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

[Racer88]

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?

How many times did he actually play 82 games

 

[ToneDog]

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.

The problem I am guessing is that 34 and 88 are trying to dip into the projected cap increases in the upcoming years, in which case they can justify their higher demands. At this point, based on their playoff success, I'd be embarrassed asking for what they are asking and not having signed. I mean, if you want to be the face of the franchise and leader of this team, do the right thing already. As for Willie, you should have been traded after not signing two months into the season the last time you were up. He should have been traded already to send a message that we are not going through another similar negotiation.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

How many times did he actually play 82 games

Not enough to earn 13.5 million or whatever for 5 years. And even when he does come back from injury, he's usually coasting for a lengthy period of time before he feels better or whatever.

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"?

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?

I don't know why you are comparing sample sizes in the playoffs to sample sizes in the regular season. Yes, an obvious understanding of statistics tells you that anomalies and certain contextual situations will even out to a norm and that norm is more reliable when you have a larger sample size.

Playoff hockey and regular season hockey are fundamentally not the same game though. It's easy to see that given how much more of a grindfest it becomes and space to make stupid fancy plays disappears. On top of that, you are trying to bring in all sorts of external/internal factors that I'm not sure you can confidently pin down yourself. I disagree completely that just looking at how they produce in the regular season is more indicative of how they should be producing just based on GP and if not for all these random factors you call context every year, they would produce more in the playoffs.

They've had 7 years now and it's the same shit every year.

 

[notbias]

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.

So we know the Leafs' number is fair?

And we know Nylander will sign for less if others do?

Sounds like a lot of speculation to fit everyone into the box you want.

Can't argue with someone who makes up situations...

 

[geo25]

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.

The playoff production double talk, legalees wording is confusing & says nothing. He cant produce in the playoffs. Period. Why not just state facts instead of trying to put a "spin" on every argument? We've seen enough of him and what he can do. Either a 3 year term or trade him makes the most sense imho. This past year with his wrist, drop in production & lackadaisical attitude should concern a lot of people...

 

[TheGreenTBer]

Who parks for one hour? Strange criteria.

For reference, if I take a daughter and we order food to our seats.

Parking - 15
2 Tickets - 182
2 sandwiches- 36 (Braised beef grilled cheese is great)
Water - 7
Can of Heineken - 18

Good lord even by arena standards that is rough

 

[Arzak]

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.

I don't disagree with the overall sentiment, but let's be real July 1st his NMC kicked in. It's either pay whatever he wants or let him walk for nothing.

No assets back, none.

 

[Niagara Bill]

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.

Quit suggesting that injuries and playoff production are not part of contract negotiations. Those who ignore such info are destined to fail.
You are a member of an establishment in Toronto that has failed for 56 years, your view does not work. Agents do not set standards unless you allow them. Eagleton once did that.
Injuries, last season performance, reduced leadership and access, obviously a change in playing style are concerns.
If the Leafs did not decide by June 30 who he is, they should all be fired. Assuming they did these is no reason for delay. They chose his signing over WN at 10 m.
Your constant drivel about this stat or that is only of value once you have concluded his character

 

[notbias]

Quit suggesting that injuries and playoff production are not part of contract negotiations. Those who ignore such info are destined to fail.
You are a member of an establishment in Toronto that has failed for 56 years, your view does not work. Agents do not set standards unless you allow them. Eagleton once did that.
Injuries, last season performance, reduced leadership and access, obviously a change in playing style are concerns.
If the Leafs did not decide by June 30 who he is, they should all be fired. Assuming they did these is no reason for delay. They chose his signing over WN at 10 m.
Your constant drivel about this stat or that is only of value once you have concluded his character

I'd argue playoff failure does not matter in contract negotiations.

Tkachuk would be making 4 million if it did, despite his strong playoffs this year, he still produces terribly, and it was even worse before he signed.

Toews/Kane are who I think of when using playoffs in a negotiation.

