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

[Trapper]

In 7 years: 4 x 50 goals and 3 x 40. Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe. "Not bad"

And you're still saying the Leafs wouldn't want similar production from Matthews during his 30s?

Crosby and Malkin play with Pens for their entire careers, at least until approaching 40. Kane and Toews with the Hawks into their mid-to-late-30s. Kopitar with the Kings. Bergeron and Marchand with Bruins. MacKinnon, etc. with the Avs. Stamkos and Hedman with the Bolts.

Why are the Leafs the only team, and their iconic star, the only team who seem to not want to commit long-term?

Because if you are locked in for 8 years you can’t get more money when salaries/cap
Increase.

 

[Sypher04]

For the record I have no issue with an 8 year deal. All I’ve suggested is there are benefits to only going 5 or 6 years, and that shortening the term will not reduce the AAV, so it’s a weird hill some people want to die on

 

[Stephen]

In 7 years: 4 x 50 goals and 3 x 40. Stanley Cup and Conn Smythe. "Not bad"

And you're still saying the Leafs wouldn't want similar production from Matthews during his 30s?

Crosby and Malkin play with Pens for their entire careers, at least until approaching 40. Kane and Toews with the Hawks into their mid-to-late-30s. Kopitar with the Kings. Bergeron and Marchand with Bruins. MacKinnon, etc. with the Avs. Stamkos and Hedman with the Bolts.

Why are the Leafs the only team, and their iconic star, the only team who seem to not want to commit long-term?

Crosby, Kane, Stamkos, Hedman, Malkin each signed 5x year deals post ELC just like Matthews though before their big deals...

 

[Cynical]

It's in the player's best interest to give himself a chance for a bigger contract while in his prime - especially with potentially bigger revenues down the line. NBA players do this all the time.

If Matthews locks himself into a very long term deal, he will most likely end up paid less than lesser players 4 or 5 years into the contract.

 

[Boxscore]

I think we're suggesting we pay him the most money during his most productive seasons and then take a beat and re-assess at 30, 32 or 33 whatever the cut off on that deal is. He can be a Leaf for life, but if the production tapers off and you can taper off the AAV in a bigger cap, what's the problem?

Because that approach never works out. Look at Tavares who signed a massive 11 million deal 7 years ago (the 2nd largest cap hit at the time behind McDavid) when his career high in points was 86. Heck, Kevin freaking Hayes signed a 7+ mil long-term deal and Erik Karlsson was gifted 11.5 long-term even after serious injuries. Good players will be overpaid when they're available. Great players will often be grossly overpaid, which is why clubs prefer a long-term commitment once they get a sense of the player.

Come on, we both know how this works. If the Leafs sign Matthews to a 5-year deal and he scores 52, 47, 51, 44 and 43 goals over the next 5 years (and that's conservative considering he's a year removed from 60) he'll be able to sign a 6-7 year deal at age 30 for mega dollars -- a lot more than the possible 12.7 they should lock him into now.

When it comes to "supposedly elite" players, term always benefits the club and not the player as much.

Here's the bottom line...

If we (and the Leafs) believe Matthews is indeed an elite talent who will produce on par with the greatest in the world, why wouldn't we want to lock him in long-term now so when his hit looks to be more affordable we can continue to build around him? We would, if we believe he's that guy. But, if we don't believe he's that guy, why would we want to overpay for him now and strap ourselves for 5 years without being able to build a winner around him? It doesn't make sense for the Leafs.

 

[francis246]

Crosby, Kane, Stamkos, Hedman, Malkin each signed 5x year deals post ELC just like Matthews though before their big deals...

Tavares is the only one who ended up leaving. Stamkos explored the market a little bit but ultimately decided to stay in Tampa.

 

[Boxscore]

Crosby, Kane, Stamkos, Hedman, Malkin each signed 5x year deals post ELC just like Matthews though before their big deals...

Right. As did MacKinnon I believe. But, at some point in their prime, they all chose to commit long-term to their clubs. And that includes other players like McDavid, Draisaitl, Tkachuk, Pastrnak, MacKinnon, Hughes, etc.

 

[Sypher04]

You can rationalize any term from 5-8 years being best for us.

There’s been fear mongering about 3 year deals which no one wants to see, but absolutely nothing to support it. Just baseless speculation

As for my own, I’d honestly be shocked if he signed for less than 5 years

Tavares is the only one who ended up leaving. Stamkos explored the market a little bit but ultimately decided to stay in Tampa.

