Salary Cap: Marner contract discussion XVI (continued)

  • PLEASE check any bookmark on all devices. IF you see a link pointing to mandatory.com DELETE it Please use this URL https://forums.hfboards.com/
Status
Not open for further replies.

Notsince67

Papi and the Lamplighters
Apr 27, 2018
16,376
11,467
Honestly I can see why Marner might be a little cheesed. Matthews contract was almost certainly based on the idea that he could expect a 13x7 ish contract via offersheet, and Dubas accepted that valuation and scaled down with term to get to something we can afford.

Now Marner is up, and reportedly looking at offers in the 12x7 range. Less, but still putting him at 10.5 x 5+ if you use the same value scale. The difference is that Dubas seems to be rejecting that value scale and saying "No, this is where we have you, you can choose between being a Leaf and being paid at that level." He knows Marner wants to be a Leaf, both for personal and financial reasons and is using that.

To keep the relationship intact I think the reasoning has to be kept budgetary rather than hammering MM with the fact they value AM differently. "You're last, you wanted to be last, it's nothing personal and we love you but we had to put the team together and this is how much we can afford"

Coming down from 12 x 7 at the same per year rate as it takes from to go from 13 x 7 to Matthews contract it would leave us at 9.27 x 3. If you set Matthews RFA value at 13.5 x 7 and apply the scale it would be 8.3 x 3 to Marner

I agree. The conversation could flow much easier if they collectively try to solve a cap situation through a bridge deal of 3 years. Market values are imperfect but sometimes you need to work things so that they can in the longer run do the least amount of damage.
I don't think that Marner's reluctance to sign 8 years has anything to do with Matthews.
Looking at Kane's rfa and UFA contracts...cap adjusted
9.04MM x 5 and 14.4MM x 8....
The front half of the UFA contract was likely valued higher than the lower end due to the # of prime years falling into them but just assuming that they were valued the same to be conservative.
9.04 * 5 with 3 years of UFA tacked onto them gives an average of 11.04MM x 8.

Marners ELC looks a lot like Kane's yet it is hard to square a market position today to justify (without any of this internal comparable business) a contract of 11.04MM x 8.
Marner has confidence in himself and sees taking a shorter term as a kind of arbitrage opportunity. There is a risk that he falls flat in future years and in my opinion, 10MM x 8 fully prices in that risk from a team perspective.
That being said, the team should have little objection if it were being reasonable to look at lower term options that could spell out more lucrative rewards for Marner, should that risk be removed. That is also true of a 5 year deal

This is a difficult proposition because to remove 1 year, takes away a valuable UFA year that is weighted higher than an RFA year. Again I will look at Kane's RFA contract for a hint
If we target a 3 year bridge...
I am going to take a conservative outlook and value the 5th year the same as Kane's AAV on his UFA contract, but adjusted 2 year for inflation(@3%) for 2 years to account for the time value of money. I will take a onservative outlook and value his 4th year equally for year 1-3 and adjust it for inflation for 1 year to account for the time value of money.
That gives a 3 year valuation of (9.04mm*5 - 14.4mm/1.03^2-9.04^1.03)/3 =7.62MM x 3

This is an absolute floor and Marner wouldn't agree to it because the assumptions are made against him but it serves a purpose to understand what the absolutely lowest floor of a 3 year contract looks like.
****ANYONE who thinks that a MARNER 3 yr bridge looks anything less than this is completely out to lunch
My guess is that it begins at 8MM and ends at 9MM. This isn't a huge chasm.
That is a 1MM gap so lets get it done!
 
Last edited:

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
No, the advanced stats hated those guys. Which is why they are gone.

People liked them because "20gls" and "gudpro grit".


5v5 adj xGF%

1. Nylander 56.8
2. Hyman 55.1
3. Tavares 53.8
4. Matthews 53.4
5. Ozhiganov 53.0
6. Gardiner 52.9

7. Dermott 52.4
8. Marner 52.3
9. Muzzin 51.9
10. Kapanen 51.6
11. Rielly 51.2
12. Johnsson 51.1
13. Zaitsev 51.0
14. Kadri 50.8
15. Ennis 50.8
16. Hainsey 50.2

17. Gauthier 48.9
18. Lindholm 48.1
19. Marleau 47.9
20. Brown 46.9


As you can see, Dubas has literally dumped pretty much the worst 1/3 of last year's roster.