 

[ULF_55]

The problem I am guessing is that 34 and 88 are trying to dip into the projected cap increases in the upcoming years, in which case they can justify their higher demands. At this point, based on their playoff success, I'd be embarrassed asking for what they are asking and not having signed. I mean, if you want to be the face of the franchise and leader of this team, do the right thing already. As for Willie, you should have been traded after not signing two months into the season the last time you were up. He should have been traded already to send a message that we are not going through another similar negotiation.

IMO, trading Nylander won't show anything of importance.

Their yacht boat anchors are Matthews and marner and both have NMC's.

Trading Nylander just tells everyone else there's only 2 players on the Leafs who'll ever be important. If you're a tier 2 player, look elsewhere unless you accept the market scrutiny without the franchise's appreciation.

If they can trade Nylander for prospects and picks then that would help with their Cap issues, but they'd probably have to take some dumps to make it work. So perhaps gain $3-4mm in space.

Futures would help down the road when the Cap increases, but Matthews is rumoured to be looking to cash in on those increases, by taking short term deals.

Rinse and Repeat ... keep dealing off their Tier 2 players to keep their "celebrities."

 

[Sypher04]

Injuries, last season performance, reduced leadership and access, obviously a change in playing style are concerns.

Huh? Yes, Matthews had some injuries and those are concerning - but he performed well last year in spite of them, though yes, not to his standard because again, he wasn’t healthy enough of the time

What is “reduced leadership and access” even supposed to mean?

And his playing style hasn’t negatively changed beyond the fact that he hurt

 

[Legion34]

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.

The team evaluates based on market comparables. The players/agents evaluate too.

They then come to an agree price or not. Orrrr there are arbitrators for some. Who literally can completely ignore what the team says.

What if the team says everyone is worth league min… now what?

Do they just decide?

 

[Dekes For Days]

I don't know why you are comparing sample sizes in the playoffs to sample sizes in the regular season. Yes, an obvious understanding of statistics tells you that anomalies and certain contextual situations will even out to a norm and that norm is more reliable when you have a larger sample size.

Playoff hockey and regular season hockey are fundamentally not the same game though. It's easy to see that given how much more of a grindfest it becomes and space to make stupid fancy plays disappears. On top of that, you are trying to bring in all sorts of external/internal factors that I'm not sure you can confidently pin down yourself. I disagree completely that just looking at how they produce in the regular season is more indicative of how they should be producing just based on GP and if not for all these random factors you call context every year, they would produce more in the playoffs.

They've had 7 years now and it's the same shit every year.

The playoff production double talk, legalees wording is confusing & says nothing. He cant produce in the playoffs. Period. Why not just state facts instead of trying to put a "spin" on every argument? We've seen enough of him and what he can do. Either a 3 year term or trade him makes the most sense imho. This past year with his wrist, drop in production & lackadaisical attitude should concern a lot of people...

Just because it's confusing doesn't mean it's not important. People like to point at raw points and proclaim that it's a perfect representation of a player, the overall impact they're bringing to a team, and what a team should be paying, but it's not. It is a combination of internal and external influences, and teams are only paying for the internal (the player's individual impact). So people tend to have a lot of confusion about contracts where the external impacts are further away from average in one way or the other. Especially so if they're also good defensively, which is an internal that isn't captured in points.

As for the idea that "he can't produce in the playoffs" and "it's the same thing every year", we know that's not true. We have seen him produce well, in a series, in a year.
6 points in 5 games against Columbus in 2020. 9 points in 7 games against Tampa in 2022. 9 points in 6 games against Tampa in 2023.

As for the idea that playoff hockey and regular season hockey are drastically different, that's also wildly exaggerated. And if they were just getting ground down, not getting chances, and unable to make space or make plays, it would be one thing and there might be more of a discussion, but we also know that's not true. They consistently produce top tier shots and chances, and their underlying metrics aren't seeing massive drop offs. The pucks just aren't going in in some instances.

