Kyle Dubas Discussion (continued) the 2021 edition

[zeke]

Um, what?

You seem to have lost all patience now, with a core that's a no Brainer playoffs team for 4yrs now, when you didn't just four years ago, when they had missed for a decade.

I'd be happier had we one at least one series over the last 4 years. Not even close to satisfied of course but somewhat happier for sure.

Well I wouldn't, but I'll take your word for it.

 

[Gary Nylund]

You seem to have lost all patience now, with a core that's a no Brainer playoffs team for 4yrs now, when you didn't just four years ago, when they had missed for a decade.

Well I wouldn't, but I'll take your word for it.

Um, what?

 

[LeafsNation75]

Nobody signs contracts based on how many rounds their team won, especially as a teenager. That's a ridiculous expectation of Dubas.

Yes, I know you like pointing to exclusively raw points, and ignore literally everything else... If we were going exclusively by raw points, McDavid would have one of the best post-ELC contracts in the entire cap era, and would have even before taking one of the biggest discounts in the history of the cap era, and thus it would be illogical to claim a contract is bad because it doesn't live up to that standard.

First off, your numbers are wrong. At time of signing their post ELC contracts, their P/GP was:

McDavid: 1.17
Matthews: 0.98
Eichel: 0.80

And Matthews only moves closer to McDavid when we remove EN points. Now, of course, contracts are not only determined by looking at some raw point number and matching it to a corresponding contract amount. There would be no negotiation if this was the case, and many contracts throughout the history of the cap era wouldn't make sense. We get a much clearer picture and understanding when more is considered.

Let's look at some other numbers for these players at time of signing...

Primary Points/GP

Matthews: 0.83
McDavid: 0.83
Eichel: 0.63

Goals/GP

Matthews: 0.53
McDavid: 0.36
Eichel: 0.34

And when we look at more accurate metrics than per-game, and consider things like PP TOI which skews raw production, just how dominant Matthews was becomes even clearer...

ES Points/60

McDavid: 3.00
Matthews: 2.80
Eichel: 1.78

ES Primary Points/60

Matthews: 2.42
McDavid: 2.34
Eichel: 1.44

ES Goals/60

Matthews: 1.61
McDavid: 1.11
Eichel: 0.79

PP Points/60

Matthews: 6.47
McDavid: 6.44
Eichel: 6.30

PP Primary Points/60

Matthews: 5.06
Eichel: 4.76
McDavid: 3.61

PP Goals/60

Matthews: 2.95
Eichel: 2.52
McDavid: 0.94

McDavid was the better point producer. Matthews was the better primary point and goal producer. Eichel was far behind both of them. Their contracts reflect that.

Instead of focusing on all those points where Matthews was ahead of McDavid, this is what was most important that you either forgot or are choosing to ignore so it can fit your agenda.

When McDavid was playing on his ELC he won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017. In 2018 McDavid won his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award.

When Matthews was playing on his ELC the only thing he won was the Calder Trophy in 2017.

So those are things people focus on more and why McDavid was never a comparable for Matthews and the contract extension he signed.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Instead of focusing on all those points where Matthews was ahead of McDavid, this is what was most important that you either forgot or are choosing to ignore so it can fit your agenda. When McDavid was playing on his ELC he won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017. In 2018 McDavid won his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award. When Matthews was playing on his ELC the only thing he won was the Calder Trophy in 2017.

I'm not focusing only on the points where Matthews was ahead of McDavid. I laid out quite a bit of detail, including things that McDavid was ahead in. McDavid was a better point producer. Matthews was a better primary point and goal producer. Eichel was not remotely close to either of them.

I would expect McDavid to have more trophies, because raw point totals play a big role in trophies, and that was McDavid's specialty. He also got opportunity that was more closely aligned with his peers than Matthews. That doesn't change what level of players they are, and contracts are not only based on raw points and trophies. Once again, if it were, McDavid would have one of the best contracts in the entire cap era, and thus claiming a contract was bad if it didn't live up to that standard would be illogical.