Goat is the only awful one still here, but I'm guessing it's not for long even though he costs nothing.

Gardiner is obviously the one key loss that dubey would rather have kept. Ozzy ranked well too but that came against such weak qoc that it probably didn t mean too much.
I find it interesting that Brown had the worst adjusted xGF% on the team but had one of the better actual GF% on the team.

Also could you post say Zaitsev's non adjusted xGF% at 5 on 5 as well as Dermott's? I'm interested how much they adjust for vastly different usage.
 

MyBudJT

Registered User
Mar 5, 2018
7,429
4,576
Speaking of which, if Dermott is open to an extension, I'd love to lock him up for long term while his value is likely as low as it'll be. He will be a fixture in our top 4 for years to come

How much are you thinking? I'm not convinced that Dermott is top 4 material yet. He was extremely sheltered last season and played soft minutes. We have no clue how he'll be able to handle a more difficult work load.
 

Notsince67

Papi and the Lamplighters
Apr 27, 2018
16,376
11,467
Hockey should be based on results period. It's a sport where literal luck plays a role in winning quite often. You understand if you understand advanced stats you can be a corsi god and crappy hockey player. There are a lot of players now studying how to work it because contracts.

Literal crap players with nice stats and lackluster production. Them stats though.
I remember Kappy saying that he sometimes remember to take an extra few shots or something to that effect to help the stats. Gaming stats is a real thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: thewave

CantLoseWithMatthews

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
49,735
59,494
No, the advanced stats hated those guys. Which is why they are gone.

People liked them because "20gls" and "gudpro grit".


5v5 adj xGF%

1. Nylander 56.8
2. Hyman 55.1
3. Tavares 53.8
4. Matthews 53.4
5. Ozhiganov 53.0
6. Gardiner 52.9

7. Dermott 52.4
8. Marner 52.3
9. Muzzin 51.9
10. Kapanen 51.6
11. Rielly 51.2
12. Johnsson 51.1
13. Zaitsev 51.0
14. Kadri 50.8
15. Ennis 50.8
16. Hainsey 50.2

17. Gauthier 48.9
18. Lindholm 48.1
19. Marleau 47.9
20. Brown 46.9


As you can see, Dubas has literally dumped pretty much the worst 1/3 of last year's roster.

Goat is the only awful one still here, but I'm guessing it's not for long even though he costs nothing.

Gardiner is obviously the one key loss that dubey would rather have kept. Ozzy ranked well too but that came against such weak qoc that it probably didn t mean too much.
it also seems like everyone brought in so far does pretty well in this aspect, except for Spezza. Ceci's raw numbers aren't pretty but I think he's not as bad as he looks when you adjust for context
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
12,566
11,332
I agree. The conversation could flow much easier if they collectively try to solve a cap situation through a bridge deal of 3 years. Market values are imperfect but sometimes you need to work things so that they can in the longer run do the least amount of damage.
I don't think that Marner's reluctance to sign 8 years has anything to do with Matthews.
Looking at Kane's rfa and UFA contracts...cap adjusted
9.04MM x 5 and 14.4MM x 8....
The front half of the UFA contract was likely valued higher than the lower end due to the # of prime years falling into them but just assuming that they were valued the same to be conservative.
9.04 * 5 with 3 years of UFA tacked onto them gives an average of 11.04MM x 8.

Marners ELC looks a lot like Kane's yet it is hard to square a market position today to justify (without any of this internal comparable business) a contract of 11.04MM x 8.
Marner has confidence in himself and sees taking a shorter term as a kind of arbitrage opportunity. There is a risk that he falls flat in future years and in my opinion, 10MM x 8 fully prices in that risk from a team perspective.
That being said, the team should have little objection if it were being reasonable to look at lower term options that could spell out more lucrative rewards for Marner, should that risk be removed. That is also true of a 5 year deal