So then the question is, why aren't the pucks going in in those instances, when they do go in in most other instances, and the answer is that every indication points to external impacts outside of one internal impact - injuries. The only series where he didn't produce over points per game over the past 4 years - even through some of the most hindering external impacts - is series where we know he had a wrist injury and his finishing dropped (while also facing top tier goaltending performances that continued beyond us).

Quit suggesting that injuries and playoff production are not part of contract negotiations.

They may sometimes be considerations in other parts of the process like deciding whether or not to sign a player in the first place, but they don't meaningfully impact AAV, and there is no historical precedent or evidence of a Matthews-like injury history or playoff performances damaging a valuation. And no, teams can't just throw out all established standards of how contract valuation works and force players to do whatever they want.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Just because it's confusing doesn't mean it's not important. People like to point at raw points and proclaim that it's a perfect representation of a player, the overall impact they're bringing to a team, and what a team should be paying, but it's not. It is a combination of internal and external influences, and teams are only paying for the internal (the player's individual impact). So people tend to have a lot of confusion about contracts where the external impacts are further away from average in one way or the other. Especially so if they're also good defensively, which is an internal that isn't captured in points.

As for the idea that "he can't produce in the playoffs" and "it's the same thing every year", we know that's not true. We have seen him produce well, in a series, in a year.
6 points in 5 games against Columbus in 2020. 9 points in 7 games against Tampa in 2022. 9 points in 6 games against Tampa in 2023.

As for the idea that playoff hockey and regular season hockey are drastically different, that's also wildly exaggerated. And if they were just getting ground down, not getting chances, and unable to make space or make plays, it would be one thing and there might be more of a discussion, but we also know that's not true. They consistently produce top tier shots and chances, and their underlying metrics aren't seeing massive drop offs. The pucks just aren't going in in some instances.

So then the question is, why aren't the pucks going in in those instances, when they do go in in most other instances, and the answer is that every indication points to external impacts outside of one internal impact - injuries. The only series where he didn't produce over points per game over the past 4 years - even through some of the most hindering external impacts - is series where we know he had a wrist injury and his finishing dropped (while also facing top tier goaltending performances that continued beyond us).

They may sometimes be considerations in other parts of the process like deciding whether or not to sign a player in the first place, but they don't meaningfully impact AAV, and there is no historical precedent or evidence of a Matthews-like injury history or playoff performances damaging a valuation. And no, teams can't just throw out all established standards of how contract valuation works and force players to do whatever they want.

Funny how the underlying metrics always paint us as a god tier club and yet those pesky external factors always seem to come into play when the playoffs roll around. Why do these external factors only always pop up then but not the regular season and make the metrics used by posters such as yourself to measure our playoff performance look useless? Is it sample size again or is seven years really not enough?

I truly wonder why.

 

[ULF_55]

Was Matthews injured in 2020-2021 playoffs against Montreal?

Maybe this is the excuse for those playoffs?

 

[ULF_55]

Funny how the underlying metrics always paint us as a god tier club and yet those pesky external factors always seem to come into play when the playoffs roll around.

I truly wonder why.

It's like preseason.

You don't say those games show the real team.

With all the travel, all the games, all the gimmicks, the game isn't like it was 30-40 years ago.

Preseason
Regular season
Playoffs season

Each brings you closer to reality.
Players are not going to put out everything over 82 games. They just aren't.

 

[BrannigansLaw]

It's like preseason.

You don't say those games show the real team.

With all the travel, all the games, all the gimmicks, the game isn't like it was 30-40 years ago.

Preseason
Regular season
Playoffs season

Each brings you closer to reality.
Players are not going to put out everything over 82 games. They just aren't.

Absolutely agreed. Especially your last point about effort levels. It's just not the same level of hockey to try to compare sample sizes between in terms of regular/postseason play.

