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

[Legion34]

Hurt? Is he one of those chronic types with the injuries not allowing him to do anything other than eat Mommas home cooking, but maybe what I should've said... see below

Hopefully the 13.5 he wants will be enough to motivate him enough to take hockey seriously start rehabbing his injuries immediately and treat the position he holds as a full time job.


I do believe that someone actually suggested that playoff production doesn't matter because the players were no longer getting paid.

No. I said playoff production is in no way a large predictor of salaries. Playoff production matters. But it’s not what gets you paid. In any appreciable way.

Lots of things matter. Fighting matters. Blocked shots matter. Zone entry defense matters. But it doesn’t get you paid based on the established market.

There is no debate.

I would love playoff production. But the lack of ir doesn’t hurt market value.

Look at all the platers in the 8-10 million range who hadn’t played a single game in the playoffs.

Regular season counting stats. Individual trophies and position are the prime determinants of pay.

D also get paid for toi

 

[Boxscore]

No. I said playoff production is in no way a large predictor of salaries. Playoff production matters. But it’s not what gets you paid. In any appreciable way.

Lots of things matter. Fighting matters. Blocked shots matter. Zone entry defense matters. But it doesn’t get you paid based on the established market.

There is no debate.

I would love playoff production. But the lack of ir doesn’t hurt market value.

Look at all the platers in the 8-10 million range who hadn’t played a single game in the playoffs.

Regular season counting stats. Individual trophies and position are the prime determinants of pay.

D also get paid for toi

Then by this rationale (which I obviously feel is severely flawed... but we'll run with it):

David Pastrnak just signed for 8 x 11.75 and scored 60+ goals and 113 points this season (7 more than Matthews best).

Nate MacKinnon just signed for 8 x 12.6 and scored 111 points in 71 GP this season (after just winning a Cup).

Going by your rationale, these two players are the benchmark for a player like Matthews. If we're being fair, Matthews should be paid between the two of them at approx. 12.25 x 8. If we're feeling generous, give him the same exact deal MacKinnon just signed -- 12.6 x 8.

Using your own rationale, there is zero justification to pay Matthews more than either player, let alone MacKinnon.

The thing is, if Matthews agreed to 8 x 12.6 like MacKinnon did, the fans would have no issue whatsoever. Yet, here we are... and the talk is Matthews is demanding 13.5 per and not close to the 8 years those other guys signed for. Something is off with this dude.

 

[andora]

Then by this rationale (which I obviously feel is severely flawed... but we'll run with it):

David Pastrnak just signed for 8 x 11.75 and scored 60+ goals and 113 points this season (7 more than Matthews best).

Nate MacKinnon just signed for 8 x 12.6 and scored 111 points in 71 GP this season (after just winning a Cup).

Going by your rationale, these two players are the benchmark for a player like Matthews. If we're being fair, Matthews should be paid between the two of them at approx. 12.25 x 8. If we're feeling generous, give him the same exact deal MacKinnon just signed -- 12.6 x 8.

Using your own rationale, there is zero justification to pay Matthews more than either player, let alone MacKinnon.

The thing is, if Matthews agreed to 8 x 12.6 like MacKinnon did, the fans would have no issue whatsoever. Yet, here we are... and the talk is Matthews is demanding 13.5 per and not close to the 8 years those other guys signed for. Something is off with this dude.

But then you bring in his goal and primary point production impacts - which then brings in his inability to stay healthy

And then ding ding ding

Round 10 starts

 

[Boxscore]

But then you bring in his goal and primary point production impacts - which then brings in his inability to stay healthy

And then ding ding ding

Round 10 starts

The problem is the way the fans see Matthews when it comes to his next deal. They only want to look at the positive:

1. 2 x Rockets
2. 1 Hart
3. 60 goal season

But they want to completely ignore the negative:

1. Big dip to 85 points last year
2. 0.88 PPG in playoffs
3. Scoring at a 36 goal pace over 82 GP in the playoffs
4. Only able to win 1 round in 7 years with him being overpaid as it is
5. Wrist injuries
6. Only one 100 point season in his career

We are not talking about McDavid here. There must be some give-and-take, and a little compromise on both sides, to make a fair deal for both the player and team. The problem is, Matthews is only interested in making one-sided deals that strictly benefit him -- insanely high cap hit and short-term. That's nonsense.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Using your own rationale, there is zero justification to pay Matthews more than either player, let alone MacKinnon.

