PK even if you score empty net goals, which we all know count for less than normal goals.

-5 on 5 production in the regular season is the gold standard, unless there’s an injury to the Leaf player which limits production.

-Then we move to a /60 or more favorable metric and shift away from less favorable raw points.

-Powerplay production is discounted since Oilers and Avalanche players tend to accumulate more points.

-Playoff production isn’t that important so we’ll throw out that whole category completely. Small sample size and whatnot, and lack of Leaf success.

-Stanley Cups? Not even worth talking about.

You missed other players getting more favorable situational play better linemates and easier quality of competition

 

[Boxscore]

It's actually undeniable that Marner is a better player than Rantanen. There's really nothing that Rantanen has on Marner.
Size is nice, and an easy tool that individuals can utilize to make themselves better, but it does not inherently make one better.
It's nice that Rantanen is on a team that won the cup and has faced easier situations to produce in the playoffs, but that also doesn't make somebody better.
And Rantanen's contract is lower, but that also doesn't make a player better, and Marner has provided more surplus value over his career.

Matthews and Marner don't deserve to be paid anything they want. They deserve to be paid contracts that are consistent with their quality and impact relative to the history of UFA contracts throughout the cap era. As for why our team has had the playoff outcomes they have had, there are a variety of reasons that there isn't much point to getting into again here, but the most simple, all-encompassing answer is that playoff series outcomes are about a team, not just an individual, and are heavily impacted by external factors, that quite frankly, make the outcomes way more random and unreflective of team quality than many people would like to accept. The all or nothing aspect of it also tends to lead to more exaggerated perceptions than what actually happened.

That doesn't mean the Cup isn't important. The Cup is the most important thing, to fans, to players, to management, and it is the ultimate goal, because hockey society has collectively decided to put value on it, but fans really lag behind the other two in acknowledging the representative limitations of which round a team loses in.

We disagree completely on Rantanen vs. Marner. Rantanen is a key part of the reason the Avs win in the playoffs, and have a Cup. Conversely, Marner is a key reason the Leafs lose in the playoffs, and only have 1 round to show for it in 7 years. I still can't believe the way Marner plays in the playoffs -- yes, he gets his points, but he is terrified to breach past the perimeter in most cases, and his costly turnovers and beer hockey moves, are borderline benchable offenses. Rantanen is a playoff beast, engages physically, and goes in the dirty areas, which is why his team has a Cup. I've watched both players with my own eyes for years and I'll never be convinced Marner is a better hockey player than Rantanan. As for the contracts, you brush it off as "Rantanen gets paid less" like it's nothing. It's one of the most important factors when evaluating assests in a hard cap NHL lol. Rantanen has been making 1.6 million less than Marner and I'm sure he'll be less of a headache to deal with when he next contract needs to be done as well.

Yes, it takes a team to win a Stanley Cup. Which is why players like Matthews and Marner are poison pills. Not only are they not the type of players who can hit another level in the playoffs (which makes it even more important to surround them with players who can) but they are so obsessed with making every last dollar that they can significantly hamper the Leafs chances of getting them better quality help.

Last time I checked the Avs didn't have that problem with their top players. MacKinnon, Rantanen, Makar, etc. all come to play -- and play big -- in the post season. If Marner and Matthews competed like them, we may have been to a Cup during their reign.

Matthews and Marner can't have it both ways. Either can fans who continue to position them as elite players who deserve to be among the highest paid (or in Matthews' case, the highest paid). We can't continue to beat this "our players are the best" drum then make excuses for them when they come up small in the playoffs or demand so much money we cannot build a better team around them. Pick a lane.

 

[Dekes For Days]

"I said goal-scorers are more valuable and centers are more valuable, all else equal, and that has remained true throughout. That doesn't mean you ignore everything else about the players. And Marner didn't get the same contract as Matthews, so I frankly have no idea what you're talking about. Please understand the arguments/discussions you are referencing before complaining about them."

Wow, you had to go back through 4 years of my posts just to find something I said that was wrong? I'm impressed with myself.
Know what's funniest? The reason I was wrong 4 years ago is because at that point, I was just blindly trusting "conventional wisdom".
Then I went through the effort of fact-checking conventional wisdom, and did something that many could learn from - got new information and realigned my position with the facts.

It turned out there wasn't a significant difference between center and winger compensation. It was a myth that got perpetuated because throughout NHL history, centers just tended to be better players and/or bring additional things to the table. The contract disparities were primarily a result of disparity in quality and impact, not position.

It also turned out that the whole goal thing wasn't actually about goals specifically. It was about primary points tending to be more valuable than secondary assists, and the myth perpetuated because playmakers were more likely to have a skew in their production towards secondary assists.

 

[andora]

Lol

 

[Nineteen67]

To recap:

-centers are worth more than wingers, unless the winger is a Leaf player.

-goals are worth more than assists, unless the superior goal scorer is not a Leaf player.

-in which case superior penalty killing is the tie breaker due to defensive mindedness.