Even if we want to go with the unsubstantiated idea that trophies add value, that extra value would have been more than wiped out by McDavid's choice to take a significant discount post-negotiation.

Also, anything that happened in the 2017-2018 season for McDavid is irrelevant. That happened after the signing, and was not a factor in his contract valuation.

 

[zeke]

Instead of focusing on all those points where Matthews was ahead of McDavid, this is what was most important that you either forgot or are choosing to ignore so it can fit your agenda.

When McDavid was playing on his ELC he won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017. In 2018 McDavid won his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award.

When Matthews was playing on his ELC the only thing he won was the Calder Trophy in 2017.

So those are things people focus on more and why McDavid was never a comparable for Matthews and the contract extension he signed.

It's as if you think player agents can't say "your coach doesn't give him PP time so lol at trying to ignore that come contract time".

 

[LeafsNation75]

I'm not focusing only on the points where Matthews was ahead of McDavid. I laid out quite a bit of detail, including things that McDavid was ahead in. McDavid was a better point producer. Matthews was a better primary point and goal producer. Eichel was not remotely close to either of them.

I would expect McDavid to have more trophies, because raw point totals play a big role in trophies, and that was McDavid's specialty. He also got opportunity that was more closely aligned with his peers than Matthews. That doesn't change what level of players they are, and contracts are not only based on raw points and trophies. Once again, if it were, McDavid would have one of the best contracts in the entire cap era, and thus claiming a contract was bad if it didn't live up to that standard would be illogical.

Even if we want to go with the unsubstantiated idea that trophies add value, that extra value would have been more than wiped out by McDavid's choice to take a significant discount post-negotiation.

Also, anything that happened in the 2017-2018 season for McDavid is irrelevant. That happened after the signing, and was not a factor in his contract valuation.

Even though McDavid signed his 8 year/$12.5 million AAV contract extension on July 5, 2017 he was still playing on his ELC deal for the 2017-18 Season. So when he won his second straight Art Ross and Ted Lindsay awards it was not irrelevant. If anything that proves Matthews should have taken a contract similar to Eichel and not McDavid.

 

[LeafsNation75]

It's as if you think player agents can't say "your coach doesn't give him PP time so lol at trying to ignore that come contract time".

When has anyone used power play time to say this player deserves just as much money because another player had more power play minutes.

Something like Matthews power play time is relevant when talking about the number of minutes he was given by Babcock compared to Keefe since he took over as the head coach.

Now if Matthews had also won the Rocket Richard Trophy in his rookie season instead of finishing T-2 with 40 goals which was 4 behind Sidney Crosby who won it with 44 goals, than you can say he deserved a contract similar to McDavid who had already won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017. At that time the only award Matthews had on his resume was the Calder Trophy.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Even though McDavid signed his 8 year/$12.5 million AAV contract extension on July 5, 2017 he was still playing on his ELC deal for the 2017-18 Season.

That doesn't matter. It was after he signed. It hadn't happened yet, so it did not factor into his valuation, so it would be illogical to factor it in when using that valuation as a comparable.

 

[LeafsNation75]

That doesn't matter. It was after he signed. It hadn't happened yet, so it did not factor into his valuation, so it would be illogical to factor it in when using that contract valuation as a comparable.

You are forgetting or choosing to leave out that Matthews signed his 5 year/$11.634 million AAV contract extension on February 5, 2019. So that was after McDavid won his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award. What about that do you not understand?

 

[Gary Nylund]

Even though McDavid signed his 8 year/$12.5 million AAV contract extension on July 5, 2017 he was still playing on his ELC deal for the 2017-18 Season. So when he won his second straight Art Ross and Ted Lindsay awards it was not irrelevant. If anything that proves Matthews should have taken a contract similar to Eichel and not McDavid.

I love Matthews but realistically, he's not in the same league as McDavid who's been the consensus #1 player in the world ever since he picked up all the hardware mentioned earlier. I mean sure there are people who will dig until they find some fancy stat to point to to argue otherwise but how those people expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

 

[LeafsNation75]

I love Matthews but realistically, he's not in the same league as McDavid who's been the consensus #1 player in the world ever since he picked up all the hardware mentioned earlier. I mean sure there are people who will dig until they find some fancy stat to point to to argue otherwise but how those people expect to be taken seriously is beyond me.