The thing is, if Matthews agreed to 8 x 12.6 like MacKinnon did, the fans would have no issue whatsoever. Yet, here we are... and the talk is Matthews is demanding 13.5 per and not close to the 8 years those other guys signed for. Something is off with this dude.

You're right, we should just pay MacKinnon instead.

Wait, we can't. It's either pay Matthews or spend his cap space on next years Bertuzzi, Domi and Klingberg. I'd rather keep the superstar than taking that cap space to free agency and buying three average players.

 

[IPS]

The problem is the way the fans see Matthews when it comes to his next deal. They only want to look at the positive:

1. 2 x Rockets
2. 1 Hart
3. 60 goal season

But they want to completely ignore the negative:

1. Big dip to 85 points last year
2. 0.88 PPG in playoffs
3. Scoring at a 36 goal pace over 82 GP in the playoffs
4. Only able to win 1 round in 7 years with him being overpaid as it is
5. Wrist injuries
6. Only one 100 point season in his career

We are not talking about McDavid here. There must be some give-and-take, and a little compromise on both sides, to make a fair deal for both the player and team. The problem is, Matthews is only interested in making one-sided deals that strictly benefit him -- insanely high cap hit and short-term. That's nonsense.

It's been by biggest gripe with these Matthews negotations.

Why do we have to ignore everything you listed and have to key in completely on his MVP season?

His MVP season is basically what he needs to do every year to be worth the ABSURD contract of 13.5 x 5. Like let's be real here - he is NOT doing that every year.

 

[Boxscore]

It's either pay Matthews or spend his cap space on next years Bertuzzi, Domi and Klingberg.

Or... trade him for a nice collection of assets (even if undervalued) and use his 13.5 million cap hit demands strategically on other pieces. At the end of the day, Matthews has been here 7 years and we won 1 round during his tenure. ONE ROUND. It's not like this dude has been carrying us on his back to the Finals, or even Conference Finals, year in and year out. He does not warrant a blank check again, nor should he wield the power to hold the Toronto Maple Leafs hostage until we succumb to his last demand. Something has to give. Doing it his way has not worked. It's time to reverse course a bit and reset the culture. In a perfect world, it would be with Matthews (and him doing his part to help reset the culture). But if not, so be it. This is a partnership not a one-way street. The Leafs have existed before 34 arrived and they'll exist well after he's long gone.

 

[Boxscore]

His MVP season is basically what he needs to do every year to be worth the ABSURD contract of 13.5 x 5. Like let's be real here - he is NOT doing that every year.

Of course he's not. Only a fool believes he will. David Pastrnak just bested Matthews' best and signed for 8 x 11.75. Matthews has scored 100 points once in 7 years while a kid like McDavid has done it 6 times in 8 years. There is zero justification for Matthews ever being the highest paid player on the planet. Zero. Especially after coming off an 85 point season and finishing 22nd in NHL scoring then disappointing in the playoffs yet again.

 

[TheDoldrums]

The Leafs have existed before 34 arrived and they'll exist well after he's long gone.

Yep, they existed as bad franchise that made the playoffs once in 11 years during a shortened season. No matter how many times you italicize or use capital letters around the fact that we've only won one round, I don't want to get rid of the best player on a strong team that's a lock for the playoffs. The Ovechkin plan of running it back despite consistent playoff disappointments still seems like the prudent course of action rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Boxscore]

Yep, they existed as bad franchise that made the playoffs once in 11 years during a shortened season. No matter how many times you italicize or use capital letters around the fact that we've only won one round, I don't want to get rid of the best player on a strong team that's a lock for the playoffs. The Ovechkin plan of running it back despite consistent playoff disappointments still seems like the prudent course of action rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

While I'd like to agree with you -- and I do in premise -- the difference between the Ovechkin plan and the Matthews plan is that Ovechkin signed long-term so his deal eventually started to become team-friendly enough for the Caps to add depth pieces who came up huge during that Cup run.

In addition, Nick Backstrom notoriously took a lot less on his deals to help the Caps stay competitive. This is a fact.

