Salary Cap: Marner Contract Discussion - Winter is coming

[Dekes For Days]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about why it's important to separate ES and PP production when determining quality of player.

To help illustrate how much PP TOI affects raw production:

Let's say we had two players that played the exact same amount of time at ES (let's say 15:22 (awkward TOI I know but trying to not have half a point in the result)) and have the exact same rate of production at ES (let's say 3.0 P/60). They also produce at the exact same rate on the PP (let's say 8.0 P/60). Both of these values represent elite players. They both play all 82 games in the season.

If Player A gets around 2:30 in PP TOI/GP and Player B gets around 4:00 PP TOI/GP, because the team they were on placed 1st and 31st respectively in PP opportunities (like we saw with Marner and Rantanen this year), Player A will get 90 points and player B will get 107 points.

This is a 17 point swing based on a difference of 1 and a half minutes in the least tiring and least intensive time you can play, because of a team stat, for players that are 100% identical in every other way.

 

[Notsince67]

In reality, most of them. The large majority of UFAs will provide less value to their team at their cap hit over their contracts than Matthews will, as he is signed through his prime instead of his declining years.

Among his RFA peers, also many of them. Some will/have gone on to improve since signing, so they provide additional value in that sense, but that doesn't make the signing team-friendly. At time of signing (and we haven't given Matthews the opportunity to even start his contract like we have for others), Matthews was in extremely elite company, and was paid appropriately.

People here let a random team stat like PP opportunities (in which Toronto was last last year, and 3rd last the year before) skew their perception of players.

Question. Is his contract a team friendly deal if he regularly misses 15-20 games a year? Maybe it doesn't matter. I would submit that the value of a player is related to both what someone is willing to pay and what he relatively contributes to the team.
From a market value perspective, I believe that Matthews market value is higher than Marner, but his contributed value to the team is at odds with the valuation if one must decide Marner over Matthews. The leafs have 2 #1 centers that are better than a lot of teams single #1. There is some notional value of redundancy that is an absolute luxury.

We cannot easily reconcile 2 main questions here.
1.Will Marners contribution in the future be less,equal or greater than Matthews on the leafs in future years.
2. Does it matter because we are holding tighter to that which other teams covet more?

If your position is that primary factor is Matthews will produce more, it is at least an honest prediction that will turn out to be either right or wrong.
If your position is that it doesn't matter whether Marner produces more than Matthews and that the team should risk pissing off the relatively better fit on this team because the price other select teams are willing to pay for him have the higher maximum price, then there is a general philosophical operating disagreement here among the factions. If the team loses the relatively better fit in UFA, then it becomes a worse team, albeit with pieces that might be worth more in a fire-sale than as a whole.
You really can't have it both ways.

 

[Notsince67]

oh hey I love reading more tedious moaning about AM's deal in the Mitch Marner thread.

To ignore that the issues are related ignores the argument. Not telling you what to do but it is easier to have a 360 review of a discussion rather than insisting there is one issue and 1 issue only. It then becomes a lecture over a discussion

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Dont forget he is bailing in 5 years and "based on term" he is the highest paid player in the league (however the hell that is a possibility)

So you're saying term shouldn't be part of the equation?

Marner could sign for 10.5x3 or 10.5x8. It's the same thing to you?

 

[Nineteen67]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about why it's important to separate ES and PP production when determining quality of player.

To help illustrate how much PP TOI affects raw production:

Let's say we had two players that played the exact same amount of time at ES (let's say 15:22 (awkward TOI I know but trying to not have half a point in the result)) and have the exact same rate of production at ES (let's say 3.0 P/60). They also produce at the exact same rate on the PP (let's say 8.0 P/60). Both of these values represent elite players. They both play all 82 games in the season.

If Player A gets around 2:30 in PP TOI/GP and Player B gets around 4:00 PP TOI/GP, because the team they were on placed 1st and 31st respectively in PP opportunities (like we saw with Marner and Rantanen this year), Player A will get 90 points and player B will get 107 points.