This is a difficult proposition because to remove 1 year, takes away a valuable UFA year that is weighted higher than an RFA year. Again I will look at Kane's RFA contract for a hint
If we target a 3 year bridge...
I am going to take a conservative outlook and value the 5th year the same as Kane's AAV on his UFA contract, but adjusted 2 year for inflation(@3%) for 2 years to account for the time value of money. I will take a onservative outlook and value his 4th year equally for year 1-3 and adjust it for inflation for 1 year to account for the time value of money.
That gives a 3 year valuation of (9.04mm*5 - 14.4mm/1.03^2-9.04^1.03)/4 =7.62MM x 3

This is an absolute floor and Marner wouldn't agree to it because the assumptions are made against him but it serves a purpose to understand what the absolutely lowest floor of a 3 year contract looks like.
****ANYONE who thinks that a MARNER 3 yr bridge looks anything less than this is completely out to lunch
My guess is that it begins at 8MM and ends at 9MM. This isn't a huge chasm.
That is a 1MM gap so lets get it done!

This is a terrific post I agree.
I think you can sign him somewhere around 8.5M/3 years and it can work very well for both sides.
From the Leafs side you get Marner signed, to a number you can build around for the next 3 years and you retain control of him at the end of contract as he'd still be an RFA.
From Marner's side, he gets shorter term so he's not locked in as the cap rises too high, he gets to go out continue to put up huge numbers and solify his case to be paid big and then he's the first of the three to come back to the table for contract #3

It's not perfect, but I think it's about as good as we can expect. There is a lot of uncertainty in the cap over the next 4-5 years, I don't blame Marner for maybe not wanting to go 8 years.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
I find it interesting that Brown had the worst adjusted xGF% on the team but had one of the better actual GF% on the team.

Also could you post say Zaitsev's non adjusted xGF% at 5 on 5 as well as Dermott's? I'm interested how much they adjust for vastly different usage.

Unadjusted

Gardiner 53.2
Ozhiganov 53.1
Dermott 52.9
Muzzin 51.9
Zaitsev 51.2
Rielly 51.1
Hainsey 50.0
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ziggdiezan

Throw More Waffles

Unprecedented Dramatic Overpayments
Oct 9, 2015
12,939
9,885
1. You guys may entertain the thought that the Dubes didn't get where he is today by ranking players based on points or points per game. (and you might want to ask yourself why you'd want a guy in charge of $50m decisions ranking players based on a 100yr old stat that has no context and arbitrarily decided that 2nd assists are worth the same as goals).

2. In your professional expertise you may think Dubas is a dummy for not just ranking players on points or PPG, and you are welcome do disagree, but you have to accept that he doesn't. These aren't the exact stats Dubas looks at, but they're certainly closer to the kind of thing he looks at, and it illustrates perfectly how each leaf has been valued:


Here is the ELC performance of all $5+m (or expected $5+m) forwards, in the last 3 years (including this one), sorted into approximate order and approximate groupings:

C McDavid (22, 12.5): 222gms, ES 16:13 (A+ qoc), 2.93p/60, 2.27p1/60, +3.5cfrel, +7.5xgfrel ---- PP 2:57, 5.85p/60, 3.20p1/60 -- PK 0:56
C Matthews (22, 11.6): 232gms, ES 15:13 (A qoc), 2.60p/60, 2.29p1/60, +0.8cfrel, +2.2xgfrel --- PP 2:22, 6.31p/60, 4.90p1/60 -- PK 0:01

W Marner (22, ????): 261gms, ES 14:19 (A qoc), 2.33p/60, 1.90p1/60, -0.5cfrel, -0.0xgfrel ------ PP 2:21, 7.02p/60, 4.59p1/60 -- PK 0:30
C Point (23, ????): 250gms, ES 14:59 (A qoc), 2.20p/60, 1.77p1/60, +0.4cfrel, +0.8xgfrel -------- PP 2:39, 5.79p/60, 3.44p1/60 -- PK 0:48
W Pastrnak (21, 6.7): 178gms, ES 13:46 (B+ qoc), 2.20p/60, 1.74p1/60, +3.9cfrel, +4.1xgfrel --- PP 1:45, 5.76p/60, 4.22p1/60 --- PK 0:01

