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

[ULF_55]

Are all the other RFAs waiting for Marner to sign because they believe Dubas has been overpaying his players and they want him to set the market?

Wouldn't account for the defensemen who are not looking for anything close to the money we're hearing.

Werenski wants a 3 year deal around 5-6?

Maybe 2 streams -- Forwards
\ Defenders

 

[Dekes For Days]

The minutes Marner didn't play we can't assume he would be as productive.

The only assumption being made is by you, that Marner is going to suddenly have his production rates over huge samples plummet by playing an extra couple minutes a game on the PP, the least energy-intensive time you can play.

These production rates are things he has actually done over a huge sample, and even a substantial drop in PP production rate over equal time would see Marner surpassing Kane in raw production.

At some point Marner's production would start to drop off. Is that with 30 sec more ice time, with 1 min more, with 15 min more ?

There is also no evidence that increased TOI decreases production rates, at least at the level of time differences we are discussing.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I would argue that Point, Aho and Rantanen are all in the same tier of RFA's.

ELCs:
Marner: ES 14:19 (A qoc), 2.33p/60, 1.90p1/60, PP 2:21, 7.02p/60, 4.59p1/60
Point: ES 14:59 (A qoc), 2.20p/60, 1.77p1/60, PP 2:39, 5.79p/60, 3.44p1/60
Aho: ES 14:40 (A qoc), 2.00p/60, 1.52p1/60, PP 2:38, 5.07p/60, 3.47p1/60
Rantanen: ES 15:07 (A+ qoc), 1.98p/60, 1.44p1/60, PP 3:29, 5.67p/60, 4.20p1/60

Rantanen had the best linemates, by far. Point 2nd best. Aho and Marner relatively similar over their ELCs overall, though Tavares was better than anybody Aho has gotten to play with.

What is interesting is TB only has a tad under 9 million left in cap space. With Point to resign. Their GM is on record stating that no more players will be traded and only Point to be signed after their Maroon signing. Which tells you that point will sign for under 9 million per season. How long is the question?

I'm pretty sure talk recently has been about Point signing a bridge deal, no?

 

[Stephen]

All the posters that think he should be paid more then both.

If you follow that conversation back, I was going back and forth with a poster saying he is better then Kane now.

The better then Kucherov post I quoted, wasn't actually said, that was more of a over exaggeration on my part to the earlier conversation.

Marner isn’t better than Kane now.

 

[Fogelhund]

Dubas has not been overpaying his players. He simply has great players. All RFAs are waiting for anybody to sign, so that current comparables can be used. Marner may be the most looked to because he is the best of the bunch and most publicized, but anybody could get the ball rolling.

The biggest thing holding up signings is simply that there is nothing to lose yet. We will see signings start to happen as we get to the middle of September leading into October.

I don't think Nylander's $6.9 cap hit is an overpayment on the Cap.

I don't think Matthews getting $11.6 is an overpayment... if it were 8 years. It's too much on a five year deal, that walks him to Free Agency though.

 

[Dekes For Days]

But the way you are calculating it diminishes the start to that season he had (only 26 games worth of his amazing pace in the 3rd year).
He was on a 1.0 P/G when he signed the contract. This is also information they had at time of signing.

Yes, and I included his P/G pace in the 26 games that he played in my statistics.
What he would do after that is not information they had at time of signing.

So if they assumed his pace would continue:

Kane 142 points in 162 games. 0.88 P/G pace (First 2 seasons)
Kane 82 points in 82 games. 1.0 P/G pace (3rd Season)

So Kane's pace turns into 0.94 P/G he actually hit this pace almost exactly after the season. This is what should be compared to Marner's 0.93 P/G

Um... are you turning pace over 26 games into 82 games and then equating his 82 game pace to his 162 game pace?

If they assumed his pace would continue, and based his contract on that, it would actually be 0.92 (0.918) production over his ELC, which is still less than Marner, and he would still have lower rate of production at ES and on the PP, in both points and primary points.

