Salary Cap: Marner contract signing watch discussion.

[Gary Nylund]

Endorsements do not and should not be a factor because it's quite literally money made for doing other work outside of the work they do to make their NHL salaries. Why would that count in their NHL salary negotiations? If I have 2 jobs. 1 of which (B) is only afforded because I happen to be good at another (A) doesn't suddenly mean I should be expected to take less for doing job A

Marner will make a lot more endorsement money in Toronto then he would make anywhere else. That has nothing to do with how well Marner does his "endorsement job" and it has everything to do with Toronto being Toronto. If you're Toronto's GM and you ignore the leverage provided by this simple fact than IMO you're not doing your job properly.

 

[diceman934]

He's a winger and gets a ton of assists not goals, those things matter contractually

I did see Friedman talking about him wanting Matthews contract and being unwilling to give us a solid contract demand

Now I spent some time in the Nylander thread so I'm wondering what we should agree on calling this me first greedy player

I never called Nylander greedy once. But knock yourself out call Marner any name you want. I simply call him out Franchise player.

 

[Mess]

Probably similar to what I said when Matthews was signed.

It's not a good deal but a manageable one.

Is that the same as saying its a bad deal but defensible?

Synonyms for "not a good deal" ... Poor, bad, unpleasant, unfavorable, terrible, dreadful, awful, grim, distressing, regrettable, unpleasant, disagreeable, unwelcome, unfavourable etc.

Substitute any of those similar terms above to describe the Matthews deal and it would be hard to dispute that fact.

Throw all the comparables out the window when it comes to predicting how our GM is managing theses contracts, and now brace yourself to expect a "not so good deal" for Marner to follow past precedence.

You can't apply logic to illogical !!

PS. This guys @EvolvingWild spreadsheet likely exploded then imploded when he predicted $11.5 mil X 8 years for Matthews. So his numbers for Marner $9.79 mil X 8 years likely to have a similar effect.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Endorsements do not and should not be a factor because it's quite literally money made for doing other work outside of the work they do to make their NHL salaries. Why would that count in their NHL salary negotiations? If I have 2 jobs. 1 of which (B) is only afforded because I happen to be good at another (A) doesn't suddenly mean I should be expected to take less for doing job A

Under that same line of reasoning, different tax rates shouldn’t affect total dollars signed for.
If I work for a company under a contract, and they offer to transfer me to another state/province, they don’t pay me more/less to offset the tax differences.

The fact is if you play in tampa, they get them for lower aav’s due to the tax advantage. And if you play in Toronto, they should get them for lower aav’s based on all the additional money you can make as a maple leaf.

And what about the front loading/signing bonus argument?

 

[Sypher04]

Under that same line of reasoning, different tax rates shouldn’t affect total dollars signed for.
If I work for a company under a contract, and they offer to transfer me to another state/province, they don’t pay me more/less to offset the tax differences.

The fact is if you play in tampa, they get them for lower aav’s due to the tax advantage. And if you play in Toronto, they should get them for lower aav’s based on all the additional money you can make as a maple leaf.

And what about the front loading/signing bonus argument?

I'm not sure how you remotely equate the two. One is the amount of dollars paid after taxes for their NHL work. while the other is money paid doing a completely different job for a different employer.
The ONLY reason the taxes debate is brought up is within the concept that cap dollars should be equal from market to market.
Front loading and signing bonuses is a legitimate discussion point though as it directly relates to money paid for their NHL work.

 

[Sypher04]

Marner will make a lot more endorsement money in Toronto then he would make anywhere else. That has nothing to do with how well Marner does his "endorsement job" and it has everything to do with Toronto being Toronto. If you're Toronto's GM and you ignore the leverage provided by this simple fact than IMO you're not doing your job properly.

No agent worth a damn would allow a team to artificially lower an AAV below what they want because their client can do work elsewhere in the market for extra cash. The endorsements in that market are literally money paid for extra work and as such should have zero bearing on their NHL salary.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

No agent worth a damn would allow a team to artificially lower an AAV below what they want because their client can do work elsewhere in the market for extra cash. The endorsements in that market are literally money paid for extra work and as such should have zero bearing on their NHL salary.

This is the PRECISE type of excuse people would be using to defend Dubas if it were happening in reverse.

If Dubas was a small market and was overpaying his players, all the defenders would be SCREAMING “Players demand more to play here because they can’t make endorsement deals”.
Also, if Dubas was on a team that couldn’t afford front loading/signing bonus contracts, his defenders would be SCREAMING “Dubas has to pay more because he can’t front load the way the bigger markets can”.

If you come to Toronto, you can EASILY make more money due to endorsements. That should be part of the equation.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

No agent worth a damn would allow a team to artificially lower an AAV below what they want because their client can do work elsewhere in the market for extra cash. The endorsements in that market are literally money paid for extra work and as such should have zero bearing on their NHL salary.