W Rantanen (23, ???): 246gms, ES 15:07 (A+ qoc), 1.98p/60, 1.44p1/60, +1.7cfrel, -1.0xgfrel -- PP 3:29, 5.67p/60, 4.20p1/60 -- PK 0:01
C/W Aho (22, 8.5): 256gms, ES 14:40 (A qoc), 2.00p/60, 1.52p1/60, +2.1cfrel, +1.4xgfrel ------ PP 2:38, 5.07p/60, 3.47p1/60 -- PK 0:32
C/W Drai (22, 8.5): 204gms, ES 14:08 (A qoc), 2.04p/60, 1.50p1/60, +2.1cfrel, +3.2xgfrel ------ PP 2:34, 5.04p/60, 4.00p1/60 -- PK 0:12
C/W Nylander (22, 7.0): 198gms, ES 13:45 (B+ qoc), 2.09p/60, 1.54p1/60, +2.4cfrel, +2.0xgfrel - PP 2:14, 5.71p/60, 4.62p1/60 -- PK 0:01
W Ehlers (22, 6.0): 251gms, ES 13:52 (B+ qoc), 2.00p/60, 1.60p1/60, +2.1cfrel, +0.2xgfrel ----- PP 2:15, 3.73p/60, 2.77p1/60 --- PK 0:01
W Connor (23, ???): 201gms, ES 14:09 (A qoc), 2.00p/60, 1.60p1/60, -2.1cfrel, -2.6xgfrel ----- PP 2:44, 3.71p/60, 2.73p1/60 --- PK 0:20

C Eichel (22, 10.0): 209gms, ES 15:19 (B+ qoc), 1.88p/60, 1.44p1/60, -0.1cfrel, +0.1xgfrel ----- PP 3:10, 5.69p/60, 3.79p1/60 --- PK 0:28
C Larkin (22, 6.1): 246gms, ES 14:18 (B+ qoc), 1.86p/60, 1.43p1/60, +0.9cfrel, -2.1xgfrel ------ PP 1:58, 2.34p/60, 1.72p1/60 --- PK 0:46
W Meier (23, 6.0): 228gms, ES 13:20 (B+ qoc), 1.92p/60, 1.48p1/60, +3.2cfrel, +4.3xgfrel ----- PP 1:21, 3.49p/60, 3.29p1/60 --- PK 0:21
W Laine (21, ????): 260gms, ES 13:40 (B qoc), 1.86p/60, 1.57p1/60, -3.4cfrel, -6.6xgfrel ------ PP 3:03, 5.31p/60, 4.40p1/60 --- PK 0:01
C Schmaltz (23, 5.9): 183gms, ES 13:15 (B qoc), 1.86p/60, 1.41p1/60, -2.5cfrel, -3.0xgfrel ---- PP 2:09, 3.37p/60, 1.99p1/60 --- PK 0:38


1) There are two clear outliers on this list by these numbers, which I would probably just throw out when it comes to comparables:
  • Pastrnak seems to be well underpaid, and probably should have a caphit a couple mil higher. There is something to be said, though, about him possibly padding some numbers thanks to being on one of the most dominant lines in hockey. But he was even younger than most of these guys when he signed so this one just looks like a steal to me.
  • Eichel seems to be well overpaid. He is probably a couple mil overpaid. It could be argued that the Sabres kinda had to overpay him to make sure he stayed, though. Still, though, this shows the importance of being a true center.