Yup, and Isles had more significant issues than just the on ice product

 

[Racer88]

Do you know how hard it is to have a 50 goal season?

Ovechkin who might be the best or second best goal scorer of all time has had 4, 50 goal seasons since turning 30. It’s not impossible for Matthews to have that success as well.

Matthews is good for 40 goals most years which is incredible. 50 is outstanding and pretty much an anomaly.

How many 50’s did Ovi have before he was 30?
I agree 50 is hard to do and 40 is pretty good but when you are supposed to be this generational player and wants to be the the highest paid shouldn’t he be held to a higher standard, especially when he spends so much time beside Marner.
A 40 goal scorer and over the last 7 years averages 77.42 points per year is not generational and certainly not worth of being the highest paid on a shorter contract

 

[Dekes For Days]

A 40 goal scorer

Goal pace...

2016-2017: 40
2017-2018: 45
2018-2019: 45
2019-2020: 55
2020-2021: 65
2021-2022: 67
2022-2023: 44

While getting abnormally low PP time through his career, and playing injured in a couple of those seasons.

Calling that just a 40 goal scorer is pretty misleading, even aside from stripping away all of the other things he's elite at.

 

[Canadian Finn]

stop paying for "paces" and "the future".

start paying for actual results.

culture needs to change from murses to results.

 

[Sypher04]

stop paying for "paces" and "the future".

start paying for actual results.

If you convert those all to goals per game, which is actual results, nothing changes

 

[Dekes For Days]

stop paying for "paces" and "the future".
start paying for actual results.

They are paying for actual results.
And Matthews didn't create a global pandemic, for the record.
A 56 game season certainly helps people misrepresent a dominant, rocket-winning goal scoring season as just a "40 goal season".

 

[Boxscore]

stop paying for "paces" and "the future".

start paying for actual results.

culture needs to change from murses to results.

Yes, but in order for clubs to build a long-term contender they need cost certainty with their top players, so as the cap rises, they can use that extra money to surround their stars with a better supporting cast. That is impossible to do when every 4 years or so you're re-paying your elite players more and more dollars as the cap rises. You can never get ahead or build sustainable depth until you have your franchise icons locked in long-term.

 

[Da Mash]

I love to go back to the days when we would hover around the 60 -70 pt mark….miss the playoffs….have crappy drafts and a older team.

Love those days…no whining…we didn’t worry about the cap and we didn’t have a bunch of really good young players to let walk away in FA

Oh those were the day

Leaf fans were much happier

 

[Boxscore]

I love to go back to the days when we would hover around the 60 -70 pt mark….miss the playoffs….have crappy drafts and a older team.

Love those days…no whining…we didn’t worry about the cap and we didn’t have a bunch of really good young players to let walk away in FA

Oh those were the day

Leaf fans were much happier

No we weren't. But why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't we be like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Colorado where we lock-in our stars long-term and enjoy the ride? I don't understand the rationale of using miserable Leafs teams vs. spoiled Leafs teams as the only valid measuring stick.

 

[ShaneFalco]

No we weren't. But why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't we be like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Colorado where we lock-in our stars long-term and enjoy the ride? I don't understand the rationale of using miserable Leafs teams vs. spoiled Leafs teams as the only valid measuring stick.

And there's this thing called social media now
But we have to.be happy to some or you're not a fan.

 

[Da Mash]

No we weren't. But why does it have to be one extreme or the other? Why can't we be like Tampa, Pittsburgh, Chicago, or Colorado where we lock-in our stars long-term and enjoy the ride? I don't understand the rationale of using miserable Leafs teams vs. spoiled Leafs teams as the only valid measuring stick.

Why can’t we have the patience of those teams? They didn’t blow up their team with multiple failed cup runs.

You have to take in account real money and taxes and such. Agents are not dumb and players look at the real money that goes into their pockets.

And they are not spoiled ….you just think they are because you didn’t like the results

 

[myleafs]

I love to go back to the days when we would hover around the 60 -70 pt mark….miss the playoffs….have crappy drafts and a older team.

Love those days…no whining…we didn’t worry about the cap and we didn’t have a bunch of really good young players to let walk away in FA

Oh those were the day

Leaf fans were much happier

I dont get this....so if we trade, let 34 walk we will instantly become a 60-70 pt team?

