Salary Cap: Marner Deal Discussion Part III

[MyBudJT]

valid points man.

what I posted is facts, fact is that was the increases etc, now whether marner would get 94 points with kadri isn't a fact its is projection but if you projected Marner's season in December 2018 you'd be getting him on pace for 10 goals you see how using "pace" isn't the best measurement. Of course they don't tell the whole story they are just one piece of the pie that is the information.

JT and Marner are 2 elite players working together to create one of the more dangerous duos in the NHL this past season, lets hope Babs puts Matthews and Nyladner back together (being not together last season was largely due to nylander deciding to sit out obviously) and we can have a 1/2 punch of 2 extremely dangerous duos offensively out there

You posted facts, but the facts don't prove anything .

Also, paces are fine measurments, and used all the tame when analyzing data. Paces are basic, simple statistics, and all I was doing was putting things in perspective to illustrate how good he was performing with Kadri. No model is perfect when making projections... but they can still tell you an accurate story.

Also, its not like I'm just selecting some arbitrary cut-off date. When Marner started playing with Kadri and Marleau, he performed at an elite pace. Its as simple as that.

Finally, young players, who keep developing and developing, I'd argue that an 82 game sample sizes is TOO LARGE. If a young 20/21 year old player imrpoves drastically from October to March, why are you still looking at their October data when analyzing how good they are? For a veteran, I'd agree... looking at smaller sample sizes of 30-50 aren't beneficial... but for prospects, its a good way to evaluate where a player is it (IMO).

 

[ToDavid]

Top 5 ranked Corsica centres in league
1. McJesus
2. MAC
3. Crosby
4. Matty
5. Bergy
I don't see Malkin until #10

I don't think anyone is talking about Malkin right now. Malkin on his ELC was definitely better than Matthews but he also got paid more relative to the cap (equivalent of a 5 year, $12.7 million deal on an $83 million cap) so I'm not sure what everyone in this thread is arguing about.

 

[mr grieves]

Come on man. 22 year old Malkin won the Conn Smythe and lead Pens to a cup.

Matthews is 21.

 

[Menzinger]

Even with a proven 90+ point season, his best contract comparables only have him making a few hundred thousand more than 9 million. Giving him that contract after the 2017/18 season would have been insane.

 

[mr grieves]

You can squarely look at their first ELC seasons and see that Malkin vastly outperformed him. That's apples to apples. Those are the seasons that led to their 2nd contracts.

Malkin signed his second contract on July 2, 2008, after playing the 2006-07 (age 20) and 2007-08 (age 21) seasons. You want to include a season that did not factor into his second contract in order to assess the value assigned to him in that second contract -- that makes no sense.

And you won't find many people who would take the phantom numbers / 82 games / 60 minutes over the player that actually did it over an 82 game season.

Maybe not 10 years ago. In general, people are getting smarter at looking at usage, opportunity, and scoring rates when assigning value and projecting future performance.

 

[Menzinger]

But marner played the first half of the season with lesser players and even on the fourth line. It was late December when they put him with Kadri and Marleau who were both mired in a 20 game slump. When they added marner to that line from December until the end of the playoffs it was our best line.. From December until the end of the playoffs marner was scoring at a PPG playing with lesser players.

Then on July 1 we signed Tavares a top ten player in the nhl with the caveat that marner would be playing with him. This is where Dubas really screwed up. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that if marner can score at a ppg pace with Marleau and Kadri that this would only continue or get better with someone like Tavares and what his skill set brings.

In my opinion poor decision making by Dubas.

He was on the 4th line because he was having consistency issues (he had something like 2 goals in the first 30ish games that season)

Not exactly something youd want to see for a guy arguing he was wnorth 9 mil after a career high of 69 points at that point in time.

 

[Menzinger]

But yes, really, Matthews is better than Malkin. The latter's gaudier boxcar stats are down to (1) mostly playing a heckuva lot more PP minutes (league trends + usage), as well as (2) starting his NHL career at 20 not 19, and (3) not dealing with early-career injuries.

Here are their age 20 and 21 seasons compared. I'm leaving off Matthews's rookie year, because Malkin didn't play at 19. I'm leaving off Malkin's 3rd season, because he signed an extension after his 21yo season. So these are the 2 seasons prior to each player signing his second contract, and thus the most relevant to compare if you want to know why Matthews got "Malkin Money":

	Malkin	Auston
GP	160​	130​
Goals	80​	71​
Points	191​	136​
Gs/game	.50​	.55​
Pts/game	1.19​	1.05​
PP TOI	862​	308​
PP Goals	33​	13​
PP Pts	80​	33​
EV Goals	47​	54​
EV Pts	111​	103​
EV G/60	1.24​	1.56​
EV Pts/60	2.92​	2.98​

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

And I left off PP rates, because I don't think much of those points -- just wanted to demonstrate that Malkin really racked em up. But, if you do think PP efficiency is something important, there's this:

• Malkin scored at a rate of 2.30 G60 and 5.57 Pts/60 on the PP.
• Matthews, meanwhile, was 3.31 G60 and 6.43 Pts/60.

