Salary Cap: Marner contract discussion XVI (continued)

[4thline]

One (or more) of Dubois, Werenski, Jones or 1st round picks have to be a part of the package for the Leafs to even consider it value-wise.

And yes, you're fairly level headed guy but chronically underrate other teams pieces that aren't "name brand" players/ picks.

If they take Dubois/Weresnski/Jones off the table (which they should) and leverage the OS we're better off with those players than the picks. A Tortorella coached team with that wing skill/grit and d-corp is not a good bet to bottom out.

 

[justafan22]

I'd rather have 4 first round picks if it was anything less than Werenski and a 1st for Marner straight up. I'd also consider Dubois + short term cap dump + high futures for Marner as well.

Originally thought we would add to Marner and Dermott to get both Werenski and Dubois, but really we don't need Werenski on this team with our LD depth so it may be better just to get Dubois and maybe a 1st.

Those 4 first round picks, on a team with arguably a bottom 5 center and goaltending group (depending on how Merzilkins and Dubois do), are a lot more valuable to this team than those pieces.

I disagree on a small level.

I'd do Werenski + the Jackets 2020 1st round pick unprotected straight up for Marner.

Odds are one of those 4 firsts best case scenario is a werenski + you get the better pick.

 

[Menzinger]

I disagree on a small level.

I'd do Werenski + the Jackets 2020 1st round pick unprotected straight up for Marner.

Odds are one of those 4 firsts best case scenario is a werenski + you get the better pick.

I think the 4 1sts may have the edge in terms of abstract value but Weresnki gives you a high end impact player that can immediately slide into your D pairings. The Leafs competitiveness wouldnt be majorly impacted even though they lose Marner

Best option will be a 3 or 6 year deal with Marner though

 

[horner]

Probably no more than Marner is willing to miss out on ~$8M of earnings (or whatever his salary differrential will be between his NHL earnings on a new contract and what he'd make in the KHL).

No first this yr
A lottery pk.
Good luck

 

[Rob Brown]

I think the 4 1sts may have the edge in terms of abstract value but Weresnki gives you a high end impact player that can immediately slide into your D pairings. The Leafs competitiveness wouldnt be majorly impacted even though they lose Marner

Best option will be a 3 or 6 year deal with Marner though

You'd have to move Muzzin or Dermott for a RD if you got Werenski, unless you want to play him or Muzzin on the third pair, which seems like a waste. Or you try Muzzin or Werenski on the right side.

 

[IPS]

You'd have to move Muzzin or Dermott for a RD if you got Werenski, unless you want to play him or Muzzin on the third pair, which seems like a waste. Or you try Muzzin or Werenski on the right side.

I'd move Muzzin in a heartbeat if Werenski was coming to town.

I've been a big fan of the kid for a long time. Future top-10 D-man in my books.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

And yes, you're fairly level headed guy but chronically underrate other teams pieces that aren't "name brand" players/ picks.

If they take Dubois/Weresnski/Jones off the table (which they should) and leverage the OS we're better off with those players than the picks. A Tortorella coached team with that wing skill/grit and d-corp is not a good bet to bottom out.

Since when do I "chronically underrate" other team's non-name brand players? I would love to have any of those 4 players on the Leafs, but I would never take two of them for a guy of Marner's caliber, ridiculous contract demands or not. Bjorkstrand is at Kapanen's level at best. Anderson is a bit higher but he's still not a core player and he's going to ask for a ridiculous overpayment in a year himself. Savard is solid but he's worse than Muzzin and he's going to ask for money in a little bit too. Nutivaara is a good 4/5 at best right now.

They are great players, but how do two of those add up to an elite 22 year old winger who is one of the better playmakers in the game already? They don't, even with the contract demands looming over his head.

If they take those guys off the table, we take Marner off the table. Plain and simple. We are not going to be short on suitors for Marner, especially since we can open up a bunch by taking a roster player with salary back for the other team to afford his new deal.

 

[4thline]

If they take those guys off the table, we take Marner off the table. Plain and simple. We are not going to be short on suitors for Marner, especially since we can open up a bunch by taking a roster player with salary back for the other team to afford his new deal.

Then they OS and we're worse off then taking the deal.

As for since when- pretty much forever. The relevant one right now that comes to mind is Rychel >> Anderson + pick.

 

[Rob Brown]

Then they OS and we're worse off then taking the deal.

As for since when- pretty much forever. The relevant one right now that comes to mind is Rychel >> Anderson + pick.

They already tried to discuss an offer sheet with Marner and couldn't come to an agreement.

 

[4thline]

They already tried to discuss an offer sheet with Marner and couldn't come to an agreement.

Any hypothetical trade with them would be contingent on them re-visiting talks and either bridging the gap or one side moving.

 

[Rob Brown]

Any hypothetical trade with them would be contingent on them re-visiting talks and either bridging the gap or one side moving.

Yes I know, but Mitch has to actually sign an offer sheet and doesn't seem interested, so they can't really threaten an offer sheet if we take Mitch off the table in a trade situation. They also won't trade valuable assets if they don't think he will sign with them.