 

[francis246]

How many 50’s did Ovi have before he was 30?
I agree 50 is hard to do and 40 is pretty good but when you are supposed to be this generational player and wants to be the the highest paid shouldn’t he be held to a higher standard, especially when he spends so much time beside Marner.
A 40 goal scorer and over the last 7 years averages 77.42 points per year is not generational and certainly not worth of being the highest paid on a shorter contract

Matthews is definitely a generational talent. I can’t quote exactly, but I believe since entering the league only 2 or 3 other players have scored more goals than him? You can have the mindset/stance of not overpaying him without trying to diminish who he is as a player.

Do I think it’s smart to overpay him? No, but he is an elite talent. I wish they would understand and accept if they take less they would win. But who knows who’s pushing him to be the highest payed. Could be the NHLPA for all we know.

 

[Dreakmur]

This sounds like Crosby vs. Ovechkin bias is creeping in.

What Ovechkin has accomplished is elite after his 30s lol. That's what you want from any player. He gave you all you could ask for. That's certain better than "not bad". That's historic level production in the 30s.

Cool, another guy who doesn’t understand context in a sentence…

 

[ToneDog]

Matthews is definitely a generational talent. I can’t quote exactly, but I believe since entering the league only 2 or 3 other players have scored more goals than him? You can have the mindset/stance of not overpaying him without trying to diminish who he is as a player.

Do I think it’s smart to overpay him? No, but he is an elite talent. I wish they would understand and accept if they take less they would win. But who knows who’s pushing him to be the highest payed. Could be the NHLPA for all we know.

To date, if playoffs define a player, Matty and Mitch will be remembered for being greedy and playoff underachievers. Let's see if Matty wants to run it back again.

 

[weems]

Matthews is definitely a generational talent. I can’t quote exactly, but I believe since entering the league only 2 or 3 other players have scored more goals than him? You can have the mindset/stance of not overpaying him without trying to diminish who he is as a player.

Do I think it’s smart to overpay him? No, but he is an elite talent. I wish they would understand and accept if they take less they would win. But who knows who’s pushing him to be the highest payed. Could be the NHLPA for all we know.

Since 2016-2017

 

[Menzinger]

Since 2016-2017

View attachment 717022

And he dominates at even strength scoring here too. While guys like Ovie lean hard on the PP to drive his totals

 

[Stephen]

Because that approach never works out. Look at Tavares who signed a massive 11 million deal 7 years ago (the 2nd largest cap hit at the time behind McDavid) when his career high in points was 86. Heck, Kevin freaking Hayes signed a 7+ mil long-term deal and Erik Karlsson was gifted 11.5 long-term even after serious injuries. Good players will be overpaid when they're available. Great players will often be grossly overpaid, which is why clubs prefer a long-term commitment once they get a sense of the player.

Come on, we both know how this works. If the Leafs sign Matthews to a 5-year deal and he scores 52, 47, 51, 44 and 43 goals over the next 5 years (and that's conservative considering he's a year removed from 60) he'll be able to sign a 6-7 year deal at age 30 for mega dollars -- a lot more than the possible 12.7 they should lock him into now.

When it comes to "supposedly elite" players, term always benefits the club and not the player as much.

Here's the bottom line...

If we (and the Leafs) believe Matthews is indeed an elite talent who will produce on par with the greatest in the world, why wouldn't we want to lock him in long-term now so when his hit looks to be more affordable we can continue to build around him? We would, if we believe he's that guy. But, if we don't believe he's that guy, why would we want to overpay for him now and strap ourselves for 5 years without being able to build a winner around him? It doesn't make sense for the Leafs.

Auston Matthews is turning 26 this year and figures to still do his best regular season work and put together his playoff legacy over the next number of seasons.

He also has 1 year remaining on his current deal, so whatever length we're talking about will in essence be a X+1 contract length, taking him to a certain age likely in his early 30s.

The reason why a 6 year deal makes sense is because you're getting him for the next 7 years. That's a very long run for him to prove himself, and at 32-33, he will be John Tavares' age now, so that's a perfect time to reassess, re-sign, recommit, whatever. It's just flexibility. Insisting on the full term to take him up to 35 is just more commitment for the sake of commitment.