You can't skip over these points. In fact, that's what all the frustration is about with our core... not giving discounts or signing long-term so the Leafs are eventually in the position the Caps were.

If Matthews and Marner handled their business like Ovechkin and Backstrom (and produced like they did) then we'd all be in agreement. But you can't have it both ways. And until Matthews and Marner agree long-term... and at least one of them leaves some nice money on the table... we're comparing apples to oranges here with the Caps plan.

 

[andora]

The problem is the way the fans see Matthews when it comes to his next deal. They only want to look at the positive:

1. 2 x Rockets
2. 1 Hart
3. 60 goal season

But they want to completely ignore the negative:

1. Big dip to 85 points last year
2. 0.88 PPG in playoffs
3. Scoring at a 36 goal pace over 82 GP in the playoffs
4. Only able to win 1 round in 7 years with him being overpaid as it is
5. Wrist injuries
6. Only one 100 point season in his career

We are not talking about McDavid here. There must be some give-and-take, and a little compromise on both sides, to make a fair deal for both the player and team. The problem is, Matthews is only interested in making one-sided deals that strictly benefit him -- insanely high cap hit and short-term. That's nonsense.

Oh dont get me wrong..me personally.. i say take your 12.34 be a f***en hero and go score goals

But

I was just bringing up the numbers that can argue in his favor and it does put up around 13 to 13.5.

I dont like it .. at all personally.. but not expecting 13 to 13.5 is sadly wishful thinking

I hope i am wrong

 

[Boxscore]

the numbers that can argue in his favor and it does put up around 13 to 13.5.

How so though? I mean, nobody in the NHL makes more than 12.6 (which MacKinnon just signed last summer) so how does Matthews warrant 13.5 when his numbers aren't better than MacKinnon, Pastrnak, and Tkachuk, let alone McDavid or Draisaitl. I mean, Matthews just scored 85 points and finished 22nd in scoring. How do these numbers justify an unprecedented 13.5 mil? I honestly want to know that. Then it's supposedly short-term, which is even more absurd.

Now, I could see the argument if the Leafs made it to the Finals and Matthews was a beast getting them there. Say they lost in 6 games to Vegas but Matthews was incredible and scored 1.5 PPG throughout the run. In that case, I could see overpaying him a bit because he just showed you how close he was to getting you a Cup and how dominant he could be in the playoffs. But neither happened.

 

[andora]

How so though? I mean, nobody in the NHL makes more than 12.6 (which MacKinnon just signed last summer) so how does Matthews warrant 13.5 when his numbers aren't better than MacKinnon, Pastrnak, and Tkachuk, let alone McDavid or Draisaitl. I mean, Matthews just scored 85 points and finished 22nd in scoring. How do these numbers justify an unprecedented 13.5 mil? I honestly want to know that. Then it's supposedly short-term, which is even more absurd.

Now, I could see the argument if the Leafs made it to the Finals and Matthews was a beast getting them there. Say they lost in 6 games to Vegas but Matthews was incredible and scored 1.5 PPG throughout the run. In that case, I could see overpaying him a bit because he just showed you how close he was to getting you a Cup and how dominant he could be in the playoffs. But neither happened.

Its the even strength primary point impact with the goals. His impact at even strength in these numbers is as high as anyone

But he can't stay healthy

 

[Boxscore]

Its the even strength primary point impact with the goals. His impact at even strength in these numbers is as high as anyone

But he can't stay healthy

How's that the case if he just finished 22nd in NHL scoring? And, I agree, he gets banged up quite a bit. If we are looking at his Rocket and Hart year, that's one thing, but I don't think we can base his next deal just off that. He has ups and downs and inconsistencies. His dip from 106 to 85 is a massive indication of that. The very best like McDavid and Draisaitl don't throw in 85 point down years. I mean, you need to go back to 2016 for Nate MacKinnon and Nikita Kucherov to have a down year like that. Matthews production is very similar to Pastrnak -- high amount of goals, some fluctuation, etc. Pasta won a Rocket, was runner up for a Hart and 4th for a Hart another time. His career high in points is 111 to Matthews 106. Both broke 100 once.