 

[4thline]

Yes I know, but Mitch has to actually sign an offer sheet and doesn't seem interested, so they can't really threaten an offer sheet if we take Mitch off the table in a trade situation. They also won't trade valuable assets if they don't think he will sign with them.

You kind of contradicted yourself there.

Statement 1. They won't trade valuable assets if he won't sign with them.
Therefore if they are willing to trade valuable assets he is willing to sign with them,

If he is willing to sign with them clearly the situation would have changed from when they couldn't come to an agreement, and the contract they can sign him to after a trade becomes a viable offersheet option.

(Assuming at said contract level the Leafs cannot/will not match)

It's a fickle three way balancing act where a slight shift in value moves leverage to a different party.

 

[jfc64]

Last bid:

5 firstrounders and a secondrounder (Avs)

Then sign Gardiner, Sheahan and Boyle. Boyle and Spezza can have fun there on the bench doing what oldies do at the bench. Talk weightloss or sailing etc. Or golf. Letang at 30% discount for a secondrounder. Then sit back and let the garden (!) grow. 10 firstrounders in five years. Perfect fit for perceived cheaper and cheaper signed stars.

 

[ToneDog]

Dahlin is a LHD.

Play Dermott on the right side or trade him or Muzzin.

 

[ToneDog]

I'd move Kapanen, Marner and Liljegren for Dahlin. And Buffalo still probably wouldn't do it.

If we get Botteril in a room with the Marner camp, I am sure they can convince him that Marner > Dahlin.

 

[Rob Brown]

You kind of contradicted yourself there.

Statement 1. They won't trade valuable assets if he won't sign with them.
Therefore if they are willing to trade valuable assets he is willing to sign with them,

If he is willing to sign with them clearly the situation would have changed from when they couldn't come to an agreement, and the contract they can sign him to after a trade becomes a viable offersheet option.

(Assuming at said contract level the Leafs cannot/will not match)

It's a fickle three way balancing act where a slight shift in value moves leverage to a different party.

Yeah we're discussing hypothetical trades that can only happen if Marner wants to sign there, and by all indications he does not, so the offer sheet talk is irrelevant. That sort of makes trade talks irrelevant too but those are always more fun haha.

 

[4thline]

Yeah we're discussing hypothetical trades that can only happen if Marner wants to sign there, and by all indications he does not, so the offer sheet talk is irrelevant. That sort of makes trade talks irrelevant too but those are always more fun haha.

That's what I'm saying, you can't have one without the other. OS is going to play a role in any trade discussion

 

[Nineteen67]

I've felt much better about the negotiation since the offer sheet on Aho.

I don't think some folks realize just what that did to Marner's negotiation. And notice how quiet Dreger has been since then? I hope his rep his ruined after that shameful display of "journalism" in May/June.

He’s on vacation.

 

[JT AM da real deal]

If you go on Capfriendly and try to make a CAP friendly opening night roster then the MAX you can pay Marner is 10.5M and be compliant with a 20 man roster. From there you can go up/down as required. It requires you to use Leafs cheapest AAV CAP guys at all other positions including goalie with Kask. There is 20,000 left doing that exercise. Then certain guys can get injured and move to IR like Timashev.

 

[Notsince67]

There isnt really a benefit to leaving it late for the leafs. The only benefit is not getting strong armed into a bad contract. Marner benefit is obvious, trying to get as much cash as possible and as much AAV so he feels 'equal' to Matthews

We saw Nylander come crawling back at the last minute when the idea of missing an entire season was almost a reality. Maybe Mitch would do that too.

It might be a bit more than a Matthews issue. Despite what people say here, a 10.5MM x 5 contract is not unprecedented for a RFA winger as far as cap hit
That is a 12.9% cap hit opposed to Kane's 11.09 RFA contract or a .96MM overpay but
Rick Nash was 13.85% for 5 years
Martin Havlat had a 1-year + a 4-year blended to 13.64%
Thomas Vanek had a 14.2% 7 year
Ilya Kovalchuk had a 16.41% over 5 years.

Auston Matthews is at 14.3% as an elite center

There seems to be an imaginary cap on wingers in some people's eyes. You just can't call it a day and say a pay in that range is unprecedented for a winger. It's not and until they can reconcile the performance differential gap, they will be stuck with a short term deal with clear criteria of what constitutes the drivers of future pay. You don't want to give this kid with a proven chip on his shoulder a bridge deal because he will make you pay if you have not bought some insurance.

 

[SeaOfBlue]

Then they OS and we're worse off then taking the deal.

As for since when- pretty much forever. The relevant one right now that comes to mind is Rychel >> Anderson + pick.

I don't agree with that at all. If they are giving us 4 first round picks, and we can turn around and flip those or go after an OS ourselves, I like our chances getting something better than that. I also like our chances at getting better from other teams if Marner is on the trade market. If we are trading a top tier piece, I don't want pieces that are two or three tiers below. I want someone in the same tier if possible, or one tier below and a gap filler (i.e. Werenski + pick, Dubois + cap + picks, etc.). I don't remember the last time someone of Marner's quality was traded for guys like Savard and Anderson (the two more valuable assets of the bunch) and the team didn't regret it. At the very least they'd need to add a couple of high end picks to make it worth our while, even if it means shipping them Ceci or something.