I also love Matthews and I'm very happy he's a Toronto Maple Leaf. Watching the Leafs win the Draft Lottery in 2016 knowing they were going to get him is a moment I will never forget. However I agree with you that he's not in the same league as McDavid and honestly no one in the NHL currently is and there is nothing wrong with admitting that.

 

[Dekes For Days]

You are forgetting or choosing to leave out that Matthews signed his 5 year/$11.634 million AAV contract extension on February 5, 2019. So that was after McDavid won his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award.

When McDavid signed, he did not have a second Art Ross/Lindsay. There is no possible way for it to have been factored into McDavid's contract valuation, unless you're suggesting that Edmonton had a time machine and knew the future. If it didn't factor in at the time, you can't arbitrarily factor it in now that you're using it as a comparable valuation for a different player.

However I agree with you that he's not in the same league as McDavid and honestly no one in the NHL currently is and there is nothing wrong with admitting that.

Nobody is saying that he's the same quality of player right now. The fact is, he was a very similar quality of player at their respective points of signing, and that's all that matters for their contracts.

 

[LeafsNation75]

When McDavid signed, he did not have a second Art Ross/Lindsay. There is no possible way for it to have been factored into McDavid's contract valuation, unless you're suggesting that Edmonton had a time machine and knew the future. If it didn't factor in at the time, you can't arbitrarily factor it in now that you're using it as a comparable valuation for a different player.

Nobody is saying that he's the same quality of player right now. The fact is, he was a very similar quality of player at their respective points of signing, and that's all that matters for their contracts.

McDavid having only won 1 Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017 should have been enough to put him in a completely league from Matthews when Dubas negotiated his contract. The fact he won a second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award put even more distance between him and Matthews.

You claim McDavid winning those awards in 2018 did not matter since he already signed his contract extension, however at that time Matthews had not signed his contract extension because he was not eligible at that time to do that since it was not July 1, 2018.

Also you forgot that there was those reports saying if Matthews signed an 8 year contract extension he wanted north of McDavid's $12.5 million which would mean him getting $13 million AAV on a 8 year extension.

 

[LeafsNation75]

Nobody is saying that he's the same quality of player right now. The fact is, he was a very similar quality of player at their respective points of signing, and that's all that matters for their contracts.

The only thing Matthews is better at than McDavid is goal scoring. However McDavid is better at getting total points, so it's why you can not say they are similar quality of players.

 

[Dekes For Days]

McDavid having only won 1 Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017 should have been enough to put him in a completely league from Matthews when Dubas negotiated his contract.

No it shouldn't. Contracts are based on a lot more than shiny pieces of metal. I showed you how they are comparable, and you've ignored it. As I've already explained, if we are basing contracts on exclusively raw points and trophies, McDavid's post-discount contract breaks the whole valuation system and would be one of if not the best post-ELC contracts ever signed. To suggest that anybody who didn't live up to that specific standard had a bad contract is illogical. It would mean everybody has a bad contract.

The fact he won a second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award put even more distance between him and Matthews. You claim McDavid winning those awards in 2018 did not matter since he already signed his contract extension, however at that time Matthews had not signed his contract extension because he was not eligible at that time to do that since it was not July 1, 2018.

As already explained multiple times, this was not a factor in his valuation. It. Had. Not. Happened. When. McDavid. Signed. You can't go back and change around the reasons for the original valuation after the fact based on information that was not available at the time.

Also you forgot that there was those reports saying if Matthews signed an 8 year contract extension he wanted north of McDavid's $12.5 million which would mean him getting $13 million AAV on a 8 year extension.

McDavid's equivalent contract would be 13.6m x 8 years, after negotiating to a 14.4m equivalent contract and giving a post-negotiation discount. There's nothing wrong with Matthews getting your suggested valuation on an 8 year term.