-but defending a 6 on 5 does not count like a 5 on 4 PK even if you score empty net goals, which we all know count for less than normal goals.

-5 on 5 production in the regular season is the gold standard, unless there’s an injury to the Leaf player which limits production.

-Then we move to a /60 or more favorable metric and shift away from less favorable raw points.

-Powerplay production is discounted since Oilers and Avalanche players tend to accumulate more points.

-Playoff production isn’t that important so we’ll throw out that whole category completely. Small sample size and whatnot, and lack of Leaf success.

-Stanley Cups? Not even worth talking about.

It’s actually easier to summarize. If they are in a Leaf's or Jays system they are the best player at their level, once they leave, they normalize.

 

[Stephen]

You missed other players getting more favorable situational play better linemates and easier quality of competition

-Matthews and Marner are better than Mackinnon and Rantanen. Mackinnon and Rantanen just happen to play for a cup winner and have superior linemates.

 

[ToneDog]

-Matthews and Marner are better than Mackinnon and Rantanen. Mackinnon and Rantanen just happen to play for a cup winner and have superior linemates.

They are also much luckier than 16 and 34.

 

[Dekes For Days]

To recap:
-centers are worth more than wingers, unless the winger is a Leaf player.
-goals are worth more than assists, unless the superior goal scorer is not a Leaf player.
-in which case superior penalty killing is the tie breaker due to defensive mindedness.
-but defending a 6 on 5 does not count like a 5 on 4 PK even if you score empty net goals, which we all know count for less than normal goals.
-5 on 5 production in the regular season is the gold standard, unless there’s an injury to the Leaf player which limits production.
-Then we move to a /60 or more favorable metric and shift away from less favorable raw points.
-Powerplay production is discounted since Oilers and Avalanche players tend to accumulate more points.
-Playoff production isn’t that important so we’ll throw out that whole category completely. Small sample size and whatnot, and lack of Leaf success.
-Stanley Cups? Not even worth talking about.

Not sure what you're recapping, because it's a wild misrepresentation of what I've said and done.

To actually recap:
-Centers are not worth more than wingers, regardless of team.
-Goals are not worth more than assists, regardless of team. Goals and primary assists are generally regarded as more valuable than secondary assists, regardless of team.
-Penalty killing impacts matter, regardless of team.
-Defensive ability matters, regardless of team.
-Putting a puck in the net when a goalie is there trying to stop you is massively more difficult than putting the puck in the net when it's empty, and they represent very different things about the ability of a player to generate production in usual game situations - which is what teams are paying for offensively. This is true, regardless of team.
-Injury context matters, regardless of team.
-5v5 impacts matter, regardless of team.
-PP impacts matter, regardless of team. Raw PP production can however be quite skewed away from the actual impacts and ability of a player to generate production on the PP, due to team factors external to the player, and how abundant scoring is in the PP game state. This is where per 60 metrics are really helpful to more accurately capture quality and impact. Same thing applies for all teams.
-Playoff production is important, regardless of team, but it's also wildly misunderstood and messy to compare across teams due to the vastly different situations teams and player face and experience, that can significantly alter raw production for reasons that are entirely external to the individual. They are often taken without the proper context to make claims contradictory to the more representative samples we have, which is problematic, regardless of team.
-Team accomplishments aren't relevant to individual contracts, regardless of team (though there are occasional rare outliers where it could be argued a team overpaid to keep somebody after a cup).

Or, to put it more simply, it's important to look at context and evaluate players wholly and properly, instead of relying on exclusively raw point totals and playoff series outcomes to tell you literally everything about everything.

 

[Boxscore]

-Matthews and Marner are better than Mackinnon and Rantanen. Mackinnon and Rantanen just happen to play for a cup winner and have superior linemates.

I know, it's crazy. I would flip 34 and 16 for MacKinnon and Rantanen in a heartbeat. Without blinking.

 

[Stephen]

I know, it's crazy. I would flip 34 and 16 for MacKinnon and Rantanen in a heartbeat. Without blinking.

I’d take 2/4 of them in many permutations. Mackinnon, Matthews. Matthews Rantanen. Mackinnon Marner. Whatever.

I just don’t think we need the pseudo “context” to down rate everyone else around the league to prop up our guys. It distorts the picture of who we really are, how good of a job those who are tasked with building the team actually are doing, what kind of resources are spent and what our chances of actually winning are every season.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Conversely, Marner is a key reason the Leafs lose in the playoffs, and only have 1 round to show for it in 7 years. I still can't believe the way Marner plays in the playoffs -- yes, he gets his points, but he is terrified to breach past the perimeter in most cases, and his costly turnovers and beer hockey moves, are borderline benchable offenses. Rantanen is a playoff beast, engages physically, and goes in the dirty areas, which is why his team has a Cup.

None of this is true.

As for the contracts, you brush it off as "Rantanen gets paid less" like it's nothing.

It's not nothing, but it is understandable and justified, considering the gap between the players was and is bigger than the 1.65m gap in their cap hits.