Matthew's goal scoring rate is jaw dropping, especially given his age. It's not the most team friendly contract in the league but pretty silly for folks to try and argue it's an overpayment

 

[Notsince67]

Yeah, Matthews is better

Better where? Elc points dont bear out your conclusion. This isnt an opinion poll. It isnt even close.

 

[mr grieves]

Better where? Elc points dont bear out your conclusion. This isnt an opinion poll. It isnt even close.

You're right. It's not an opinion poll. And the fact is Matthews is better. Some will try to read boxcar stats comparing different aged seasons and seasons when PP time was way way up and come to the wrong conclusion -- but, as you say, there are objective ways of measuring this. And Matthews is the better 19-21 year old superstar center.

 

[The CyNick]

Near the beginning of last season, when Shanahan commented on his experience in Detroit where pieces of those championship teams found ways to fit under a certain number, that didn't read like an unreasonable position to me.

I suspect, that's the same sentiment shared by the management group at the time they declined the Marner proposal: That there were numbers understood to be targets by the various parties and plainly understood inferences given the team's cap and goals, and concessions here and there that needed to be made. Why publicly note the need to take modest concessions otherwise?

I'm not sure how you could impose the type of prescience needed by Dubas in order to decline the better of two deals for the star player you're betting against , while simultaneously forecasting an even more intractable contractual negotiation position.

It's difficult to side against Dubas and Shanahan when looking at St.Louis and Boston and Tampa and the deals equally talented players took in order to achieve the common goal of winning a Cup. It's not the mark of unreasonable men who compare situations and attempt to mirror those situations in an environment of competition, mindful that the competitive edge is small and measured.

If you turn down an offer by a player entering his first standard contract that's $500K less than Nikita Kucherov's second standard contract, I think that makes you a GM that's wide awake to the landscape of championship calibre teams' budgets, rather than willfully ignorant of future unknowns that shouldn't require an NHL club to ignore standard competitive contract value.

But as always, except in Toronto.

You're leaving out the part where he turned down the marner deal only to then overpay for Nylander and sign a terrible deal with matthews. Guess he forgot the strategy along the way. Watch what marner signs for too.

 

[weems]

You're right. It's not an opinion poll. And the fact is Matthews is better. Some will try to read boxcar stats comparing different aged seasons and seasons when PP time was way way up and come to the wrong conclusion -- but, as you say, there are objective ways of measuring this. And Matthews is the better 19-21 year old superstar center.

I just looked at each guys PP numbers in their first two seasons and laughed so hard.

Malkin was routinely seeing 3 minutes more per game on the powerplay and was part of that stacked first unit.

 

[ITM]

You're leaving out the part where he turned down the marner deal only to then overpay for Nylander and sign a terrible deal with matthews. Guess he forgot the strategy along the way. Watch what marner signs for too.

I didn't. Clear implication in Shanahan's "discount" statement was that management was aware that a series of unforeseen problematic contract negotiations was looming. Thus, the statement by Shanahan noting the need to find a way to fit together a la Detroit.

 

[BoredBrandonPridham]

Malkin signed his second contract on July 2, 2008, after playing the 2006-07 (age 20) and 2007-08 (age 21) seasons. You want to include a season that did not factor into his second contract in order to assess the value assigned to him in that second contract -- that makes no sense.




Maybe not 10 years ago. In general, people are getting smarter at looking at usage, opportunity, and scoring rates when assigning value and projecting future performance.

Matthew's goal scoring rate is jaw dropping, especially given his age. It's not the most team friendly contract in the league but pretty silly for folks to try and argue it's an overpayment

I just looked at each guys PP numbers in their first two seasons and laughed so hard.

Malkin was routinely seeing 3 minutes more per game on the powerplay and was part of that stacked first unit.

A while back I had a look the production of the kids to see where they sit compared to other elite players on their ELCs. Came out with Matthews being comparable to Malkin production wise as you noted, and getting paid accordingly, and with Nylander being comparable to Kane production wise, but getting paid quite a bit less.

Salary Cap: - Marner Deal Discussion

I think we’ve done well so far, and I’d expect Marner to get somewhere in Eichel territory in cap% if we lock him up for 8.

 

[Bomber0104]

Malkin signed his second contract on July 2, 2008, after playing the 2006-07 (age 20) and 2007-08 (age 21) seasons. You want to include a season that did not factor into his second contract in order to assess the value assigned to him in that second contract -- that makes no sense.




Maybe not 10 years ago. In general, people are getting smarter at looking at usage, opportunity, and scoring rates when assigning value and projecting future performance.