This is a 17 point swing based on a difference of 1 and a half minutes in the least tiring and least intensive time you can play, because of a team stat, for players that are 100% identical in every other way.

How many PP did each player draw

 

[Smif]

So you're saying term shouldn't be part of the equation?

Marner could sign for 10.5x3 or 10.5x8. It's the same thing to you?

That used to be the case, like, not even 10 years ago...

 

[Nithoniniel]

yet you're still saying Mathews would have received some mystical enormous offer than would have justified the Dube's signing him to the most player friendly deal in the league

Nothing mystical about it.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Question. Is his contract a team friendly deal if he regularly misses 15-20 games a year?

If a player misses games, his accumulated value to the team in that season is less. Star players (especially as you get closer and closer to the top) are so underpaid relative to added value though, so he'd still be better than a lot of contracts.

There is also no reason to believe that Matthews will regularly miss 15-20 games a year.

The leafs have 2 #1 centers that are better than a lot of teams single #1. There is some notional value of redundancy that is an absolute luxury.

If you are suggesting that Matthews is worth less to the team because they have another great center, that is absolutely false.

1.Will Marners contribution in the future be less,equal or greater than Matthews on the leafs in future years.

We don't know for sure, but everything points to Matthews.

If your position is that it doesn't matter whether Marner produces more than Matthews and that the team should risk pissing off the relatively better fit on this team because the price other select teams are willing to pay for him have the higher maximum price, then there is a general philosophical operating disagreement here among the factions.

I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here, but there is nothing that suggests Marner is a "better fit on this team". Other teams are willing to pay more for Matthews because he's a better player who has earned more.

 

[Dekes For Days]

How many PP did each player draw

These are hypothetical players to show an idea, but frankly, it wouldn't matter. There's no evidence that drawing PPs is an actual skill, and no individual player would come close to being the main reason for that difference even if it was.

 

[Notsince67]

If a player misses games, his accumulated value to the team in that season is less. Star players (especially as you get closer and closer to the top) are so underpaid relative to added value though, so he'd still be better than a lot of contracts.

There is also no reason to believe that Matthews will regularly miss 15-20 games a year.


If you are suggesting that Matthews is worth less to the team because they have another great center, that is absolutely false.


We don't know for sure, but everything points to Matthews.


I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here, but there is nothing that suggests Marner is a "better fit on this team". Other teams are willing to pay more for Matthews because he's a better player who has earned more.

If the leafs had 5 of the best centres in the league would we keep them? Of course not. It would make sense that a few teams would be giving the team a pot of gold for at least one and the leafs would get better.
Keeping 5 makes no sense. Just like the marginal value of both Tavares or Matthews is worth more to another team than Toronto. I am not advocating that we trade one but I am just saying that each of these players have an inherent market value that is greater than the marginal contribution value of the team. We have 2 so it makes sense. Some teams have far less with their 1.
My point is that if that assuming that Marner and Matthews are of equal skill for a second, matthews would still be likely be worth more because of the market realities. Now assuming for a second that Marner is better from a team contribution perspective but the market rate for Matthews is higher. Does it make sense to risk signing Matthews to a higher contract at the expense of pissing Marner off to the point he leaves in free agency due to the additional leverages that Matthews has? If not, we are on the same page and out only argument is who is better. If yes, then there is a completely different issue at play here and everyone is running around arguing a different issue.

 

[BodaciousBeefBazooka]

It's been an interesting off season

 

[Nineteen67]

These are hypothetical players to show an idea, but frankly, it wouldn't matter. There's no evidence that drawing PPs is an actual skill, and no individual player would come close to being the main reason for that difference even if it was.

It’s not a skill but it shows you go to the areas of the rink where you draw penalties.
If the guy with 15 more points drew 25 penalties and the other 5 then you'd want to factor that into your evaluation.

I only ask I keep hearing all the chatter about the Leafs being so heavy on analytics, which I have been a proponent of for years, however, I’d venture to guess they are not limiting themselves to the same stats as the fans.

