Tony Montana: In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.
Old Leafs way: First you gotta see if your ill conceived, restricted to the 401 only, dart toss for a draft pick worked out, then if the player works out, then he has the power. Now that the player has the power, you have to pay him lots, and you have singed up for the law of diminishing returns and inflation of player wages is your enemy, as he is older, every year he is getting weaker, older and slower and the law of diminishing returns kicks in and inflation kicks in so you pay him because he has the power once the best years are behind him. If not a complete disaster, this old Leafs method resulted in teams that were rather dreary.
New Leafs Way: You have a statistical theory of the game. You do weighted averaging and calculus and real deal statistical analysis, conceivably a different model for each different position. You have real deal scouts who fill out and provide useful information that can be entered into a spreadsheet. You have draftable players, players in the NHL, players in the AHL all ranked for various purposes including salary cap considerations. Now the team hits gold more often than before at the draft, and trades up or down based on that math, and the player more than likely will pan out, and so now you pay him when he a restricted free agent, and you pay him lots, and the player wrongly thinks he has the power. But the team has the power, because instead of paying for yesterday's results, you are paying for tomorrow's - the glorious law of increasing returns! And further, because of inflation in player salaries, that apparently stupid sucker deal is now a bargain! In fact, that low wage for that player is a tradable commodity- those low wages drive the value of the player higher than what that player based exclusively on performance is worth! Genius! This is. First you draft the player, then the player pans out, then you pay the player for what he will be in the future, then the team has the power, and the player is underpaid! I know this is a new way of thinking, so those who do not believe in analytics can be forgiven.
Could someone really be so stupid as to give up 4 first round draft picks? Has it ever been done? Is it worth making a qualifying offer (NOTE - they are only for 1 year per CBA, as I understand it) to Marner 10.5 Million to see if we can get 4 firsts for him? I know if I were a GM, giving up 4 consecutive first round picks is something of which I would be leary
But saving 10 Million and using analytics to score in the draft in the salary cap era with inflation driving up wages every year, I think we need to learn that these seemingly outrageous deals our technocrat GM has arranged are in fact brilliant, and stem of analytical vision
