Salary Cap: Marner Contract Discussion XX - The Dog Days of August V3

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Malkin far exceeded Matthews in ELC period; lets not Matthews is Malkin-level, and the coaching strategy of limiting our alleged Malkin-level talent's offensive minutes is conducive to winning.

Pretty cool eh?

Excuse me? Matthews had more 5v5 ATOI than Malkin in their ELC time.

 

[PromisedLand]

Matthews is Malkin-level, and the coaching strategy of limiting our alleged Malkin-level talent's offensive minutes is conducive to winning.

Pretty cool eh?

Babcock is a moron; there is no argument against that

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Malkin won awards;

I specifically said what they accomplished up until they signed their contracts. Malkin won 0 awards. Had same 5v5 ATOI as Matthews, had triple the PP time, and every minute Matthews was on the ice in his ELC, he was directly producing offense more than Malkin was, both 5v5 and on the PP.

 

[IPS]

Babcock is a moron; there is no argument against that

Indeed my only question is why the f*** is Dubas keeping this moron?

Why are we paying these kids like generational talents only to limit their offensive minutes and thus their overall ability to contribute to the team winning? Makes no god damn sense at all.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

One needs to understand that players universally produce more on the PP. Once you understand that and look at production appropriately, you'll find that the Leafs kids are paid just fine, and Marner will be too.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

If you're going to argue that Matthews' contract is horrible, you'll have to admit that Malkin's was horrible as well. If you want to say that Malkin is a better player, I agree that he probably is once you dig into the finer details beyond production, however the 8-9% less Matthews took on his contract seems appropriate to bridge that gap especially considering that he's been the best goal scorer in the league since day 1.

 

[PromisedLand]

I've heard others say that the leafs can use ltir in the offseason, so there is no difference between signing Marner now compared to first day of camp. I have no idea what the truth is.

that is true Leafs can use the LTIR right now and sign Marner but the max they will be able to spend is 89.65 million; 89.65 million is the magic number in the off-season.

Max Leafs can spend right now is 89.65M (including full LTIR releaf of 10.5M) yes they can sign marner now but the max number is 89.65M

If Leafs wait till the season opener the max they can spend in 92M 81.5 cap ceiling + 10.5 LTIR releaf = 92M

there is an additional cap flexibility of around 2.5M that leafs gain by waiting till the season begins.

Scenario:
Leafs current cap hit is 84M (with 3M LTIR used i.e. they have around 7.5 more LTIR they can use)

Lets say Leafs sign Marner now at 10AAV in the off-season

cap hit goes to 84 + 10 = 94 million (use the remaining 7.5 LTIR)

94-7.5 = 86.5M < 89.65M (allowed overage of 10%)

now by doing this Leafs max spending would be only around 86.5M in total for the rest of the season i.e. the max they could spend is 86.5M for the entire season because they have used the LTIR relief already;

but by waiting till the season starts and being close to the ceiling 81.5M (not including Marner) say 22 man roster; they gain cap flexibility more than 86.5M

The magic number for the Leafs for cap flexibility IMO is 92M

 

[zeke]

Can you link me these posts where you used these p/60 5v5 type stats prior to the 2016/17 season?

Nah I don't care nearly enough to do that.

If I recall correctly, you used an entirely different range of advanced stats then. You know... stats that made THAT team at the time look better.

Actually I ignored the advanced stats for a good while, until Randy's leafs forced me to see reality.

But even way back in the day, way before we had advanced stats, I was at least making sure to calculate points per game, and separating even strength and PP production, and always looking at ice time - long before we had any access to these new Fancy stats.

 

[PromisedLand]

Indeed my only question is why the **** is Dubas keeping this moron?

Why are we paying these kids like generational talents only to limit their offensive minutes and thus their overall ability to contribute to the team winning? Makes no god damn sense at all.