 

[glue]

Don’t know why there doesn’t seem to be a more middle ground on most of these debates back and forth. Seems like people are just picking sides, either Dubas is the worst GM ever or he’s so brilliant he can do nothing wrong or Matthews is definitely leaving etc.

AM’s deal is unprecedented in the sense that it’s a large sum of money for a relatively shorter term deal which is simply not the norm for a player coming out of his 3rd year and not having been part of some huge successes (eg winning Hart, Art Ross, Stanley Cup etc.)

However, it does NOT automatically mean that he is leaving. There is really no reason to believe he would want to leave especially from anything he has ever expressed. BUT certainly he believes in being PAID, zero discounts.

It also doesn’t mean Dubas is some dummy. Inexperienced, yeah sure, but he’s clearly a smart guy and has some other very smart people around him, particularly a guy like Brandan Pridham who wrote the current CBA is no dummy and they clearly weighed the pros and cons of their decisions. Ultimately we are not privy to everything, Too early to tell how good or bad Dubas really is, but hearing him speak and seeing his train of thought I’d take him over most GMs.

I also cannot comprehend the incessant comparison of Marner being as good or as important as Matthews, but it certainly appears there is only a minority of people who believe that. We’ll see down the road, but right now if there was a poll of who would you rather have, it would be Matthews by a landslide.

 

[nobody]

If the leafs had 5 of the best centres in the league would we keep them? Of course not. It would make sense that a few teams would be giving the team a pot of gold for at least one and the leafs would get better.
Keeping 5 makes no sense. Just like the marginal value of both Tavares or Matthews is worth more to another team than Toronto. I am not advocating that we trade one but I am just saying that each of these players have an inherent market value that is greater than the marginal contribution value of the team. We have 2 so it makes sense. Some teams have far less with their 1.
My point is that if that assuming that Marner and Matthews are of equal skill for a second, matthews would still be likely be worth more because of the market realities. Now assuming for a second that Marner is better from a team contribution perspective but the market rate for Matthews is higher. Does it make sense to risk signing Matthews to a higher contract at the expense of pissing Marner off to the point he leaves in free agency due to the additional leverages that Matthews has? If not, we are on the same page and out only argument is who is better. If yes, then there is a completely different issue at play here and everyone is running around arguing a different issue.

Marner can't go to free agency (unrestricted) for another 4 years. I would relax with the idea of pissing off a winger for getting paid less than a C because that's what this league has been doing for years. The only exception has been Panarins recent UFA and Kane/Toews. Panarin was a rare commodity and far and away the best UFA available and so he got paid. Toews didnt deserve the money that Kane got but one can argue he got paid the same amount for being a C.

Also, having JT doesn't add marginal value to the team. Last year he was responsible for carrying the team on his back for solid stretches when we had Auston out. Not to mention Marner like so many other players had a career year playing with JT.

If you're suggesting trading Matthews because we have JT then you need help. 43 G 79 P ELC centers or any position player does not grow on trees. You dont give them away because you're not getting fair value back.

 

[Notsince67]

Marner can't go to free agency (unrestricted) for another 4 years. I would relax with the idea of pissing off a winger for getting paid less than a C because that's what this league has been doing for years. The only exception has been Panarins recent UFA and Kane/Toews. Panarin was a rare commodity and far and away the best UFA available and so he got paid. Toews didnt deserve the money that Kane got but one can argue he got paid the same amount for being a C.

Also, having JT doesn't add marginal value to the team. Last year he was responsible for carrying the team on his back for solid stretches when we had Auston out. Not to mention Marner like so many other players had a career year playing with JT.

If you're suggesting trading Matthews because we have JT then you need help. 43 G 79 P ELC centers or any position player does not grow on trees. You dont give them away because you're not getting fair value back.

Marner can't go to free agency (unrestricted) for another 4 years. I would relax with the idea of pissing off a winger for getting paid less than a C because that's what this league has been doing for years. The only exception has been Panarins recent UFA and Kane/Toews. Panarin was a rare commodity and far and away the best UFA available and so he got paid. Toews didnt deserve the money that Kane got but one can argue he got paid the same amount for being a C.