Why wouldn’t agents demand the same aav as players on other teams regardless of tax rates?
“New York is paying this comparable player 12% of the cap ceiling. That’s what we want too.”

 

[Menzinger]

Is that the same as saying its a bad deal but defensible?

Synonyms for "not a good deal" ... Poor, bad, unpleasant, unfavorable, terrible, dreadful, awful, grim, distressing, regrettable, unpleasant, disagreeable, unwelcome, unfavourable etc.

Substitute any of those to describe the Matthews deal and it would be hard to dispute that fact.

Throw all the comparables out the window when it comes to predicting how our GM is managing theses contracts, and now brace yourself to expect a "not so good deal" for Marner to follow past precedence.

You can't apply logic to illogical !!

PS. This guys @EvolvingWild spreadsheet likely exploded then imploded when he predicted $11.5 mil X 8 years for Matthews. So his numbers for Marner $9.79 mil X 8 years likely to have a similar effect.

A "good deal" is one like Kadris. One where the player has significant room to out perform their caphit.

Those arent at all what I'd call synonyms for the word "manageable", A more accurate one would be "fair".

Matthew's likely not going to out perform his caphit but at the same, time it's a deal that allows one of the best centres in the world to play for the Leafs for the next half decade for a caphit that fits.

It would be a similar deal with Marner. A contract for him at the 9.5-10.5 range wouldnt be "good" but one that allows the Leafs to keep him while not being very disruptive of the teams cap position.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Is that the same as saying its a bad deal but defensible?

Synonyms for "not a good deal" ... Poor, bad, unpleasant, unfavorable, terrible, dreadful, awful, grim, distressing, regrettable, unpleasant, disagreeable, unwelcome, unfavourable etc.

Substitute any of those similar terms above to describe the Matthews deal and it would be hard to dispute that fact.

Throw all the comparables out the window when it comes to predicting how our GM is managing theses contracts, and now brace yourself to expect a "not so good deal" for Marner to follow past precedence.

You can't apply logic to illogical !!

PS. This guys @EvolvingWild spreadsheet likely exploded then imploded when he predicted $11.5 mil X 8 years for Matthews. So his numbers for Marner $9.79 mil X 8 years likely to have a similar effect.

I notice that it has Marner making substantially less than Rantanen and Aho. Let’s see if that actually materializes.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

A "good deal" is one like Kadris. One where the player has significant room to out perform their caphit.

Those arent at all what I'd call synonyms for the word "manageable", A more accurate one would be "fair".

Matthew's likely not going to out perform his caphit but at the same, time it's a deal that allows one of the best cenres in the world to play for the Leafs for the next half decade for a caphit that fits.

It would be a similar deal with Marner. A contract for him at the 9.5-10.5 range wouldnt be "good" but one that allows the Leafs to keep him while not being ok very disruptive of the teams cap position.

What number for Matthews at five years would you consider “unmanageable”?

 

[Gary Nylund]

No agent worth a damn would allow a team to artificially lower an AAV below what they want because their client can do work elsewhere in the market for extra cash. The endorsements in that market are literally money paid for extra work and as such should have zero bearing on their NHL salary.

Let's say that's true. If it is, then isn't it also true that the differences in taxes that players pay depending on which team they play for should have zero bearing on their NHL salary? That's cool in theory, but then there's the real world. Also, in the real world, the endorsement "work" Marner does is worth X dollars if he plays for Toronto but worth Y dollars if he plays for St Louis. Maybe that's not the way it should be but again, welcome to the real world.

 

[Kiwi]

I never called Nylander greedy once. But knock yourself out call Marner any name you want. I simply call him out Franchise player.

You would be incorrect then because Matthews is our franchise player, not Marner

 

[Sypher04]

Let's say that's true. If it is, then isn't it also true that the differences in taxes that players pay depending on which team they play for should have zero bearing on their NHL salary? That's cool in theory, but then there's the real world. Also, in the real world, the endorsement "work" Marner does is worth X dollars if he plays for Toronto but worth Y dollars if he plays for St Louis. Maybe that's not the way it should be but again, welcome to the real world.

You are the one not living in the real world if you actually believe what you just wrote. Endorsement money comes from entirely different employers. Why should that have any bearing on an nhl contract negotiation? The fact that the market can make you more in extracurriculars changes nothing because you are not talking about money made for playing hockey anymore. It 100% could be a motivator for a player to sign in a particular market over one with less endorsement opportunities but teams in rich markets wouldn't be able to actually use it as a negotiating tactic to lower their nhl salary AAV. It's a ridiculous premise.

The tax argument is a little different and definitely more complicated because the idea is that they still take home the same amount of money for their NHL WORK at the end just with their cap hit being less to their team. Its all still money from their nhl employer for hockey. NOT another company for endorsement work.

 

[Sypher04]

Why wouldn’t agents demand the same aav as players on other teams regardless of tax rates?
“New York is paying this comparable player 12% of the cap ceiling. That’s what we want too.”