My only guess is Larry Tanenbaum; a lot of $$$ are tied to babcock MLSE might not like paying that guaranteed money to a guy for sitting at home

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Why are we paying these kids like generational talents only to limit their offensive minutes

Crosby 5v5 ATOI:
2007-08: 14.05
2008-09: 14.49
2009-10: 14.37

Matthews 5v5 ATOI:
2016-17: 14.07 (+0.02)
2017-18: 14.99 (+0.5)
2018-19: 15 (+.63)

 

[PromisedLand]

What I'm saying specifically is that I don't believe you.

You only started this whole /60 thing when you saw it's the most favourable stat for the current leaf players. Funny that.

If Matthews had three 100 point seasons, THAT'S what you would be citing. You'd be laughing at someone who tried suggesting 70 point players are just as good based on /60 numbers.

I simply don't believe you.

being healthy to play 82 games and playoffs and perform for that duration is an asset which is not part of the so called advanced metrics.

the contract between team and player is not just for p/60 or goal/60 but also to be healthy for entire duration of the season and playoffs to contibute to team success.

Matthews not able to play for 82 games season is actually a weakness regardless of p/60 BS;

So if McDavid and Crosby play full 82 game seasons contributing to the team compared to Matthews playing less than 82 game seasons contributing to his team

which do you think is more valuable?

Its almost like paying your employee to work 82 days in a year versus paying your other employee around the same ballpark to work 70 days in a year. Its not an apple to apple comparison IMO

Health matters
playing 82 games matters

being healthy and taking care of one's body to fully contribute to team success is an important criterion which is not discussed when talking about contracts which I think is lazy

 

[IPS]

Malkin's salary was totally acceptable for paying someone who was 2nd in league scoring.

We don't have anybody who's capable of being 2nd in league scoring, you can superimpose all of the TOI adjusted point totals you want and Matthews nor Marner will be there.

If you want generational talent money, you need generational talent results. We just say f*** that over in here Leaf land, we'll have a coach intentionally limit your offensive minutes and call you a generational talent anyway and pay you like one.

Anyone who's just grabbing these raw point totals like Marner's 94 points and directly comparing it to players from different eras don't have a god damn clue how the league pay-scale gets developed in the first place.

94 points today IS NOT THE SAME as 94 points was 10 years ago. They even had mega-inflated PP time 10 years ago and the 90+ point club was still a small one. 14 guys got over 90+ points last year.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

being healthy to play 82 games and playoffs and perform for that duration is an asset which is not part of the so called advanced metrics.

the contract between team and player is not just for p/60 or goal/60 but also to be healthy for entire duration of the season and playoffs to contibute to team success.

Matthews not able to play for 82 games season is actually a weakness regardless of p/60 BS;

So if McDavid and Crosby play full 82 game seasons contributing to the team compared to Matthews playing less than 82 game seasons contributing to his team

which do you think is more valuable?

Its almost like paying your employee to work 82 days in a year versus paying your other employee around the same ballpark to work 70 days in a year. Its not an apple to apple comparison IMO

Health matters
playing 82 games matters

being healthy and taking care of one's body to fully contribute to team success is an important criterion which is not discussed when talking about contracts which I think is lazy

This is a weak argument for suppressing a players' salary. So long as players are good, they get paid. Matthews is no different. Crosby was no different. Malkin hit injury troubles too, didn't affect his cap% for his next contract. There's no precedent to pay players less because they had injuries so long as they are still elite when they're on the ice.

What's your next excuse?

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Malkin's salary was totally acceptable for paying someone who was 2nd in league scoring.

There you go messing up on power plays again. Matthews was a better direct producer of offense as Malkin during their ELCs, objectively. That's exactly what the stats say, Pens and Malkin had triple the PP time. Matthews had more 5v5 ATOI than Malkin and outproduced him in primary points, almost doubling his goal output. Malkin had triple the PP time and produced less on average with those minutes than Matthews did.

Show me a player who HF boards considers a "steal of a contract" and I'll show you a player that got a shit ton of PP time (Kucherov, Kane, Malkin, etc...). Show me a rocket winner, an art ross winner, and I'll show you the player who got top of the league in PP time.