 

[andora]

How's that the case if he just finished 22nd in NHL scoring? And, I agree, he gets banged up quite a bit. If we are looking at his Rocket and Hart year, that's one thing, but I don't think we can base his next deal just off that. He has ups and downs and inconsistencies. His dip from 106 to 85 is a massive indication of that. The very best like McDavid and Draisaitl don't throw in 85 point down years. I mean, you need to go back to 2016 for Nate MacKinnon and Nikita Kucherov to have a down year like that. Matthews production is very similar to Pastrnak -- high amount of goals, some fluctuation, etc. Pasta won a Rocket, was runner up for a Hart and 4th for a Hart another time. His career high in points is 111 to Matthews 106. Both broke 100 once.

Its the even strength primary points.. from memory i think he is highest or 2nd highest on 2nd contract production per game..crosby may have been the highest

So it isnt on total points but primary points at the games most played situation - even strength.

Basicall all high profile centermen in cap era can be averaged out to what teams paid them on their third contracts for this type of production on their 2nd contracts

Paying matthews just the average amount per primary point puts him at like 13.2 million

I realize tgis isnt factoring in all the extra stuff like powerplay points and defensive play.. but it makes the case anyway

Now like i said.. take your 12.34 shut up and go be the icon the city wants you to be

 

[Gabriel426]

I'm not too interested in getting into a debate with you about other people's definitions of whether baseball pitching counts as defense (it's certainly not offense), but I do agree with the general premise that the Toronto teams have made a calculation that the paying audience would prefer flashy offense to defense, pitching, etc. as the foundation of whatever build we're talking about.

All sports team are like that. And this is not a Toronto only thing, it is something that happening in all sports. At the end of the day, any sports team would need to score at least ONE more point or goal in order to win the game.
You look at any professional league except Rugby. The MVP or Player of the year is most often or not the highest scoring player in the League. Cannavaro is one of the few outliner in any pro sports where he won the Player of the Year based solely on his defense, but that also had a lot to do with being Captain of World Cup winning Italy Football Team.
When we talk about the GOAT of any Sports, even Rugby. The player that come to mind will always be MJ, Magic, Kobe, Lebron in Basketball and not guys like Bruce Bowen, or Bill Cartwright or Gary Payton. In football, it is Brady, or Montana not Bruce Smith and even Deon Sanders got all the attention mainly bc he plays two sports and also play as a WR and kick returner than just his defense. In hockey, Wayne, Mario, Orr, Howe and not Guy Carbonneau, Norris will always go to the Dman who score the most points or close to scoring the most points instead of some stay at home Dman.
Even salaries are based on offense productions instead of defense productions.

To say that Toronto sports team only think about offence because it brings in more revenue is quite misleading as Winning brings in more revenue and attention and in order to win, you need to outscore the other team.

 

[Gabriel426]

You're right, we should just pay MacKinnon instead.

Wait, we can't. It's either pay Matthews or spend his cap space on next years Bertuzzi, Domi and Klingberg. I'd rather keep the superstar than taking that cap space to free agency and buying three average players.

Well then we have to look at numbers, ELC aside. Would Matthews at 13.5mil and two 950k players, which is pretty much two 12th forwards(ZAR and ZAR) produce more than Bertuzzi at 6.5mil, Domi at 4mil and Kling at 5mil.

If AM can score 60 goals or more, the chances are AM and two ZAR will outproduce Bertuzzi, Domi and Kling.

Then we look at playoffs, think history had shown, at least to Leafs fans that it is easier to shut down AM and two ZARs than Bertuzzi, Domi and Kling, two top 6 forwards and a top 4 puck moving Dman with a good shot.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

The Leafs released the number that they are offering? Or is someone overreacting?

Oh yeah, I’m sure Matthews is asking for a team friendly deal but neither side wants to sign and announce it just cause…I dunno, reasons I suppose.

If it was a fair deal, it would have already been signed. I’d imagine they’d be eager to reveal the signing too given Nylander’s “I’ll sign for less if everyone else does too” sentiments. He’s haggling for every last penny and year right now or this would have been over already.

 

[Niagara Bill]

No. I said playoff production is in no way a large predictor of salaries. Playoff production matters. But it’s not what gets you paid. In any appreciable way.

Lots of things matter. Fighting matters. Blocked shots matter. Zone entry defense matters. But it doesn’t get you paid based on the established market.