Also, having JT doesn't add marginal value to the team. Last year he was responsible for carrying the team on his back for solid stretches when we had Auston out. Not to mention Marner like so many other players had a career year playing with JT.

If you're suggesting trading Matthews because we have JT then you need help. 43 G 79 P ELC centers or any position player does not grow on trees. You dont give them away because you're not getting fair value back.

So that doesnt begin to deal with the issue. If Marner is better than Matthews on the leafs and Matthews is worth more on the market, does that justify paying Matthews more than Marner because of rhe market or will people just stick their neck out and say that Matthews is worth more because he will outperform Marner. Its pretty simple really. If Matthews gets paid something like 1.5MM more on a like term, it really shouldnt be a close race. Matthews should outperform for the majority of those years, no?

 

[nobody]

So that doesnt begin to deal with the issue. If Marner is better than Matthews on the leafs and Matthews is worth more on the market, does that justify paying Matthews more than Marner because of rhe market or will people just stick their neck out and say that Matthews is worth more because he will outperform Marner. Its pretty simple really. If Matthews gets paid something like 1.5MM more on a like term, it really shouldnt be a close race. Matthews should outperform for the majority of those years, no?

You don't understand how market value works, do you? Centers and Wingers are not paid on the same scale. Regardless of production. What you are suggesting is a concept that just doesn't exist.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

There still seems to be a lot of confusion about why it's important to separate ES and PP production when determining quality of player.

To help illustrate how much PP TOI affects raw production:

Let's say we had two players that played the exact same amount of time at ES (let's say 15:22 (awkward TOI I know but trying to not have half a point in the result)) and have the exact same rate of production at ES (let's say 3.0 P/60). They also produce at the exact same rate on the PP (let's say 8.0 P/60). Both of these values represent elite players. They both play all 82 games in the season.

If Player A gets around 2:30 in PP TOI/GP and Player B gets around 4:00 PP TOI/GP, because the team they were on placed 1st and 31st respectively in PP opportunities (like we saw with Marner and Rantanen this year), Player A will get 90 points and player B will get 107 points.

This is a 17 point swing based on a difference of 1 and a half minutes in the least tiring and least intensive time you can play, because of a team stat, for players that are 100% identical in every other way.

Player A wins Rocket and Art Ross and Player B comes 5th in scoring and hasn’t proven anything because they have won 0 individual awards

 

[Dekes For Days]

It’s not a skill but it shows you go to the areas of the rink where you draw penalties.
If the guy with 15 more points drew 25 penalties and the other 5 then you'd want to factor that into your evaluation.

I only ask I keep hearing all the chatter about the Leafs being so heavy on analytics, which I have been a proponent of for years, however, I’d venture to guess they are not limiting themselves to the same stats as the fans.

I don't think you have would have that big of a difference (25 vs. 5) and I'm not so sure you would factor it in, because again, there's no real evidence that it's a skill and you'd just be giving that player individual credit for a random team stat. I'm not even sure it's evidence that you go to "dirty areas". I'm sure it relies heavily on usage and role and reputation and above all, what refs you get calling your games.

From what I've seen, there seems to be some correlation between penalties and PPs as well. I imagine the player that draws more PPs would take more penalties, and then how do you factor that in? For example, Colorado is 1st in times shorthanded while Toronto is 2nd last. This helps even things out a bit fairness-wise for teams, but it doesn't equate things for the players and their production.

I remember everybody felt that speed and skill drew penalties the best, and then Leafs go from one of the slowest teams in the league to one of the fastest and most talented, and our PP opportunities plummeted. Leafs were 3rd in PP opportunities in 2014-2015 when they were 4th last in the league. Now we're the 7th best team in the league and we're dead last. The best PP opportunities season of the last 5 years is Arizona in a season they placed 6th last. I have a hard time believing that Arizona had the best team in the last 5 years at going into the high-impact areas of the ice.

NHL teams do definitely have better stats than any of us have, but I doubt penalties drawn is one of them, because it is so random and inconsistent and reliant on human bias. Two players can do the exact same thing in the exact same area of the ice, and one will receive a PP and one not, just dependent on how the game is going or what refs you have or what reputation you have.