The only thing Matthews is better at than McDavid is goal scoring. However McDavid is better at getting total points, so it's why you can not say they are similar quality of players.

That's not true. Matthews was better at goal and primary point production at time of signing. There's no reason to think that only points are considered. They were similar quality players at time of signing.

 

[zeke]

When has anyone used power play time to say this player deserves just as much money because another player had more power play minutes.

Something like Matthews power play time is relevant when talking about the number of minutes he was given by Babcock compared to Keefe since he took over as the head coach.

Now if Matthews had also won the Rocket Richard Trophy in his rookie season instead of finishing T-2 with 40 goals which was 4 behind Sidney Crosby who won it with 44 goals, than you can say he deserved a contract similar to McDavid who had already won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Award in 2017. At that time the only award Matthews had on his resume was the Calder Trophy.

If a GM tries to use point totals to compare your player and you don't laugh at him and point out that he only got 2 minutes of PP time per game from the coach despite being the best player on the team and producing at an elite pace in those minutes, you are a shitty, shitty agent.

 

[LeafsNation75]

No it shouldn't. Contracts are based on a lot more than shiny pieces of metal. I showed you how they are comparable, and you've ignored it. As I've already explained, if we are basing contracts on exclusively raw points and trophies, McDavid's post-discount contract breaks the whole valuation system and would be one of if not the best post-ELC contracts ever signed. To suggest that anybody who didn't live up to that specific standard had a bad contract is illogical. It would mean everybody has a bad contract.

McDavid's NHL awards compared to Matthews NHL awards is why rational people say you can not compare them with each other.

As already explained multiple times, this was not a factor in his valuation. It. Had. Not. Happened. When. McDavid. Signed. You can't go back and change around the reasons for the original valuation after the fact based on information that was not available at the time.

The timeline for their contracts was this. McDavid wins the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, and Ted Lindsay Awards in 2017. He signed his 8 year $12.5 million AAV contract extension on July 5, 2019. McDavid wins his second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award in 2018.

Matthews wins the Calder Trophy in 2017 and signs his 8 year/$11.634 million AAV contract extension on February 5, 2019. So you can not use that excuse about McDavid having already signed his extension and it not mattering just because he won two awards in 2018 before Matthews was eligible to sign his contract extension.

That's not true. Matthews was better at goal and primary point production at time of signing. There's no reason to think that only points are considered. They were similar quality players at time of signing.

I agree that Matthews was the better goal scorer than McDavid, however that's where it ends at. So if he wanted an 8 year contract it should have been compared to the 8 year $10 million AAV contract extension Jack Eichel got, not the contract McDavid got.

 

[LeafsNation75]

If a GM tries to use point totals to compare your player and you don't laugh at him and point out that he only got 2 minutes of PP time per game from the coach despite being the best player on the team and producing at an elite pace in those minutes, you are a shitty, shitty agent.

Has Matthews been the best player on the Maple Leafs since his rookie season, I would say the answer to that is an obvious yes. However there is nothing wrong with saying how McDavid is a much better player and it's not an insult at Matthews.

 

[hamzarocks]

No it shouldn't. Contracts are based on a lot more than shiny pieces of metal. I showed you how they are comparable, and you've ignored it. As I've already explained, if we are basing contracts on exclusively raw points and trophies, McDavid's post-discount contract breaks the whole valuation system and would be one of if not the best post-ELC contracts ever signed. To suggest that anybody who didn't live up to that specific standard had a bad contract is illogical. It would mean everybody has a bad contract.

As already explained multiple times, this was not a factor in his valuation. It. Had. Not. Happened. When. McDavid. Signed. You can't go back and change around the reasons for the original valuation after the fact based on information that was not available at the time.

McDavid's equivalent contract would be 13.6m x 8 years, after negotiating to a 14.4m equivalent contract and giving a post-negotiation discount. There's nothing wrong with Matthews getting your suggested valuation on an 8 year term.

That's not true. Matthews was better at goal and primary point production at time of signing. There's no reason to think that only points are considered. They were similar quality players at time of signing.