 

[ULF_55]

Absolutely agreed. Especially your last point about effort levels. It's just not the same level of hockey to try to compare sample sizes between in terms of regular/postseason play.

Perhaps McDavid did ... and it showed ... he showed what he is capable of when he shows up to play, almost, every game.

Maybe marner does, but he's not a McDavid.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

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.

Also, those that watched the Capitals at the time knew that Ovechkin himself was a big-game player that wasn't afraid of the big moments. He's not like Matthews or Marner at all, and that's a big reason why he's a Stanley Cup champion and will likely end up scoring more goals than any player in history.

We need star players that have a Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant-type attitude; win at all costs, no sympathy, no excuses, no mercy. Kill or be killed. I don't know about you but I'm sick of the team being gazelles and would like them to be cheetahs for once.

 

[Niagara Bill]

I'd argue playoff failure does not matter in contract negotiations.

Tkachuk would be making 4 million if it did, despite his strong playoffs this year, he still produces terribly, and it was even worse before he signed.

Toews/Kane are who I think of when using playoffs in a negotiation.

So you suggest that Tkachuk did not provide more to his team than AM did. Sorry I cannot top that view with anything that would make sense to you.

 

[notbias]

So you suggest that Tkachuk did not provide more to his team than AM did. Sorry I cannot top that view with anything that would make sense to you.

I am suggesting that when he signed his contract he was a terrible playoff performer.

We are talking about signing contracts not what happened after.

 

[Niagara Bill]

The team evaluates based on market comparables. The players/agents evaluate too.

They then come to an agree price or not. Orrrr there are arbitrators for some. Who literally can completely ignore what the team says.

What if the team says everyone is worth league min… now what?

Do they just decide?

What if the agent says all his players should be top 3.
In this type of bargaining where the team commits both money and time into the future based on an agent promising his client will try hard, the team must first set their standards before bargaining. Once the contract is signed for 100m, the player cannot lose. Only the team can lose. The fans can lose. NTC limits the teams ability to escape.
Based on 2022/23 McDavid set the world on fire, AM looks like he peaked out fir some reason. Surely vases on last year you cannot conclude they are the same level last year, and now must question AM into the future. If he had 115 points last year, no questions, but he didn't, do lits of questions.

 

[ULF_55]

I am suggesting that when he signed his contract he was a terrible playoff performer.

We are talking about signing contracts not what happened after.

He was 24 when he signed this deal.

That's still pretty young.

Maybe just maturity?

 

[Niagara Bill]

Huh? Yes, Matthews had some injuries and those are concerning - but he performed well last year in spite of them, though yes, not to his standard because again, he wasn’t healthy enough of the time

What is “reduced leadership and access” even supposed to mean?

And his playing style hasn’t negatively changed beyond the fact that he hurt

Dekes said he wasn't hurt chronically, that may not be true. He took fewer interviews, he was far quieter, at times disinterested. Even celebrations were more muted.
So based on last year, is he in McD range?
Big decision for Leafs for next 5 to 8 years. Give up WN, and maybe have another high paid guy who gets 80 points.
So how much do you pay him?
I say no more than 3 year term and anywhere 12 to 13.5 is ok, but NEVER more than 3 years and no NTC in year 3.

I am suggesting that when he signed his contract he was a terrible playoff performer.

We are talking about signing contracts not what happened after.

Which is why he only got 9m

 

[BrannigansLaw]

Dekes said he wasn't hurt chronically, that may not be true. He took fewer interviews, he was far quieter, at times disinterested. Even celebrations were more muted.
So based on last year, is he in McD range?
Big decision for Leafs for next 5 to 8 years. Give up WN, and maybe have another high paid guy who gets 80 points.
So how much do you pay him?
I say no more than 3 year term and anywhere 12 to 13.5 is ok, but NEVER more than 3 years and no NTC in year 3.


Which is why he only got 9m

You'd think he just signed for 11.6 x 5 the way he's being talked about.