Pookie
Wear a mask
- Oct 23, 2013
- 16,172
- 6,684
Johnsson and Kapanen can be signed and we don’t have to trade Kadri or Nylander. Lots of options for us.
If those are your choices... Zaitsev has to go
Johnsson and Kapanen can be signed and we don’t have to trade Kadri or Nylander. Lots of options for us.
According to Eric Francis in his article about Tkachuk he said this. Also came up on Tim and Sid. I think i can agree because the Leafs overpaying both of their players it will affect the new batch of RFA's and they will want similar money too which will ruin other teams cap plans.
Flames' Matthew Tkachuk weighs in on impact of Auston Matthews' new deal - Sportsnet.ca
The critics can't decide between hating the cap hit or the term. If you hate the cap hit, why would you insist on a longer term?
Yeah this is dumb younger players should be paid more, it's a young mans game now. The more you spend on Auston Matthews the less you spend on Millian Lucic or Kyle Okposo.
Because buying more UFA years would increase the AAV, so an 8 year term would have made the AAV much better
The way I see it, if you want flexibility, you sign the player to a bridge (obviously not happening in this case). If he's the cornerstone of your franchise, you give him the money but you lock in term. Dubas did neither. He gave his franchise asset UFA money in exchange for one year of UFA. He didn't lock in term, but he paid like he did. That's the incompetence here, not whether Matthews is worth the money in the abstract.
Matthews can live up to every penny of this contract and it would still be a stumble on Toronto's part because there's basically no scenario where they get outsize value on the deal. If Matthews lives up to the contract, you didn't lock him up long enough and now you have to pay him even more for performance that you expected when the first deal was signed. If he doesn't, you paid him like a UFA when he was under team control and you didn't have to, taking the L there right away. That doesn't even get into the situation with Marner, which is a whole other can of worms.
You can disagree with the above stance, of course, but it's really not that hard to understand why someone might think Matthews is a great player and still think Dubas screwed it up. "Matthews is awesome" is not a response to "Dubas didn't make the best deal".
What if there's a massive recession and the cap shrinks in five years? I can't predict the future but there's pros and cons to everything. The Matthews contract has risks and upsides, flexibility being one of them.
The way I see it, if you want flexibility, you sign the player to a bridge (obviously not happening in this case). If he's the cornerstone of your franchise, you give him the money but you lock in term. Dubas did neither. He gave his franchise asset UFA money in exchange for one year of UFA. He didn't lock in term, but he paid like he did. That's the incompetence here, not whether Matthews is worth the money in the abstract.
If they won the cup, this would be irrelevant
Matthews can live up to every penny of this contract and it would still be a stumble on Toronto's part because there's basically no scenario where they get outsize value on the deal. If Matthews lives up to the contract, you didn't lock him up long enough and now you have to pay him even more for performance that you expected when the first deal was signed. If he doesn't, you paid him like a UFA when he was under team control and you didn't have to, taking the L there right away. That doesn't even get into the situation with Marner, which is a whole other can of worms.
You can disagree with the above stance, of course, but it's really not that hard to understand why someone might think Matthews is a great player and still think Dubas screwed it up. "Matthews is awesome" is not a response to "Dubas didn't make the best deal".