The poster your respdoning with hisnt saying the 2017-2018 season impacts
Mcdavid's on contract valuation. He is saying that Matthews who used McDavid as a contract comparable would be looking at the duration of Mcdavids ELC. McDavid had put up 2 ross, 1 hart, 2 lindsay season along with 2x NHL 1st team

The argument is Matthews who lacked any of those awards and didnt have the recognition league wide that Mcdavid did among his peers and the media should not have been close to McDavid who had far greater trophy shelf.

Whether you wont to agree with that method of assessment or not is up to you. Pt/60, G/60, Primary pt/60 (with break downs to different situations) also isnt a established method of contract valuation used to justify deals before the Matthews and Marner deals. It's a method some suggest is closer to accurate while others dont.

We will see how accurate it is over the next 4 years with how impactful Matthews is and if he moves into the top 5 players in the league tier.

Overall the contract negotiations by Dubas will be looked at as a weakness by nearly every leaf fan+external fan so your holding a minority opinion that dubas weakenss during his 3 years so far wasnt those deals.

It all wont mean anything though if we can win the cup and with the roster quality this year looking pretty high along with a weak division I can see that happening this year. Whether Dubas messed up the signings or not wont matter at all if the players get the job done

 

[Dekes For Days]

McDavid's NHL awards compared to Matthews NHL awards is why rational people say you can not compare them with each other.

NHL awards do not impact contract valuation nearly as much as you think. If you believe they are that important, McDavid would not be a comparable in the first place, and his contract wouldn't make any sense relative to pretty much anybody's in the history of the cap era. In which case, we move onto all of the other contracts, and we see that Matthews aligns properly with them.

The timeline for their contracts was this.

The timeline for their contracts is this:

McDavid played the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons. He then signed. The end. The contract valuation he received was based on things that had happened PRIOR to that point in time. The valuation is now locked in. Everything that came after was unknown information at the time, and did not factor into the contract that McDavid got.

Matthews played the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons, and half of the 2018-2019 season. He then signed. During Matthews' pre-signing period, he produced very similarly to McDavid's pre-signing period, and thus he got a similar contract. This is how comparables work in the NHL.

 

[LeafsNation75]

The poster your respdoning with hisnt saying the 2017-2018 season impacts
Mcdavid's on contract valuation. He is saying that Matthews who used McDavid as a contract comparable would be looking at the duration of Mcdavids ELC. McDavid had put up 2 ross, 1 hart, 2 lindsay season along with 2x NHL 1st team

The argument is Matthews who lacked any of those awards and didnt have the recognition league wide that Mcdavid did among his peers and the media should not have been close to McDavid who had far greater trophy shelf.

Whether you wont to agree with that method of assessment or not is up to you. Pt/60, G/60, Primary pt/60 (with break downs to different situations) also isnt a established method of contract valuation used to justify deals before the Matthews and Marner deals. It's a method some suggest is closer to accurate while others dont.

We will see how accurate it is over the next 4 years with how impactful Matthews is and if he moves into the top 5 players in the league tier.

Overall the contract negotiations by Dubas will be looked at as a weakness by nearly every leaf fan+external fan so your holding a minority opinion that dubas weakenss during his 3 years so far wasnt those deals.

It all wont mean anything though if we can win the cup and with the roster quality this year looking pretty high along with a weak division I can see that happening this year. Whether Dubas messed up the signings or not wont matter at all if the players get the job done

Exactly because during McDavid's 3 year ELC he accomplished a lot more winning awards compared to Matthews who only won the Calder Trophy. The fact McDavid won a second Art Ross and Ted Lindsay Award in 2018 only added to Matthews case why he wanted to get a similar contract McDavid got when he started negotiations with Dubas. So it did not matter that McDavid had signed his contract extension before the 2017-18 Season had started, because history will show McDavid did that playing on his ELC. Never mind the fact that Matthews was not eligible to start negotiating his new contract until July 1, 2018 and that was after the 2017-18 Season after seeing what awards McDavid had won.