I'm sure NHL teams have analytics that can more accurately show who goes into the important areas of the ice, but we don't have that information as fans, and I highly doubt they factor heavily into contract negotiations anyway.

 

[Notsince67]

You don't understand how market value works, do you? Centers and Wingers are not paid on the same scale. Regardless of production. What you are suggesting is a concept that just doesn't exist.

You are not understanding. I have already acknowledged that so stop dodging. Are you saying that it is perfectly ok to pay Matthews 1.5mm more knowing that Marner will outperform him. You stepped into the conversation so you must have an opinion. We are at the beginning of a season. Marner has been the teams points leader for 2 years. What will a third tell you? Anything?

 

[Dekes For Days]

If the leafs had 5 of the best centres in the league would we keep them? Of course not. It would make sense that a few teams would be giving the team a pot of gold for at least one and the leafs would get better.

We don't have 5 of the best centers in the league though. We have two.

You can give 2 the proper time and opportunity they need (unlike 5), and it gives your team a significant advantage to have that depth down the middle, even aside from the quality of player that you should never dream of giving up because it's highly unlikely you get that value back for a similar cap hit.

Just like the marginal value of both Tavares or Matthews is worth more to another team than Toronto.

There is no evidence of this.

My point is that if that assuming that Marner and Matthews are of equal skill for a second, matthews would still be likely be worth more because of the market realities. Now assuming for a second that Marner is better from a team contribution perspective but the market rate for Matthews is higher. Does it make sense to risk signing Matthews to a higher contract at the expense of pissing Marner off to the point he leaves in free agency due to the additional leverages that Matthews has?

If Marner is "pissed off" by the realities of the market to the point where he doesn't want to be on his childhood dream team because of minor differences in pay, then I'm not sure that's a personality you want on the team TBH.

Centers are worth more because they have additional responsibility and they provide additional value to their team beyond simple production. Goal-scorers are worth more because they are less reliant on the team around them, and there is less noise in their production stats.

If literally everything was taken into account and we had an accurate model of quantified contribution to a team (which we don't, not even close), and Marner placed higher relative to cap hit in a repeatable manner, then (ignoring team needs) it would technically make sense to choose him if necessary to choose (though it would still make more sense to move out other pieces and keep both), but if you're just planning to point at raw points in some year where Marner outscores him and say "see, he's more valuable to the team", that's wrong.

 

[18leafsfan18]

So you're saying term shouldn't be part of the equation?

Marner could sign for 10.5x3 or 10.5x8. It's the same thing to you?

Absolutely term is part of the equation, but there are 2 important things why it's a very bad take.

1. There is absolutely zero ways Matthews is the "Highest Paid Player in the league" (Not biggest contract, not biggest AAV, nothing).
2. No one here has any clue how much more it costs for the 3 extra years of term (does it raise AAV 500k, 250k, 1, million, 10 million).

"Based on Term" is just a way for someone to try and make a false statement somehow true, but it's still false.

Posters love to assume AAV drops by millions for every year of the term, but in all reality there is no evidence to back that up (not rare around these parts).

 

[Notsince67]

We don't have 5 of the best centers in the league though. We have two.

You can give 2 the proper time and opportunity they need (unlike 5), and it gives your team a significant advantage to have that depth down the middle, even aside from the quality of player that you should never dream of giving up because it's highly unlikely you get that value back for a similar cap hit..

So you are saying that each of 2 #1 class centers are worth relatively the same to a team relative to another team that lacks even one? Are you just being purposely obtuse?

There is no evidence of this.

The laws of supply and demand are not evidence?

If Marner is "pissed off" by the realities of the market to the point where he doesn't want to be on his childhood dream team because of minor differences in pay, then I'm not sure that's a personality you want on the team TBH.

This is specious. 1.5MM/year is not minor. We should be worried about this because he is already pissed off from being screwed out of bonuses 4 years ago and if he is our best player, the team is playing with fire.