Until Matthews can stay healthy and put up even an 80 point season, he'll never achieve anything close to what Malkin has. Nevermind 90, 100, or 110 point seasons and all the corresponding hardware Malkin's earned...

And again, Matthews doesn't get a pass for his inability to stay healthy over a season.

The day phantom numbers are favored over actual production is the day we start calling Bossy the greatest hockey player ever.

 

[kb]

Until Matthews can stay healthy and put up even an 80 point season, he'll never achieve anything close to what Malkin has. Nevermind 90, 100, or 110 point seasons and all the corresponding hardware Malkin's earned...

And again, Matthews doesn't get a pass for his inability to stay healthy over a season.

The day phantom numbers are favored over actual production is the day we start calling Bossy the greatest hockey player ever.

Total points is a phantom number with zero context.

 

[Bomber0104]

Total points is a phantom number with zero context.

I've officially heard it all.

Actually wait I lied, I remember the same arguments being spun in last year's McDavid vs Matthews thread.

Then Matthews pitched a 70 point season while McDavid turned in a career year and his 3rd consecutive 100 point season.

McDavid or Matthews

That thread had to be locked for Leafs fans own good.

 

[kb]

I've officially heard it all.

Actually wait I lied, I remember the same arguments being spun in last year's McDavid vs Matthews thread.

Then Matthews pitched a 70 point season while McDavid turned in a career year and his 3rd consecutive 100 point season.

McDavid or Matthews

That thread had to be locked for Leafs fans own good.

Yeah, to stop you from looking even more foolish.

Total points is the be all and end all.

Why don't you back it up with some plus/minus stats for good measure?

 

[Notsince67]

You're right. It's not an opinion poll. And the fact is Matthews is better. Some will try to read boxcar stats comparing different aged seasons and seasons when PP time was way way up and come to the wrong conclusion -- but, as you say, there are objective ways of measuring this. And Matthews is the better 19-21 year old superstar center.

Is this a joke?

 

[Bomber0104]

Yeah, to stop you from looking even more foolish.

Total points is the be all and end all.

Stop me from looking foolish? I wasn't posting in that thread. Only watching Leafs fans like zeke humiliate themselves comparing Matthews to McDavid. That was a pretty solid 8th grade chirp though.

Turns out there's no shortage of posters here that have no problem pointing out that actual/realized production is better than potential/hypothesized production. But that should be common sense now shouldn't it?

Apparently not though.

 

[Bomber0104]

Is this a joke?

Afraid not.

They're 100% serious

 

[kb]

Stop me from looking foolish? I wasn't posting in that thread. Only watching Leafs fans like zeke humiliate themselves comparing Matthews to McDavid. That was a pretty solid 8th grade chirp though.

Turns out there's no shortage of posters here that have no problem pointing out that actual realized production is better than potential/hypothesized production. But that should be common sense now shouldn't it?

How is it hypothetical/potential production? It's showing the actual rate that each player produces. Hypothetical would be extrapolating that rate production over a larger sample size like Marner enthusiasts did when he was paired with Kadri the previous year. THAT is using rates to create pure fantasy and fiction.

And the biggest takeaway is....apparently rate stats can be used to support certain players, but not others.

 

[Notsince67]

Yeah, to stop you from looking even more foolish.

Total points is the be all and end all.

Why don't you back it up with some plus/minus stats for good measure?

Good grief. You writing comedy now. Total points exceeding 30% are not enough?

 

[mr grieves]

Is this a joke?

Yes, the joke being I'm responding to you as if you'd made a good point.

 

[The Hanging Jowl]

Matthews is a better player. Hard to believe someone would think otherwise. I love Marner though. he's not that far behind. About a million and a half to 2 million behind.

 

[mr grieves]

Until Matthews can stay healthy and put up even an 80 point season, he'll never achieve anything close to what Malkin has. Nevermind 90, 100, or 110 point seasons and all the corresponding hardware Malkin's earned...

I bet Dubas might've tried to make this argument. And it seems Matthews's agent rightly told him to stuff it.

Again: by the year Malkin signed his extension, the year he was the age Matthews was last season, he had a 100 point season and won just as much hardware as Matthews (all-star, Calder).

We can revisit next summer, after Matthews 22 yo season, but right now, you're assigning those dreaded phantom numbers.

The day phantom numbers are favored over actual production is the day we start calling Bossy the greatest hockey player ever.

This is a terrible understanding of rates of production.

I drive 400 miles in 5 hours. My rate of speed is 80 miles per hour. You drove 600 miles in 12 hours. Your rate of speed is 50 miles per hour. I drove faster, covered more miles in the time I was driving than you did. That's all the rate of scoring claims.

It does not claim that I made it 800 miles in under 8 hours. That'd be "phantom numbers."