Yes, it takes a team to win a Stanley Cup. Which is why players like Matthews and Marner are poison pills. Not only are they not the type of players who can hit another level in the playoffs (which makes it even more important to surround them with players who can) but they are so obsessed with making every last dollar that they can significantly hamper the Leafs chances of getting them better quality help.

Matthews and Marner are not poison pills at all. They are two of the best players in the league, we have a much better chance of winning with them than without them, and they did not attempt to "significantly hamper the Leaf's chances" by taking the contracts they had earned, just like everybody else does.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I just don’t think we need the pseudo “context” to down rate everyone else around the league to prop up our guys. It distorts the picture of who we really are, how good of a job those who are tasked with building the team actually are doing, what kind of resources are spent and what our chances of actually winning are every season.

Context doesn't prop up our guys. It compares players fairly and accurately. The reason you think it props up our guys is because what's actually happening is people are trying to ignore context to underrepresent our guys relative to selectively chosen individuals that have disproportionally benefitted from ignored context, leading to a distorted picture.

 

[Stephen]

Context doesn't prop up our guys. It compares players fairly and accurately. The reason you think it props up our guys is because what's actually happening is people are trying to ignore context to underrepresent our guys relative to selectively chosen individuals, leading to a distorted picture.

We’ve talked about “context” before and you’re not applying it properly. Context means big picture analysis of a player, their stats, team accomplishments, individual awards, era. Contextualizing.

You focus on little favorable categories in isolation like 5 on 5 vs PP stats, downplay championships and playoffs, strengths of others. At best, you are applying footnotes and asterisks. That’s not context.

 

[andora]

I’d take 2/4 of them in many permutations. Mackinnon, Matthews. Matthews Rantanen. Mackinnon Marner. Whatever.

I just don’t think we need the pseudo “context” to down rate everyone else around the league to prop up our guys. It distorts the picture of who we really are, how good of a job those who are tasked with building the team actually are doing, what kind of resources are spent and what our chances of actually winning are every season.

Rantanen has more game winning goals.. so there is that

 

[Dekes For Days]

We’ve talked about “context” before and you’re applying it properly. Context means big picture analysis of a player, their stats, team accomplishments, individual awards, era.
You focus on little favorable categories in isolation like 5 on 5 vs PP stats, downplay championships and playoffs, strengths of others.

I don't focus on "little favourable categories in isolation". That's literally what you're doing by focusing exclusively on raw point totals and team playoff outcomes and ignoring everything else and all context when discussing players and their contracts.

I focus on the entirety of their play in each game state, and all of the context behind it. And then how that historically translates to contracts.

I haven't downplayed anybody else's strengths. I also haven't downplayed the importance of championships, but the importance of championships is different from the importance of championships to contracts. You can't take contracts that were not even impacted by cup status and proclaim anybody without a cup has to take less.

 

[Boxscore]

Matthews and Marner are not poison pills at all. They are two of the best players in the league, we have a much better chance of winning with them than without them, and they did not attempt to "significantly hamper the Leaf's chances" by taking the contracts they had earned, just like everybody else does.

This is absolutely comical. How can you say that considering we won 1 round in 7 years with them? You mean to tell me if we were to take their 22+ combined million and spend that on 3 other impact pieces, we wouldn't be able to win at least 1 round in 7 years? Nonsense. I'd venture we'd have won more.

And, yes, they have (and are) significantly hampering our chances by being overpaid and not offering either a discount on cap hit, or signing long-term, so we can surround them with better talent. By taking short-term deals -- unlike the majority of other superstars who commit to 8 years -- they are continually upping their cap % at half the duration as other stars. This prohibits their deals from ever becoming "team friendly."

You can defend these guys all you like but facts are facts.

 

[rocketman588]

To recap:

-centers are worth more than wingers, unless the winger is a Leaf player.

-goals are worth more than assists, unless the superior goal scorer is not a Leaf player.

-in which case superior penalty killing is the tie breaker due to defensive mindedness.

-but defending a 6 on 5 does not count like a 5 on 4 PK even if you score empty net goals, which we all know count for less than normal goals.

-5 on 5 production in the regular season is the gold standard, unless there’s an injury to the Leaf player which limits production.

-Then we move to a /60 or more favorable metric and shift away from less favorable raw points.

-Powerplay production is discounted since Oilers and Avalanche players tend to accumulate more points.

-Playoff production isn’t that important so we’ll throw out that whole category completely. Small sample size and whatnot, and lack of Leaf success.

-Stanley Cups? Not even worth talking about.

You're forgetting that the leafs player must also have been signed to a massive over pay (along with shit term and trade protection) by the previous GM so we're cheering for him to make even more money IE. 20% of the cap which despite screwing over the team "I cheer for" will show that the previous leafs GM wasn't actually a push over in negotiations and therefore still awesome like I'm claiming he is

 

[Nogatco Rd]

He's a name on the back, not the one on the front, kind of player.

Story checks out