 

[Stephen]

If you want to be especially detailed about the Kane vs Marner comparisons, Kane actually signed in December 2009 when he was at a PPG average and his team was sitting at the top of the standings.

Kane, Toews, Keith sign lucrative contract extensions with Chicago Blackhawks - TheHockeyNews

 

[Dekes For Days]

I don't think Matthews getting $11.6 is an overpayment... if it were 8 years. It's too much on a five year deal, that walks him to Free Agency though.

I get why you feel that way, because Matthews hasn't had the same opportunity to put up a shiny number in one year like many stars do, which leads to many undervaluing him, but Matthews is paid fairly relative to his modern and historical comparables, term included.

Also, "walk to FA" is a term that is used to explain a contract that buys no UFA years. Why have people suddenly started using it to describe Matthews' contract when it doesn't apply? I'm genuinely confused.

 

[Fogelhund]

Bang on the money for that one !!! I couldn't agree more I've been reading this saga since the start ...lol and I full heartedly believe that he should not get a dime over 9.5 on a 7 to 8 year deal anything different would be a tough pill to swallow for the team and fans alike ...

9.1-9.5 is about his "market" price, prior to this year. So far this year, guys are getting overpaid... which kind of stretches him to $10.2, again on a 7-8 year deal. If we can get him under $10.2m I don't think it's terrible, assuming the rest of the UFA's also end up coming above their expected "market".

 

[18leafsfan18]

Yes, and I included his P/G pace in the 26 games that he played in my statistics.
What he would do after that is not information they had at time of signing.

Your using P/G stats that don't tell the whole story, that is the entire point here.

You are only using the lowest production of Kane (first 2 1/4 years of ELC).

The team when they signed him saw that his production was increasing again (1.0 P/G pace), if you don't think that was a huge determining factor for signing him when they did, then your lying to yourself.

You honestly think the only information a team uses to determine a player is past production and past point totals ?

Um... are you turning pace over 26 games into 82 games and then equating his 82 game pace to his 162 game pace?

If they assumed his pace would continue, and based his contract on that, it would actually be 0.92 (0.918) production over his ELC, which is still less than Marner, and he would still have lower rate of production at ES and on the PP, in both points and primary points.

Math error by me there, sorry about that.

The fact is though, if you are going to compare the 2 players you should use the entire ELC years, not just the 2 1/4 seasons you are using for Kane (His team was obviously banking on him continuing his 1 P/G pace).

Throughout their whole ELC Kane has the edge.

 

[kb]

I get why you feel that way, because Matthews hasn't had the same opportunity to put up a shiny number in one year like many stars do, which leads to many undervaluing him, but Matthews is paid fairly relative to his modern and historical comparables, term included.

Also, "walk to FA" is a term that is used to explain a contract that buys no UFA years. Why have people suddenly started using it to describe Matthews' contract when it doesn't apply? I'm genuinely confused.

Exactly, anything 4 years and more takes him to UFA status....but he isn't being walked there, especially when one considers that so many other stars signed for 5 years coming off their ELCs. They weren't "walked to UFA"

 

[Fogelhund]

I get why you feel that way, because Matthews hasn't had the same opportunity to put up a shiny number in one year like many stars do, which leads to many undervaluing him, but Matthews is paid fairly relative to his modern and historical comparables, term included.

Also, "walk to FA" is a term that is used to explain a contract that buys no UFA years. Why have people suddenly started using it to describe Matthews' contract when it doesn't apply? I'm genuinely confused.

Is he though? Eichel, 8 years at 13.3 % Matthews 5 years at 14.63%

I can see Matthews getting a great cap hit... but at the same term... I think if it's a shorter term, it shouldn't be so high.

Sure, Crosby had a five year term as well, with a great cap hit %... so there is that counter argument.

Is Matthews not an UFA at the end of this contract? I'm sure I've read that a few times, but if I'm wrong, fair enough.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Your using P/G stats that don't tell the whole story, that is the entire point here.

They do tell the whole story for the purposes of determining their contract value at time of signing.