2) Neither of the Leafs already signed are overpaid in the least. Their caphit slots in perfectly with their performance:
  • Matthews' performance is simply far, far better than anyone there other than McDavid. It's not even a close call - he's just been at a level his entire ELC that the others have only touched on.
  • Nylander performed at a very similar level as Drai and Aho on their ELC's. Drai and Aho, though, have a better case to make that they are legit centers, and as we know, centers get more than wingers, so their 1.5m higher caphit makes sense. Willy is just a bit more impressive than Ehlers there, and has more C potential, so the slightly higher caphit there also makes sense.
3) How do the current RFA slot in here?
  • Laine really shouldn't be paid more than $6m, in my opinion, but I'm sure he's asking for much more. He's one of the few 21yr olds here so that's a boost, but even his offensive numbers aren't as good as most of the guys here, and his possession metrics are horrific.
  • Connor as well I think the Jets really want to keep under Ehler's number. Their production is identical, but even though connor's qoc is tougher, it's still too huge a gap in possession numbers for my tastes. Also, Connor is a year older, making those numbers a bit less impressive. I'm sure the Jets really, really want to keep these guys under $6m and IMO they're right on both of them.
  • Rantanen is a really tough call. First thing to notice is that he's one of the "old" guys on this list, having no teenager years included in those numbers. But, on the other hand, he has played a legit topline role against topline competition consistently, unlike many of the others. BUT, more importantly for me, and probably surprising to some, is that his offensive productivity isn't as good as you'd think it was just looking at his standard numbers. And given that he's strictly a winger, I really wouldn't want to give him as much as Aho and Drai got. Heck I'd have a hard time giving him much more than Willy got.
  • Point is really damn good, though again he's one of the "old" guys with no teenage years counted in these numbers. Still, his production is a clear step up here from the bulk of the guys, and he playes legit topline C minutes against top compeition, and holds his own possession wise. 8.5 would have to be the floor here based on comparables I think, but I think 9.5 would probably be deserved.
  • Marner is awesome. His production is a clear step above everyone here not named McDavid or Matthews. He's also not one of the old guys, and (kinda) holds his own possession wise against top competition. Also, he's a pure winger, not a center. And, of course, he is a clear and large step down from Matthews productivity wise. Marner has only come close to matthews-level productivity in one of the three years, and that's the one he spent fulltime with Tavares. Looking at where he sits on this list, you can see why Dubas places his value at around $9.5m. And I'm sure, to get a deal done, Dubas would be willing to go to $10m or even a tick over and still feel ok with the deal, based on these comparables.

So while you may, in your professional experience, disagree with the kind of numbers Dubas values, and would prefer that the guy in charge of our billion dollar franchise would just sort players based on points already, you still should make yourself aware of the kind of numbers he has earned his way into the top job in the hockey world based on, and see how they perfectly explain Matthews' contract, Willy's contract, and the $10.4m in capsapce he has left himself to sign Marner.

Call Dubas an idiot if you'd like for not understanding that all he should be looking at is POINTS and nothing else when making $50m decisions for our team, but understand that the valuations make perfect sense from the data he values.


As for Marner, there's no reason to get all pissy and hate him for trying to bargain for more money. He has every right to do that, and no other big RFA has signed a deal yet, so there's nothing to criticize. That being said, I highly doubt that Marner will in the end refuse to accept being the 2nd highest paid winger in hockey, and the highest winger 2nd contract ever, and the 3rd highest 2nd contract ever behind only McDavid and Matthews. He'll sign for about $10m which will still be a bit of an overpay but should be fine.

I simply don't think the leafs can compete if they're paying 70 point players the way other teams pay their 110 point players.

And I mean the real points that add up on the scoreboard that lead to actual real wins and losses.

No matter how much sillyness you use, 110 REAL points is far more valuable (when it comes to actual wins and losses) than 70 points.

Matthews had THREE seasons to show what he can do. And the most he got was 73 points.

If you want to blame this on coaching and usage. Fine. I don't care.

I don't CARE what the excuses are. I just want them addressed.

Players making Matthews money NEED to be putting up 100 point seasons, or it's a complete waste. It's either the coach wasting TALENT or the gm wasting MONEY. I don't care which it is. But FIX it.
 

HoweHullOrr

Registered User
Oct 3, 2013
11,808
2,330
Player/pick assets are one thing. Own rentals are another. Cap space for letting people walk is another. There are a lot of angles.

The idea that a team sitting in a playoff spot is going to dismantle significant parts of their team and risk their season to get a draft pick however is absurd.
What about the value of playoff experience? What if you trade that top 4 defender, stumble down the stretch missing the playoffs and all your young guys miss that year of development in the postseason?

Was that worth it? Doubtful.

Let's build a winning culture by trading away our UFAs every trade deadline and making our team worse.

OK, yes teams that have a playoff seed typically don't sell/trade their good players. But, the Tavares acquisition is outside of this.

I'm not trying to say landing Tavares was a bad idea. I am saying that when we landed him we should have known (and probably did, hopefully) there would be consequences. By consequences I mean having cap problems and losing some other players.