The inverse is correct for teams that had less overall PP time.

You'll always be confused about contracts until you understand that players score more on the PP, and it 100% is taken into consideration when determining how well a player produces, and obviously rightfully so.

 

[Notsince67]

a much, much bigger issue is ignoring huge differences in PP time.

but yeah, obviously, a goal is worth more than a primary assist is worth more than a secondary assist is worth more than a tertiary assist etc.

I mean, the NHL could choose to record 3rd assists as a "point" too, if they wanted. There's no real reason not to, other than that it's a worth a bit less than a secondary assist is, just like a secondary assist is worth less than a first assist, just like a first assist is worth less than a goal.

Ill agree to a point. The repeatability of goals vs primary assists arent hugely different though. Primary assists are a great indicator of skill. Secondary assists are more a function of deployment...for a forward. Nothing is really absolute in this game though. JVR scored a bunch of goals in a sheltered role.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

It boggles my mind how people want to hate on their own players so much that they'll refuse to acknowledge the obvious impact of PP time just so they can shit all over their team's best player's contract

 

[PromisedLand]

This is a weak argument for suppressing a players' salary. So long as players are good, they get paid. Matthews is no different. Crosby was no different. Malkin hit injury troubles too, didn't affect his cap% for his next contract. There's no precedent to pay players less because they had injuries so long as they are still elite when they're on the ice.

What's your next excuse?

The answer is the on-ice results. Malkin has 4 trips to the SCF; one smythe, art-ross etc...

When comparing Matthews to Malkin ignoring Malkin's accomplishments and treating Matthews the same as Malkin shows the limited understanding of hockey.

Also not factoring in that scoring is up in recent years compared to when Malkin got those points also points to low aptitude in conducting any proper analysis.

- goalie equipment now (smaller) Vs goalie equipment when Malkin was scoring (bigger)
- more room behind the net (now) Vs less room behind the net (then)
- penalties called more often (now) vs more clutch and grab allowed (then)

comparing production now versus then need to factor the above mentioned cases.

Scoring was much harder when both Malkin/Crosby were in their ELCs compared to now when both Matthews/Marner/Nylander are in their ELCs

goals scoring has been very high these recent years compared to the past cannot compare them directly have to adjust the data (without being biased - which a lot of metrics do not do)

 

[IPS]

There you go messing up on power plays again. Matthews was a better direct producer of offense as Malkin during their ELCs, objectively. That's exactly what the stats say, Pens and Malkin had triple the PP time. Matthews had more 5v5 ATOI than Malkin and outproduced him in primary points, almost doubling his goal output. Malkin had triple the PP time and produced less on average with those minutes than Matthews did.

Show me a player who HF boards considers a "steal of a contract" and I'll show you a player that got a **** ton of PP time (Kucherov, Kane, Malkin, etc...). Show me a rocket winner, an art ross winner, and I'll show you the player who got top of the league in PP time.

The inverse is correct for teams that had less overall PP time.

You'll always be confused about contracts until you understand that players score more on the PP, and it 100% is taken into consideration when determining how well a player produces, and obviously rightfully so.

Omg you are killing me here brother

When Malkin's playing 5+ minutes a game on the PP, no f***ing shit he's going to be playing less ES minutes. No player tops out in both unless you're interested in fatiguing the f*** out of them. Matthews has more 5v5 ATOI BECAUSE he played so much less than Malkin. Malkin was 5th in EV/TOI in his Art Ross winning season. Matthews was 33rd in EV/TOI.

Do you account for ANY OF THIS when you're putting out these stats to try and equalize Matthews to Malkin? And not only that, but producing at ES was HARDER 10 years ago than it was today. League scoring at ES was noticeably lower, so players needed that incredibly inflated PP time to come near the point totals that guys last year were putting up.