NHL awards do not impact contract valuation nearly as much as you think. If you believe they are that important, McDavid would not be a comparable in the first place, and his contract wouldn't make any sense relative to pretty much anybody's in the history of the cap era. In which case, we move onto all of the other contracts, and we see that Matthews aligns properly with them.

If Matthews was using Jack Eichel as a comparable during his contract talks he would have a better case. At that time Matthews had already won the Calder Trophy in 2017, making the playoffs in 2017, 2018, and about to do that again in 2019, scored 40 goals as a rookie and finished T-2 as a rookie in the goal scoring scoring race.

When Eichel signed his contract he 24 goals/56 points in 2016 and 24 goals/57 points in 2017. However unlike Matthews he did not win the Calder or had any success with Buffalo. So did he deserve 8 years and $10 million at that time?

The timeline for their contracts is this:

McDavid played the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 seasons. He then signed. The end. The contract valuation he received was based on things that had happened PRIOR to that point in time. The valuation is now locked in. Everything that came after was unknown information at the time, and did not factor into the contract that McDavid got.

Matthews played the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 seasons, and half of the 2018-2019 season. He then signed. During Matthews' pre-signing period, he produced very similarly to McDavid's pre-signing period, and thus he got a similar contract. This is how comparables work in the NHL.

McDavid signed when he did because he just won the Hart Trophy, Art Ross, Ted Lindsay, along with being named a First Team All Star in 2017. He was eligible to sign a contract extension on July 1, 2017 and that's why he signed it on July 5 2017.

 

[Dekes For Days]

He is saying that Matthews who used McDavid as a contract comparable would be looking at the duration of Mcdavids ELC.

No he wouldn't. What happened after his valuation has no impact on his prior valuation, and his prior valuation is what is being compared. This is like saying that Mackinnon is better now, so nobody can get more than his contract. That's not how this works. Matthews didn't even finish his ELC either before signing anyway.

Pt/60, G/60, Primary pt/60 (with break downs to different situations) also isnt a established method of contract valuation used to justify deals before the Matthews and Marner deals.

That's not all I used. The Matthews and Marner contracts align with many post-ELC contracts by other methods as well, but we also know that more is considered in contract negotiations than raw points, and we can utilize some logic and common sense to get a better correlating methodology. The reason per-60 metrics are so necessary for Matthews/Marner is because unlike most players of their quality, they received historically low PP time, due to a mixture of a lower PP time era, a low special teams time team, and a coach who did everything in his power to hold back their individual PP production. As a result, their quality and impact has been grossly underrepresented by those who rely exclusively on raw points and ignore all context in their conclusions.

Raw PP points and PP TOI have proven to have extremely high correlation, and Matthews and Marner were insanely dominant in everything except specifically raw PP points and PP TOI (every other ES and PP-related stat was beyond elite). This was not a coincidence, and expecting something like this to be ignored in negotiations, especially after Babcock did everything in his power to further suppress their PP production, is beyond wishful thinking. Matthews and Marner were never, ever, ever going to accept a raw production comparison that completely ignored the factors that heavily skew raw production, no matter who the GM was.

 

[Gary Nylund]

If a GM tries to use point totals to compare your player and you don't laugh at him and point out that he only got 2 minutes of PP time per game from the coach despite being the best player on the team and producing at an elite pace in those minutes, you are a shitty, shitty agent.

And if an agent argues that Matthews is on the same level as McDavid and you don't laugh at him, you are a shitty, shitty GM.

 

[zeke]

Has Matthews been the best player on the Maple Leafs since his rookie season, I would say the answer to that is an obvious yes. However there is nothing wrong with saying how McDavid is a much better player and it's not an insult at Matthews.

If you as a GM claim that the player can't compare to another because of TOTAL POINTS, and think that a player agent will let you ignore the difference in ice time, you're a dumb GN.

 

[zeke]

And if an agent argues that Matthews is on the same level as McDavid and you don't laugh at him, you are a shitty, shitty GM.

His agent didn't, and he wasn't paid as if he was.

Little did they know that he actually is, and that total points are a dumb way to evaluate players, which is why it's hilarious that a team with two "MVP"s can't make the playoffs.