Also, for that particular example, Rychel was the better prospect at the time (which was 3 years ago coming off a time when he was one of the better guys on a Calder Cup winning team, so perhaps I was a bit biased from that). A lot of people thought Josh Anderson could have become a great bottom 6er or maybe a decent top 9er like he was the two years before this last one, but a lot of people expected Rychel to become what Anderson essentially did last year. Any prospect ranking I found had him above both Josh Anderson and William Karlsson at the time of the trade, and everyone thought Columbus lost because of Rychel's wanting out and having to deal from a position of weakness.

So unless you have some amazing foresight or are clairvoyant, this is just a pure hindsight argument. That sometimes happens with prospects, which is why even if they are top prospects, they are still called prospects. I mean technically Bracco could still be a total bust, while Timashov turns into a top 6 playmaker who puts up 50+ points per year. I would say a lot of people would say Bracco >> Timashov + pick right now, but that doesn't necessarily mean that is what is going to happen.

If I overrate or underrate a player on another team, I am at least going to be consistent. I'll overrate or underrate all of their players, not just their brand names . It would be because I have either not seen them enough or value qualities differently than others. If I have followed a player quite a bit and know quite a bit about them, which I have done a lot more with AHL guys in the past 3 years, or someone like Savard who I have targeted for at least 2 years now, then I am consistent and the only discrepancy comes from how I value certain types of guys differently than some others do. I guess maybe then if they are brand name then I'll see them more often, but in this case I would have seen Rychel and Anderson about equally.

 

[TheProspector]

I definitely will never understand the motivations of a player to hold out for +/- 10% of his salary to play for a team that he supposedly idolised growing up which is extremely competitive, and since they spend to the cap every year, every cap dollar you yield makes the team better. You're going to end up with $100mm+ career earnings any way you slice it.

I am by no means in the income bracket of these guys, but I'm a pretty highly compensated guy, and I've left money on the table to be in the position and team I want to be on. Consistent with the well-understood economics concept of declining marginal propensity to spend as income scales up, I could also sure use those extra dollars a lot more than Mitch -- or his great-great grandchildren -- could.

It's just bizarre, and difficult to relate to.

 

[IPS]

I definitely will never understand the motivations of a player to hold out for +/- 10% of his salary to play for a team that he supposedly idolised growing up which is extremely competitive, and since they spend to the cap every year, every cap dollar you yield makes the team better. You're going to end up with $100mm+ career earnings any way you slice it.

I am by no means in the income bracket of these guys, but I'm a pretty highly compensated guy, and I've left money on the table to be in the position and team I want to be on. Consistent with the well-understood economics concept of declining marginal propensity to spend as income scales up, I could also sure use those extra dollars a lot more than Mitch -- or his great-great grandchildren -- could.

It's just bizarre, and difficult to relate to.

Oh it's 100% an ego thing, make no mistake about it. Marner's gonna have to stomach Matthews making more money than him, no two ways about it.

It's difficult to relate to because none of us on here are pro athletes. Being at the top level develops a hell of an ego.

 

[Notsince67]

I definitely will never understand the motivations of a player to hold out for +/- 10% of his salary to play for a team that he supposedly idolised growing up which is extremely competitive, and since they spend to the cap every year, every cap dollar you yield makes the team better. You're going to end up with $100mm+ career earnings any way you slice it.

I am by no means in the income bracket of these guys, but I'm a pretty highly compensated guy, and I've left money on the table to be in the position and team I want to be on. Consistent with the well-understood economics concept of declining marginal propensity to spend as income scales up, I could also sure use those extra dollars a lot more than Mitch -- or his great-great grandchildren -- could.

It's just bizarre, and difficult to relate to.

If you were being coerced into fixing your pay for 40% of your career, you might think differently. You might agree to 30% of your career and then have some reservations of what the number should be

 

[Randy Randerson]

I definitely will never understand the motivations of a player to hold out for +/- 10% of his salary to play for a team that he supposedly idolised growing up which is extremely competitive, and since they spend to the cap every year, every cap dollar you yield makes the team better. You're going to end up with $100mm+ career earnings any way you slice it.

I am by no means in the income bracket of these guys, but I'm a pretty highly compensated guy, and I've left money on the table to be in the position and team I want to be on. Consistent with the well-understood economics concept of declining marginal propensity to spend as income scales up, I could also sure use those extra dollars a lot more than Mitch -- or his great-great grandchildren -- could.

It's just bizarre, and difficult to relate to.

agree with that, and no matter how this pans out Marner will accumulate an amount of wealth that will not only sustain his family line, but will actually grow if it's well managed. "Money makes money" is real & compound interest is the 8th wonder of the world. You might even be surprised at how (relatively) small the number is that would let you live very well off of the interest without ever touching the nest egg.

I also think that he's costing himself in the non-hockey related revenues department, a lot of fans seem disillusioned with him now.

I have a baby on the way, and I can tell you that he's not going to grow up a Marner fan after this summer if dad has anything to say about it. Marner should have been the Doug Gilmour for the next generation of fans, but I don't think he'll get that kind of love now.