There are sooooo many things that need to be adjusted for when you're comparing players usage from different eras. You and a couple others take like 2 out of the 20 things you need and pretend it's all equal. It's just honestly not even worth replying to.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Malkin has 4 trips to the SCF; one smythe, art-ross etc...

Wrong. Team success does not get a player paid. They get paid for how good of a hockey player they are. No smythe, no art ross before he signed his contract. No awards. I already clarified. Start again and take the context of the contract and discussion into consideration.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Do you account for ANY OF THIS when you're putting out these stats to try and equalize Matthews to Malkin?

Of course, I already told you Malkin got a shit ton of PP time. It was taken into consideration. Matthews produced better than Malkin during their ELCs, plain and simple.

 

[IPS]

Just for future reference for you stats folks: I would bet my bottom $ that there's not a single GM in the league who takes last decades pay-scale into account when they're paying for a player today. They will be working within the parameters of today and today only when it comes to finding their payscale.

The comparable we had for Matthews was McDavid. Now Matthews did get an adjusted cap-hit for a lower % than McDavid did, but I personally am not expecting any McDavid-level results from Matthews during his time here.

Of course, I already told you Malkin got a **** ton of PP time. It was taken into consideration. Matthews produced better than Malkin during their ELCs, plain and simple.

Omg you just don't get it

Like I said, not even worth replying to.

 

[PromisedLand]

Wrong. Team success does not get a player paid. They get paid for how good of a hockey player they are. No smythe, no art ross before he signed his contract. No awards. I already clarified. Start again and take the context of the contract and discussion into consideration.

your argument is filled with flaws and does not account different era of hockey, different rules in hockey now vs then; any point you are trying to make in regards to matthews vs malkin is filled with biases.

Malkin ELC period >> Matthews ELC period

a blind man can see that. Your understanding of how to analyze data and process it appropriately without any biases seems to be very limited and you are not able to distinguish between achievements then vs now while trying to make apples to apples comparison; because it is not.

 

[Nineteen67]

Really depends on what players want. If money is the primary driving factor results not as much then this team is never going to accomplish anything. If money is a primary driving factor but results a close second then we may have a chance. If results becomes the primary driving factor then this team will have a high probability of winning the cup.

At least for now it seems that money is the primary driving factor and results not so much... The setting of the culture and mindset starts from management IMO; Shanny tried to do it when he was quoted saying "they are expecting their stars to take a little less"; Dubas on the other hand just opened the vaults.

Money is the primary force, but the good thing is, every team they play has the same driving force.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Nah I don't care nearly enough to do that.



Actually I ignored the advanced stats for a good while, until Randy's leafs forced me to see reality.

But even way back in the day, way before we had advanced stats, I was at least making sure to calculate points per game, and separating even strength and PP production, and always looking at ice time - long before we had any access to these new Fancy stats.

Remember when I said I didn't believe you?

Still there.

Again, I seem to remember you being all about corsi and fenwick and stuff back then. Thus proving my ongoing theory... whatever stats the CURRENT leafs are good at, are the flavour of the month for you.

 

[Notsince67]

Just for future reference for you stats folks: I would bet my bottom $ that there's not a single GM in the league who takes last decades pay-scale into account when they're paying for a player today. They will be working within the parameters of today and today only when it comes to finding their payscale.

The comparable we had for Matthews was McDavid. Now Matthews did get an adjusted cap-hit for a lower % than McDavid did, but I personally am not expecting any McDavid-level results from Matthews during his time here.



Omg you just don't get it

Like I said, not even worth replying to.

You assume the payscale is rational. The fact that the payscale has changed just indicates that the league changes based on its current reality. The myth of the overpaid centers is blown apary in yesteryear when guys like Jagr were being paid more after largely being seen as the best player. There is a real arrogance among fans these days who think that current conventions will never shift because they are so much better. There have always been disruptors in hockey, from players to strategies and systems and rule changes. Maybe things like points go up for things other than goalie equipment. When players who in the past had to worry about getting their heads taken off, some of them would score less. Others had greater skill avoiding the hits, so they were affected less.