This I can only assume is considered palatable because the concept is that the player ends up with the same takehome pay. If you effectively make an equal amount of actual money while taking less cap space that seems like a win for both sides.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

This I can only assume is considered palatable because the concept is that the player ends up with the same takehome pay. If you effectively make an equal amount of actual money while taking less cap space that seems like a win for both sides.

Should the tax benefit be of an advantage to the player taking home more money than in other cities, or of an advantage to the team in paying their players less total real money?

That’s the debate a good agent would bring up. “Team A paid this player 12% of the cap, and that’s what we want as well here in Tampa.”

 

[Sypher04]

Should the tax benefit be of an advantage to the player taking home more money than in other cities, or of an advantage to the team in paying their players less total real money?

That’s the debate a good agent would bring up. “Team A paid this player 12% of the cap, and that’s what we want as well here in Tampa.”

That's why I say that one is more complicated to sort. And probably why we haven't seen a one size fits all in these situations. Some players AAVs in these markets seem to reflect a willingness to assist the team in managing the AAV due to being "made whole" through less tax, while others seem to be more market AAV.

 

[PromisedLand]

Given the way Dubas has handled contracts I’d be shocked if it was more than 5-6 years and at a reasonable cap hit i.e. kucherov contract

 

[Gary Nylund]

You are the one not living in the real world if you actually believe what you just wrote. Endorsement money comes from entirely different employers. Why should that have any bearing on an nhl contract negotiation? The fact that the market can make you more in extracurriculars changes nothing because you are not talking about money made for playing hockey anymore. It 100% could be a motivator for a player to sign in a particular market over one with less endorsement opportunities but teams in rich markets wouldn't be able to actually use it as a negotiating tactic to lower their nhl salary AAV. It's a ridiculous premise.

The tax argument is a little different and definitely more complicated because the idea is that they still take home the same amount of money for their NHL WORK at the end just with their cap hit being less to their team. Its all still money from their nhl employer for hockey. NOT another company for endorsement work.

They're both factors that have nothing to do with what's in the contract but nevertheless have a big impact on the players bottom line. You can ignore it if you like but if you think the parties involved will ignore it then you're the one who's not living in the real world.

 

[Notsince67]

In junior and they moved him back to the wing in London ffs

I guess JVR is a center then since he's played there, somebody should tell his agent

This is bad even by your standards

Still waiting for your inventory of deficient skills. Guess not. Stay in your lane dude. This isnt for you.

 

[Sypher04]

They're both factors that have nothing to do with what's in the contract but nevertheless have a big impact on the players bottom line. You can ignore it if you like but if you think the parties involved will ignore it then you're the one who's not living in the real world.

They are not equal as much as you are trying to make them out to be.

I literally said I agree it to be a factor in why players chose the destinations they do, but as far as being a negotiating factor available to the club to get lower AAVs it's just not a sensible argument.

In either case, I truly dislike circular arguments so I'll happily exit our debate here.

 

[Throw More Waffles]

That's why I say that one is more complicated to sort. And probably why we haven't seen a one size fits all in these situations. Some players AAVs in these markets seem to reflect a willingness to assist the team in managing the AAV due to being "made whole" through less tax, while others seem to be more market AAV.

In finding common ground, it seems we both agree that front-loading and signing bonuses should be part of the equation. But the leafs have seen no cap hit relief from doing this.

Nylander makes $20 million of his $42 a mere SEVEN MONTHS after signing his contract. More than half of his salary is in signing bonuses.
When looking at his “comparables”, Pastrnak is only slightly front loaded in comparison, with only $7 mil in signing bonuses. Ehlers and Teravainen are not front loaded in the slightest, with no signing bonuses.
Why were these perks given to Nylander without literally ANY cap relief? Isn’t that supposed to be the trade off?

 

[Menzinger]

Front loading a contract benefits the team as much as a player (makes them easier to trade to budget teams later on). And theres really no history of it lowering aavs.

It's just an extra incentive to get the player to sign what's offered

 

[Kiwi]

Still waiting for your inventory of deficient skills. Guess not. Stay in your lane dude. This isnt for you.

Never playing a minute of center in his entire pro career? Getting moved out of centre in junior?

This is without doubt the dumbest argument I've been involved in on here

Marner is a fantastic RW, he's not a center and Babcock has used Marleau and Nylander (who he doesn't trust) at center instead of Marner

How is that hard to understand? Marner has enough positives without needing to manufacture stuff

 

[Legion34]

Front loading a contract benefits the team as much as a player (makes them easier to trade to budget teams later on). And theres really no history of it lowering aavs.

It's just an extra incentive to get the player to sign what's offered

Exactly. There are multiple cases of players signing for less in no tax states.

There are NO cases of front loaded contracts lowering aav

It’s nice to see a poster with a level head who actually tries to understand what’s going on in the league