You are only using the lowest production of Kane (first 2 1/4 years of ELC).

I am using the entirety of time before they signed their contracts, which is the only relevant time.
For P/60 and P1/60, I am even using their whole ELCs, which overvalues Kane, and he still falls short.

The team when they signed him saw that his production was increasing again (1.0 P/G pace), if you don't think that was a huge determining factor for signing him when they did, then your lying to yourself.

In 2008-2009, Kane started the season with 28 points in 22 games (pre-December 3rd). He ended with 70 points.

I have a hard time believing that Chicago assumed that because Kane was P/G over 26 games, that he would finish the season at that pace and paid him full value for that despite the risk, even though he was on a better pace the year before and ended with 70 points.

We're getting into internal conversations and what we think Chicago thought, which none of us know. What we do know, is their production at time of signing, which has always been used in some form as the main factor in contract valuation.

You honestly think the only information a team uses to determine a player is past production and past point totals ?

There's a bunch of other context that can be looked at, but past production is by far the biggest factor in contract valuation.

if you are going to compare the 2 players you should use the entire ELC years, not just the 2 1/4 seasons you are using for Kane

If you are comparing what 2 players have earned for their contracts, you compare what they had done in the relevant time before they signed their contracts.

(His team was obviously banking on him continuing his 1 P/G pace).

You are making assumptions. You don't know this. And even if they did bank on this, there is no evidence that Chicago gave a contract that assumes and fully pays for Kane's post-contract production.

Throughout their whole ELC Kane has the edge.

Nope. Marner clearly had the better rate of production over their entire ELCs, as we can see in their ES and PP P/60 and P1/60. The gap in raw production is minimal, and Kane got a ton more time on the PP to get it, where it is much easier to score. Pretty much the only thing Kane was better at was being born at the right time to get PP time.

Marner was the better player over their ELCs. The separation in post-ELC contract value is even greater.

 

[18leafsfan18]

They do tell the whole story for the purposes of determining their contract value at time of signing.


I am using the entirety of time before they signed their contracts, which is the only relevant time.
For P/60 and P1/60, I am even using their whole ELCs, which overvalues Kane, and he still falls short.


In 2008-2009, Kane started the season with 28 points in 22 games (pre-December 3rd). He ended with 70 points.

I have a hard time believing that Chicago assumed that because Kane was P/G over 26 games, that he would finish the season at that pace and paid him full value for that despite the risk, even though he was on a better pace the year before and ended with 70 points.

We're getting into internal conversations and what we think Chicago thought, which none of us know. What we do know, is their production at time of signing, which has always been used in some form as the main factor in contract valuation.


There's a bunch of other context that can be looked at, but past production is by far the biggest factor in contract valuation.


If you are comparing what 2 players have earned for their contracts, you compare what they had done in the relevant time before they signed their contracts.


You are making assumptions. You don't know this. And even if they did bank on this, there is no evidence that Chicago gave a contract that assumes and fully pays for Kane's post-contract production.


Nope. Marner clearly had the better rate of production over their entire ELCs, as we can see in their ES and PP P/60 and P1/60. The gap in raw production is minimal, and Kane got a ton more time on the PP to get it, where it is much easier to score. Pretty much the only thing Kane was better at was being born at the right time to get PP time.

Marner was the better player over their ELCs. The separation in post-ELC contract value is even greater.

Your stats aren't wrong, and that's not what I'm saying. They are however misleading. We are not going to agree on this, and that's fine (Enough time wasted).

I know you understand what I'm saying and you don't want to acknowledge that.

Really if this is the way you want to compare the 2 players (Kane based on 2 years and Marner based on 3) they aren't comparable.

I guess you have to compare Marner to other players who completed their ELC before resigning.

 

[ULF_55]

Your stats aren't wrong, and that's not what I'm saying. They are however misleading. We are not going to agree on this, and that's fine (Enough time wasted).

I know you understand what I'm saying and you don't want to acknowledge that.