There is no debate.

I would love playoff production. But the lack of ir doesn’t hurt market value.

Look at all the platers in the 8-10 million range who hadn’t played a single game in the playoffs.

Regular season counting stats. Individual trophies and position are the prime determinants of pay.

D also get paid for toi

It doesn't hurt market value unless you are a team that values playoff success. The team is the evaluator, not some group of agents who set the standards with the talking heads.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Yep, they existed as bad franchise that made the playoffs once in 11 years during a shortened season. No matter how many times you italicize or use capital letters around the fact that we've only won one round, I don't want to get rid of the best player on a strong team that's a lock for the playoffs. The Ovechkin plan of running it back despite consistent playoff disappointments still seems like the prudent course of action rather than tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

How often does the Ovechkin plan work out? People keep bringing this up for preaching unending patience with this core but as far as I can tell, that approach has only worked out for the Caps in the cap era and potentially St. Louis.

Take a look at all the cup winning teams since the first lockout: most of them either had the pieces for near immediate success (Blackhawks, Penguins, Kings) or showed signs they were on the cusp with multiple deep playoff runs that ultimately ended in disappointment before winning it all (Tampa Bay, Vegas). You also have teams like St. Louis and Boston who managed to win it without having to pay their stars an absurd amount of unjustified money. In the case of St. Louis, you can at least argue they kept the core of Tarasenko, Pietrangelo, Steen, Binnington together but at least they made a conference final before winning it all.

Colorado is also an interesting case and similar to us but they were able to add a potentially generational, conn smythe winning defenseman via the draft which was insanely lucky on their part. We don’t have anyone close to that caliber coming up the pipeline and unless we bottom out, won’t have a pick high enough to get us a player like that.

In all, that’s basically two teams in the past 18 years or so if you count the Blues. That’s not exactly a recipe for success and seems to be more indicative of absolutely everything just falling into the right place at the right time compared to the other winners.

Not saying it can’t happen but I’m also not as convinced as you that running it back over and over again is the best approach. It sounds more like the argument of someone who’s afraid of change because maybe things will be worse based on past experiences.

 

[Niagara Bill]

Nobody wants a great AM on the Leafs more than me but what must be determined is
1. Is he going to be that Great player going forward
2. Was last years performance which included less points, less effort, and more injuries a predictor of the future or a one year thing.
3. AM personality was different last year, either disinterest, sulking, distraction, bored, an effort to conserve for the playoffs, or some deep life secret crushing him. He appeared more protective, less available, less fire. Is this standard now? Leadership as the best player and spokesman stopped.
the Leafs made a mistake paying JT for that long.
If this stalemate is over term and he wants less term, he is right, less term is best for the Leafs. 110m for 8 years for a future 70 point center man, non leader is wrong. 140m for a 110 point center man for 8 years of leadership maybe ok.
Take the 2 or 3 years, whatever the cost and let's get on with discovering who #34 is.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How so though? I mean, nobody in the NHL makes more than 12.6 (which MacKinnon just signed last summer) so how does Matthews warrant 13.5 when his numbers aren't better than MacKinnon, Pastrnak, and Tkachuk, let alone McDavid or Draisaitl.

Matthews' numbers (which doesn't even include his defensive superiority) are better than these player's numbers when you look properly at a relevant sample through time of signing. The only exception is McDavid, and McDavid's post-ELC cap hit percentage after giving one of the biggest discounts in cap era history is still going to be bigger than Matthews' UFA cap hit percentage. And when McDavid signs his UFA contract, it will also be more than Matthews' UFA contract.

David Pastrnak just signed for 8 x 11.75 and scored 60+ goals and 113 points this season (7 more than Matthews best).
Nate MacKinnon just signed for 8 x 12.6 and scored 111 points in 71 GP this season (after just winning a Cup).

You're looking at a full season of Mackinnon and part of a season of Pastrnak that have zero relevance to their contracts, because it happened after they signed their contracts. That's not what they're being paid for. That's not what formed their contracts. Contracts also aren't just based on one peak season. Somebody like Mackinnon's raw points are also going to be comparatively inflated because his team spends so much time on special teams, but that doesn't make him better. Teams aren't paying a player for how much time the team has recently spent on the PP. They're paying for the player's ability to generate production in that game state, which is comparable to Matthews.