BTW - whatever happened to the talk of a patient rebuild? That idea seems to have suffered a quick death. Could we not have traded JVR with two years remaining on his contract when people/management were still talking & thinking about a rebuild?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sharkhawk

Mr Hockey

Toronto
May 11, 2017
11,156
3,662
This is a terrific post I agree.
I think you can sign him somewhere around 8.5M/3 years and it can work very well for both sides.
From the Leafs side you get Marner signed, to a number you can build around for the next 3 years and you retain control of him at the end of contract as he'd still be an RFA.
From Marner's side, he gets shorter term so he's not locked in as the cap rises too high, he gets to go out continue to put up huge numbers and solify his case to be paid big and then he's the first of the three to come back to the table for contract #3

It's not perfect, but I think it's about as good as we can expect.

Rielly and Kappy are UFA in 3 years and your 2 years away from Matthews UFA ...
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
12,566
11,332
I simply don't think the leafs can compete if they're paying 70 point players the way other teams pay their 110 point players.

And I mean the real points that add up on the scoreboard that lead to actual real wins and losses.

No matter how much sillyness you use, 110 REAL points is far more valuable (when it comes to actual wins and losses) than 70 points.

Matthews had THREE seasons to show what he can do. And the most he got was 73 points.

If you want to blame this on coaching and usage. Fine. I don't care.

I don't CARE what the excuses are. I just want them addressed.

Players making Matthews money NEED to be putting up 100 point seasons, or it's a complete waste. It's either the coach wasting TALENT or the gm wasting MONEY. I don't care which it is. But FIX it.

You're not gonna find anyone who disagrees with the idea that Matthews needs to find a way to stay healthy.
I'm not sure 100 points is the be all end all, but they definitely need to be very productive.
 

Nylander88

Registered User
Aug 13, 2016
4,934
4,838
Ontario
How much are you thinking? I'm not convinced that Dermott is top 4 material yet. He was extremely sheltered last season and played soft minutes. We have no clue how he'll be able to handle a more difficult work load.
I'm thinking if he would sign for 3mil at 5yrs + ...you jump on it and bank on the potential. He puts together a couple solid years and with the market 4/4.5 mil per won't be out of the question. We have to get crafty with our gambles on this cap strapped team
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
12,566
11,332
Rielly and Kappy are UFA in 3 years and your 2 years away from Matthews UFA ...

Rielly is notable, sure. Kapanen likely never sees a 3rd contract here.
Matthews 2 years later is still plenty workable. 2 years is a good while.
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
41,277
11,534
And, as I've just shown you, he has one of the most efficient rosters in hockey, by the stats that he values.

And he has just now flushed out all the bad value inherited wasted caphits that hurt the team in his first season on the job.

Most efficient rosters with a rental D core that hasn't won a round and traded a 1st for cap?
 

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
12,566
11,332
OK, yes teams that have a playoff seed typically don't sell/trade their good players. But, the Tavares acquisition is outside of this.

I'm not trying to say landing Tavares was a bad idea. I am saying that when we landed him we should have known (and probably did, hopefully) there would be consequences. By consequences I mean having cap problems and losing some other players.

BTW - whatever happened to the talk of a patient rebuild? That idea seems to have suffered a quick death.

This whole discussion you've replied to was started by the TheWave suggesting that we missed the mark by not trading Gardiner for asset management purposes.

I definitely think they knew what they were signing up for when they landed Tavares. I don't think they're surprised by their cap complications. I DO think they are maybe a bit surprised by how much RFA asks have ballooned and how little regard players have for using their actual comparables. Even then though, I don't think they are shocked by any means.

As for your last query. I'd say, easy, Tavares. Tavares is an accelerant. The timeline changed the day we signed him. You can argue whether that's for better or worse, but you don't skip out on getting a player of his calibre for nothing but money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SAMCRO44

Sypher04

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
12,566
11,332
Most efficient rosters with a rental D core that hasn't won a round and traded a 1st for cap?

What is your alternative... we traded what is most likely going to be a late 1st, not garaunteed to be an NHLer, to allow us to keep both Johnsson and Kapanen, clearly NHL players. Does it suck having to move that pick? Sure, every single one of us would rather have it. But losing either one of Johnsson or Kapanen, let alone both, to keep Marleau and his abysmal play last year that'd be seriously questionable management. We solved 2 significant problems with that move.
 