Really if this is the way you want to compare the 2 players (Kane based on 2 years and Marner based on 3) they aren't comparable.

I guess you have to compare Marner to other players who completed their ELC before resigning.

Yes, please take this offline and discuss amongst yourselves.

 

[Dekes For Days]

Is he though? Eichel, 8 years at 13.3 % Matthews 5 years at 14.63%

I assume you got this from Capfriendly. Matthews' cap hit percentage is not and never has been 14.63%.

Matthews' signing percentage is 14.0%. His actual cap hit percentage in the first year of his deal is 14.27%.
Eichel's signing percentage is more difficult because it wasn't under an announced cap, but it is likely somewhere around 13.0%. It aligns too perfectly with a reasonable cap projection (based on increases in the previous 3 years) for that to not be what they were going for.

Matthews blows Eichel out of the water in pretty much every way though.

ELCs:

Matthews: ES 15:13 (A qoc), 2.60p/60, 2.29p1/60, +0.8cfrel, +2.2xgfrel - PP 2:22, 6.31p/60, 4.90p1/60
Eichel: ES 15:19 (B+ qoc), 1.88p/60, 1.44p1/60, -0.1cfrel, +0.1xgfrel - PP 3:10, 5.69p/60, 3.79p1/60

This actually flatters Eichel for the purposes of contract valuation because this counts his 3rd year (his best), which is after he signed. It also counts after Matthews signed, when his production rate decreased.

Sure, Crosby had a five year term as well, with a great cap hit %... so there is that counter argument.

Crosby is really tricky as a comparable because he took a very specific and special number to him that didn't really match his market value at all. Malkin is a decent historical comparable though. It was discussed earlier in this thread or a previous thread (cant keep track at this point ).

Is Matthews not an UFA at the end of this contract? I'm sure I've read that a few times, but if I'm wrong, fair enough.

He is... but being "walked to UFA" has historically always meant that you buy no UFA years. Technically 8 years "walks him to UFA" if it applies here. Matthews' contract buys 4 RFA years and 1 UFA year.

I know you probably didn't mean anything by it, but it's really weird to see something mean one thing for my whole life, and now suddenly people are applying it to mean something different for Matthews out of nowhere. Very confusing.

 

[Dekes For Days]

I know you understand what I'm saying and you don't want to acknowledge that.

I understand what you're saying, but you're going off pure unsubstantiated assumptions. There is no evidence that Chicago paid Kane for assumptions of his production that would happen after he signed, and especially not at full value. There is also no reason for Chicago to believe that his production would maintain or increase when his production fell drastically despite a better pace the year before.

Players have always been paid for what they have done up to the point they have signed. I don't understand why this is a point of contention now...

Signing early could have backfired on either the team or the player. It feels like you're using the fact that it worked out for the team, and using hindsight to apply that to the conditions of their signing. If Kane's production had plummeted and he had put up 70 points again, would you be saying that Chicago knew that and paid him less?

Pretty much everything points to Marner being worth more.

 

[18leafsfan18]

I understand what you're saying, but you're going off pure unsubstantiated assumptions. There is no evidence that Chicago paid Kane for assumptions of his production that would happen after he signed, and especially not at full value. There is also no reason for Chicago to believe that his production would maintain or increase when his production fell drastically despite a better pace the year before.

Players have always been paid for what they have done up to the point they have signed. I don't understand why this is a point of contention now...

Pretty much everything points to Marner being worth more.

You are missing the point that I tried to show you multiple times. Time for us both to move on from it I think. I may not be explaining myself well.

 

[Fogelhund]

I assume you got this from Capfriendly. Matthews' cap hit percentage is not and never has been 14.63%.

Matthews' signing percentage is 14.0%. His actual cap hit percentage in the first year of his deal is 14.27%.
Eichel's signing percentage is more difficult because it wasn't under an announced cap, but it is likely somewhere around 13.0%. It aligns too perfectly with a reasonable cap projection (based on increases in the previous 3 years) for that to not be what they were going for.