Meanwhile, Matthews is a better 5v5 producer than anybody in the history of the cap era that has signed a currently legal contract.

Looking at the names you mentioned over the 3 years prior to signing:
Matthews: 67 points at 5v5 per 82 (while playing injured for 2/3 of his sample)
McDavid: 65 points at 5v5 per 82
Mackinnon: 61 points at 5v5 per 82
Draisaitl: 55 points at 5v5 per 82
Pastrnak: 51 points at 5v5 per 82
Tkachuk: 48 points at 5v5 per 82

Why are all of these supposedly better and more valuable and healthy players not able to produce like an injured Matthews in the most equal and common game state by far?
That's not even factoring in the overall 5v5 impact, where Matthews separates himself even more with his defensive play.

Now, McDavid is arguably the best PP player ever, while being pretty close to Matthews at 5v5. That's going to launch him above Matthews. Draisaitl also produces better on the PP... but that's hard to fully attribute to Draisaitl with him playing with the best PP player of all time... And the gap between them at 5v5 is pretty massive.
The rest (Matthews, Mackinnon, Tkachuk, and Pastrnak) produce at a similar normal elite rate on the PP, so we're left primarily with the gaps between them at 5v5.

But they want to completely ignore the negative:

1. Big dip to 85 points last year
2. 0.88 PPG in playoffs
3. Scoring at a 36 goal pace over 82 GP in the playoffs
4. Only able to win 1 round in 7 years with him being overpaid as it is
5. Wrist injuries
6. Only one 100 point season in his career

Nobody is ignoring "negatives" or concerns. We just recognize what actually factors into contracts, and the context that makes some of those statements misleading.
It basically comes down to two concerns - injury history, and career playoff production/team outcomes, but those aren't things that meaningfully impact contract valuation.

Injuries are what they are. They suck, they're concerning, but anybody can get hurt. He's already contractually hurt by playing injured in 2/3 of his recent sample. You can't just then randomly knock even more off because you wanna. You'd have to not sign one of the best players this franchise has ever seen because he's been injured before, which is obviously not going to happen. You just have to trust that the Leafs are well-informed about his health moving forward, and hope he stays healthy, like many teams have before with their franchise players.

The playoff production is largely just misunderstood, as the differences there are more a result of discrepancies in the situations faced and experienced (which vary massively across teams in the playoffs) than discrepancies attributable to the individual. Teams and players know this, even if some fans lag behind accepting it.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Matthews' numbers (which doesn't even include his defensive superiority) are better than these player's numbers when you look properly at a relevant sample through time of signing. The only exception is McDavid, and McDavid's post-ELC cap hit percentage after giving one of the biggest discounts in cap era history is still going to be bigger than Matthews' UFA cap hit percentage. And when McDavid signs his UFA contract, it will also be more than Matthews' UFA contract.

You're looking at a full season of Mackinnon and part of a season of Pastrnak that have zero relevance to their contracts, because it happened after they signed their contracts. That's not what they're being paid for. That's not what formed their contracts. Contracts also aren't just based on one peak season. Somebody like Mackinnon's raw points are also going to be comparatively inflated because his team spends so much time on special teams, but that doesn't make him better. Teams aren't paying a player for how much time the team has recently spent on the PP. They're paying for the player's ability to generate production in that game state, which is comparable to Matthews.

Meanwhile, Matthews is a better 5v5 producer than anybody in the history of the cap era that has signed a currently legal contract.

Looking at the names you mentioned over the 3 years prior to signing:
Matthews: 67 points at 5v5 per 82 (while playing injured for 2/3 of his sample)
McDavid: 65 points at 5v5 per 82
Mackinnon: 61 points at 5v5 per 82
Draisaitl: 55 points at 5v5 per 82
Pastrnak: 51 points at 5v5 per 82
Tkachuk: 48 points at 5v5 per 82

Why are all of these supposedly better and more valuable and healthy players not able to produce like an injured Matthews in the most equal and common game state by far?
That's not even factoring in the overall 5v5 impact, where Matthews separates himself even more with his defensive play.