Centers are worth more because they have additional responsibility and they provide additional value to their team beyond simple production. Goal-scorers are worth more because they are less reliant on the team around them, and there is less noise in their production stats.

At what threshold. Marner will get paid more than Gauthier and Spezza who are centers. As for goals, are you prepared to go on the record to state that Cam Atkinson is better than Marner and worth more because he had more goals last year?
WHAT IS THE MARK? If Marner puts up 102 points and 35 goals vs Matthews at 88 points and 47 goals would you consider that an equal perform, an under perform or an over perform?

If literally everything was taken into account and we had an accurate model of quantified contribution to a team (which we don't, not even close), and Marner placed higher relative to cap hit in a repeatable manner, then (ignoring team needs) it would technically make sense to choose him if necessary to choose (though it would still make more sense to move out other pieces and keep both), but if you're just planning to point at raw points in some year where Marner outscores him and say "see, he's more valuable to the team", that's wrong.

You are getting close here. Thank you. So now answer the above hypothetical question...

If Marner puts up 102 points and 35 goals vs Matthews at 88 points and 47 goals would you consider that an equal perform, an under perform or an over perform? Additionally, is that evidence that the Leafs have miscalculated? At what point can this argument ever be concluded? I've already stuck my neck out and said that I believe that Marner will outperform Matthews for the tenure of their contracts. I will be proven either wrong or right. I want them both to do well but that has little to do with the discussion at hand. Injury and total year performance is part of everything. What constitutes a better year as an example? Will another injury give Matthews another pass? ​

 

[Notsince67]

Don’t know why there doesn’t seem to be a more middle ground on most of these debates back and forth. Seems like people are just picking sides, either Dubas is the worst GM ever or he’s so brilliant he can do nothing wrong or Matthews is definitely leaving etc.

AM’s deal is unprecedented in the sense that it’s a large sum of money for a relatively shorter term deal which is simply not the norm for a player coming out of his 3rd year and not having been part of some huge successes (eg winning Hart, Art Ross, Stanley Cup etc.)

However, it does NOT automatically mean that he is leaving. There is really no reason to believe he would want to leave especially from anything he has ever expressed. BUT certainly he believes in being PAID, zero discounts.

It also doesn’t mean Dubas is some dummy. Inexperienced, yeah sure, but he’s clearly a smart guy and has some other very smart people around him, particularly a guy like Brandan Pridham who wrote the current CBA is no dummy and they clearly weighed the pros and cons of their decisions. Ultimately we are not privy to everything, Too early to tell how good or bad Dubas really is, but hearing him speak and seeing his train of thought I’d take him over most GMs.

I also cannot comprehend the incessant comparison of Marner being as good or as important as Matthews, but it certainly appears there is only a minority of people who believe that. We’ll see down the road, but right now if there was a poll of who would you rather have, it would be Matthews by a landslide.

An appeal to authority is not an argument. There were many more people that had Strome above Marner in the draft. Didn't make it so. A discussion regarding the points of valuation is an important one. Both Marner and Matthews are unicorns and people havent seen a lot of them

 

[Notsince67]

Absolutely term is part of the equation, but there are 2 important things why it's a very bad take.

1. There is absolutely zero ways Matthews is the "Highest Paid Player in the league" (Not biggest contract, not biggest AAV, nothing).
2. No one here has any clue how much more it costs for the 3 extra years of term (does it raise AAV 500k, 250k, 1, million, 10 million).

"Based on Term" is just a way for someone to try and make a false statement somehow true, but it's still false.

Posters love to assume AAV drops by millions for every year of the term, but in all reality there is no evidence to back that up (not rare around these parts).

One can assume a UFA year for Matthews to be a maximum amount of 15.9MM. Easy to surmise that a 4 year deal is then worth 10.525MM as a comparison.

 

[18leafsfan18]

One can assume a UFA year for Matthews to be a maximum amount of 15.9MM. Easy to surmise that a 4 year deal is then worth 10.525MM as a comparison.

Where does that number (15.9) come from ?

What is the 4 year deal for, he didn't sign a 4 year deal ?