Matthews blows Eichel out of the water in pretty much every way though.

ELCs:

Matthews: ES 15:13 (A qoc), 2.60p/60, 2.29p1/60, +0.8cfrel, +2.2xgfrel - PP 2:22, 6.31p/60, 4.90p1/60
Eichel: ES 15:19 (B+ qoc), 1.88p/60, 1.44p1/60, -0.1cfrel, +0.1xgfrel - PP 3:10, 5.69p/60, 3.79p1/60

This actually flatters Eichel for the purposes of contract valuation because this counts his 3rd year (his best), which is after he signed. It also counts after Matthews signed, when his production rate decreased.


Crosby is really tricky as a comparable because he took a very specific and special number to him that didn't really match his market value at all. Malkin is a decent historical comparable though. It was discussed earlier in this thread or a previous thread (cant keep track at this point ).


He is... but being "walked to UFA" has historically always meant that you buy no UFA years. Technically 8 years "walks him to UFA" if it applies here. Matthews' contract buys 4 RFA years and 1 UFA year.

I know you probably didn't mean anything by it, but it's really weird to see something mean one thing for my whole life, and now suddenly people are applying it to mean something different for Matthews out of nowhere. Very confusing.

Yes, % from Cap friendly.

Yes, Matthews is better than Eichel. The longer the contract, the higher the pay... and I'm not sure that he is a higher cap %, plus three years shorter term better.

Yes, my terminology was off... but to be a UFA after just five more years.... risky

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Raw Stats show Kane was better

What no, I’ve fully address this. Your “raw stats” compare a bunch of Kane’s PP time against Marners 5v5 time. You don’t need raw stats to know players are better in the PP than they are 5v5. That’s literally all p/g or point totals are doing when you cross over from p/60

 

[18leafsfan18]

What no, I’ve fully address this. Your “raw stats” compare a bunch of Kane’s PP time against Marners 5v5 time. You don’t need raw stats to know players are better in the PP than they are 5v5. That’s literally all p/g or point totals are doing when you cross over from p/60

We obviously have a different opinion of what raw stats are.

Kane: 76 G - 154 A - 230 P
Marner: 67 G - 157 A - 224 P

If you are only going to quote 6 words, then should I be responding to any more of my post ?

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

We obviously have a different opinion of what raw stats are.

Kane: 76 G - 154 A - 230 P
Marner: 67 G - 157 A - 224 P

If you are only going to quote 6 words, then should I be responding to any more of my post ?

Those are points scored on both PP and 5v5. Players universally score more on PP than 5v5. Not sure it gets any easier than that. It’s only 6 words worth of indisputable logic that you seem to repeatedly ignore

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Yes, % from Cap friendly.

Yes, Matthews is better than Eichel. The longer the contract, the higher the pay... and I'm not sure that he is a higher cap %, plus three years shorter term better.

Yes, my terminology was off... but to be a UFA after just five more years.... risky

Eichel cap percentage at time of signing: 13.3 At time of contract beginning: 12.6

Matthews cap percentage at time of signing: 14.6. At time of contract beginning: 14.2

You can pick one or the other. But what Dekes is doing has never been done spanning the history of everything. He’s using Matthews cap percentage at time of projected cap hit. A projected hit that Bettman CLEARY states is an estimate with a margin of error of millions of dollars that is almost ALWAYS wrong by a few million.

Just understand that Dekes and Clark34 are quite literally the only two people to EVER make such an argument.

 

[saffronleaf]

If Dubois had the courage, he should trade Marner and fire Babcock.

 

[Eric Bungay]

9.1-9.5 is about his "market" price, prior to this year. So far this year, guys are getting overpaid... which kind of stretches him to $10.2, again on a 7-8 year deal. If we can get him under $10.2m I don't think it's terrible, assuming the rest of the UFA's also end up coming above their expected "market".

I just dont understand why dubas didn't get this done last off season we maybe could have had him for 9 x 8 which would have been great !!! Wishful thinking I guess..lol