Now, McDavid is arguably the best PP player ever, while being pretty close to Matthews at 5v5. That's going to launch him above Matthews. Draisaitl also produces better on the PP... but that's hard to fully attribute to Draisaitl with him playing with the best PP player of all time... And the gap between them at 5v5 is pretty massive.
The rest (Matthews, Mackinnon, Tkachuk, and Pastrnak) produce at a similar normal elite rate on the PP, so we're left primarily with the gaps between them at 5v5.

Nobody is ignoring "negatives" or concerns. We just recognize what actually factors into contracts, and the context that makes some of those statements misleading.
It basically comes down to two concerns - injury history, and career playoff production/team outcomes, but those aren't things that meaningfully impact contract valuation.

Injuries are what they are. They suck, they're concerning, but anybody can get hurt. He's already contractually hurt by playing injured in 2/3 of his recent sample. You can't just then randomly knock even more off because you wanna. You'd have to not sign one of the best players this franchise has ever seen because he's been injured before, which is obviously not going to happen. You just have to trust that the Leafs are well-informed about his health moving forward, and hope he stays healthy, like many teams have before with their franchise players.

The playoff production is largely just misunderstood, as the differences there are more a result of discrepancies in the situations faced and experienced (which vary massively across teams in the playoffs) than discrepancies attributable to the individual. Teams and players know this, even if some fans lag behind accepting it.

5v5 production per 82. Lol worthy.

Not a surprise you can’t make a decent argument without pulling out a stat like that and using 10,000 words to go along with it.

I’m starting to think you use chatgpt to make your posts given how often you write these long, meandering essays on here.

What are some of these “discrepancies” you speak of in terms of playoff production?

 

[Racer88]

Yup. Everything always falls back to the build model of 50% on 4 similar forwards.
If the model was spread between forward defence and goalie it might work.
As far as matthews goes he will not sign a team friendly deal. He will break the bank or he will walk after next year

 

[Dekes For Days]

5v5 production per 82. Lol worthy.
Not a surprise you can’t make a decent argument without pulling out a stat like that and using 10,000 words to go along with it.

I discussed 5v5 production and PP production over a relevant sample, in a discussion about production.
These are the two main game states that these players play and are paid for, so how is looking at them not a "decent argument"?

What are some of these “discrepancies” you speak of in terms of playoff production?

There are two things that determine raw points:
1. There are internal factors, which is what the player themselves are bringing to the equation to get the end results.
2. Then there are external factors. These are the situations that a player experiences that either benefit or hinder their raw production.
There are some external factors that we need to account for in any situation, like ice time, linemate quality, etc.
But then there are other external factors. Ones that over a significant sample size in the regular season, tend to even out, because you're facing a similar variety of different teams and goalies and performances and streaks and injuries as everybody else over a massive period of time where there are enough rare goal events to attribute cause. It makes point production more viable as a proxy for the offensive impact and performance an individual is bringing, as long as we account for the external factors that remain disparate like ice time, so we tend not to think about it when discussing production.

But in the playoffs, those external factors don't even out. Players are facing vastly different teams, with vastly different defenses, and vastly different goalies, having vastly difference performances and streaks, and experiencing vastly difference injuries, over a tiny sample of games within a couple week period. For some reason, we acknowledge that point production over small sample sizes in the regular season can't be used to completely alter the perception of players, but we take 4-7 game samples as the end-all, be-all in the playoffs and make wild declarations about players. I get that the playoff production is more emotionally meaningful to fans, and so we put so much more weight on it, but it being important to us doesn't change how production actually works. It's actually less representative than the regular season relative to sample size (which is also much smaller) without adding context into the discussion that nobody seems to want to do.

So when you compare across teams and say our player got less playoff production than that player, it doesn't automatically mean that our player was performing worse.
It might be that our player was performing worse, but it also might be a big difference in external factors that aren't being accounted for. This is why pretty much every player has wild swings in production from series to series.

If one player faces a bad defensive team that has their starter injured, and they put up big numbers against a goalie performing below league average, and then one player faces a top defensive team playing in front of a generational goalie having one of the best performances of all-time, and they put up smaller numbers, which player performed better?

Was the first player actually better at generating offense, or was the first player just in an easier situation to produce? If the production in that small 4-7 game sample relative to the other player is opposite of what a massive 200-game, more equal situation sample says, which should we trust to give a more accurate representation of the player?