Ziggdiezan

Registered User
Apr 10, 2015
10,847
5,676
Unadjusted

Gardiner 53.2
Ozhiganov 53.1
Dermott 52.9
Muzzin 51.9
Zaitsev 51.2
Rielly 51.1
Hainsey 50.0
Are the adjustments applied similarly to adjusted corsi numbers?

As I find it pretty crazy that a guy like Hainsey (extremely high Qoc and 47.5 oZS%) vs Dermott (extremely low QoC and 57.5 oZS%) are adjusted so minutely. Hainsey is increase (as you would expect) from 50.0 to 50.2 while Dermott is decreased from 52.9 to 52.4.

Personally I find a lot of these adjusted stats seem to underestimate the impact of usage. Particularly some of the adjusted CF% seem to really underestimate zone deployment for more extreme cases.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
it also seems like everyone brought in so far does pretty well in this aspect, except for Spezza. Ceci's raw numbers aren't pretty but I think he's not as bad as he looks when you adjust for context

Yeah for the most part:

Team Rank in adj xGF%, minimum 400min

Shore #2 of 30 (C qoc)
Kerfoot #3 of 18 (C+ qoc)
Barrie #6 of 18 (B qoc)
Ceci #10 of 22 (B qoc)
Gravel #10 of 30 (C qoc)
Agostino #5 of 23 / #19 of 29 (C qoc)
Spezza #18 of 23 (C- qoc)


The Spezza signing was a weird one for sure. The only logic I see for that is as an emergency PP guy if our PP struggles again.
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
Are the adjustments applied similarly to adjusted corsi numbers?

As I find it pretty crazy that a guy like Hainsey (extremely high Qoc and 47.5 oZS%) vs Dermott (extremely low QoC and 57.5 oZS%) are adjusted so minutely. Hainsey is increase (as you would expect) from 50.0 to 50.2 while Dermott is decreased from 52.9 to 52.4.

Personally I find a lot of these adjusted stats seem to underestimate the impact of usage. Particularly some of the adjusted CF% seem to really underestimate zone deployment for more extreme cases.

They don't adjust for qoc unfortunately.

They adjust for score, zone deployment (not just zone starts), and venue.
 

57 Years No Cup

New and Improved Username!
Nov 12, 2007
8,782
8,319
How did I cherry pick stats?

I was about to suggest that your age is showing, but noticed you've been on here for nearly 10 years :amazed:. You should be able to build more rational arguments than just pointing fingers at people (for things they're not even doing).

What does HHOF have to do with anything...? I'm sooo confused!!!
But he's got like 42 followers man.
 

glue

Registered User
Jan 30, 2006
4,492
2,692
Toronto
3 x 8 wouldn’t be the worst. Would maybe give us some cap flexibility as well over the next 3 years. Let’s see, I think this one will take until September to resolve
 

thewave

Registered User
Jun 17, 2011
41,277
11,534
What is your alternative... we traded what is most likely going to be a late 1st, not garaunteed to be an NHLer, to allow us to keep both Johnsson and Kapanen, clearly NHL players. Does it suck having to move that pick? Sure, every single one of us would rather have it. But losing either one of Johnsson or Kapanen to keep Marleau and his abysmal play last year that'd be seriously questionable management. We solved 2 significant problems with that move.

Kappy and AJ contracts were fine. I know Marleau wasn't his fault. It's just not a good place to be in with this Marner contract and a rental Dcore. Something has to give, we aren't competing with a rookie back end next season
 

zeke

The Dube Abides
Mar 14, 2005
66,937
36,957
I simply don't think the leafs can compete if they're paying 70 point players the way other teams pay their 110 point players.

And I mean the real points that add up on the scoreboard that lead to actual real wins and losses.

No matter how much sillyness you use, 110 REAL points is far more valuable (when it comes to actual wins and losses) than 70 points.

Matthews had THREE seasons to show what he can do. And the most he got was 73 points.

If you want to blame this on coaching and usage. Fine. I don't care.

I don't CARE what the excuses are. I just want them addressed.

Players making Matthews money NEED to be putting up 100 point seasons, or it's a complete waste. It's either the coach wasting TALENT or the gm wasting MONEY. I don't care which it is. But FIX it.

You are free to argue that you would prefer GM that makes $50m decisions based on a simple ranking of a century old stat with no context, sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stopclickbait
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad