Player Discussion Marner

[HamiltonNHL]

If it comes out his ask is astronomical, I'd be in full support of walking away.

I think his ask will be unreasonable. There is no indication he's willing to understand he was overpaid last time.

 

[notbias]

Did you forget what you posted? You said "the least likely scenario is he signs here".

Yes, not relative to a single team, but relative to all teams, come on, this is not hard.

Those were your exact words, can you justify what you said or would you prefer to retract your statement?

Your comprehension is lacking, the statement is fine.

"I think the most likely scenario is he re-signs in Colorado, the next most likely scenario is he signs somewhere else, and then the least likely scenario is he signs here."

Find the flaw.

Even is dogs against the field to sign him, we might still be the first choice for him after COL (which if true, would make us the most likely landing spot for him if he becomes UFA), no need to make it sound like such a long shot that he would want to come here and play with Matthews.

There are 3 scenarios (as I laid out in my original post), so the least likely scenario is the Leafs... I am not giving a % to each team, they are a collective because they are not the Leafs.

 

[666]

Maybe @666 is on to something, more to a player than just points?

I don't think these people know how to read numbers.
Again. Last 3 playoffs 5v5, sample is a bit small but the picture it paints is clear.

Player	GP	TOI	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
Mitchell Marner	25	383.8	3.13	1.72	64.5
Auston Matthews	23	381.2	2.83	2.05	58.1
John Tavares	25	348.8	2.06	2.24	48.0
William Nylander	22	328.0	2.20	2.56	46.2
Mikko Rantanen	38	638.8	3.01	2.63	53.3

Marner beats everyone at GF and GA even Matthews.
Rantanen is even worse than Nylander defensively.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Yes, not relative to a single team, but relative to all teams, come on, this is not hard.

Your comprehension is lacking, the statement is fine.

There are 3 scenarios (as I laid out in my original post), so the least likely scenario is the Leafs... I am not giving a % to each team, they are a collective because they are not the Leafs.

"I think the most likely scenario is he re-signs in Colorado, the next most likely scenario is he signs somewhere else, and then the least likely scenario is he signs here."

I misread your post, my apologies. I still think you're making it sound more unlikely than it is that Ranta would want to play here. If he becomes UFA, I see no reason why we wouldn't be one of his top choices.

Comparing the chances of him signing here against the chances of him signing with one of the other 31 teams is just weird, not sure why you'd do that.

I don't think these people know how to read numbers.
Again. Last 3 playoffs 5v5, sample is a bit small but the picture it paints is clear.

Player	GP	TOI	GF/60	GA/60	GF%
Mitchell Marner	25	383.8	3.13	1.72	64.5
Auston Matthews	23	381.2	2.83	2.05	58.1
John Tavares	25	348.8	2.06	2.24	48.0
William Nylander	22	328.0	2.20	2.56	46.2
Mikko Rantanen	38	638.8	3.01	2.63	53.3

Marner beats everyone at GF and GA even Matthews.
Rantanen is even worse than Nylander defensively.

For sure and I've said it before - if you need someone to put up 4 points in a game you win 7-3, Marner's right up there with the best of them. Once teams settle into playoff hockey though, the checking gets tighter and you have less time and space to operate, Marner becomes quite average.

Nice chart though, I'm sure it's good for something.

 

[666]

I misread your post, my apologies. I still think you're making it sound more unlikely than it is that Ranta would want to play here. If he becomes UFA, I see no reason why we wouldn't be one of his top choices.

Comparing the chances of him signing here against the chances of him signing with one of the other 31 teams is just weird, not sure why you'd do that.


For sure and I've said it before - if you need someone to put up 4 points in a game you win 7-3, Marner's right up there with the best of them. Once teams settle into playoff hockey though, the checking gets tighter and you have less time and space to operate, Marner becomes quite average.

Nice chart though, I'm sure it's good for something.

We're not talking putting up points. We're talking about defensive play. Pay attention.

 

[notbias]

I misread your post, my apologies. I still think you're making it sound more unlikely than it is that Ranta would want to play here. If he becomes UFA, I see no reason why we wouldn't be one of his top choices.

I appreciate that, thanks.

Comparing the chances of him signing here against the chances of him signing with one of the other 31 teams is just weird, not sure why you'd do that.

My reasoning is simple, there are two scenarios concerning the Leafs, him signing in Toronto or him signing with one of the other 31 teams.

Not sure why this is weird... we are discussing the likelihood of him being available to the Leafs and him signing here, why wouldn't you compare the likelihood of him signing here versus the other options?

The 31 teams have a MUCH higher chance of signing him, especially if we consider Colorado as one of those teams.

I am not saying the Leafs have no chance, but they should not be planning on letting Marner walk just in case Rantanen can be persuaded to come here.

You state we'd be one of his top choices (I don't necessarily disagree), not his top choice (that is likely Colorado), so immediately it is unlikely that he signs here, now you can add in the other 30 teams competing for him and it becomes increasingly less likely.

 

[Antropovsky]

Same argument can be made that the Leafs actually perform better without Austin in the lineup - Points % with Austin .636 / without .643 , does this mean we should trade Austin? Maple Leafs Record With And Without Auston Matthews | StatMuse

The Leafs have a considerably poorer record without Mitch than with him Maple Leafs Record With And Without Mitch Marner | StatMuse

Mitch has the same three letters as Nylander (NMC) make but for some reason we can force Mitch's hand but we cant force Nylander's? Why would we want to with either player anyway?

Maybe @666 is on to something, more to a player than just points?

Mitch has one year left. We cant force his hand... but it makes alot more sense that a player who has 1 year remaining would be willing to move rather than someone who JUST signed for 8 years.

 

[Sypher04]

The whole team wins vs losses missing a specific player is a dumb as hell stat because it completely ignores all other context, such as:

Who else was injured at the same time?
Home vs away games?
Quality of opponents?
Hot and cold streaks?
Stability of D and G?

 

[Gary Nylund]

We're not talking putting up points. We're talking about defensive play. Pay attention.

I was just trying to point out one of Marner's strong points.
Your chart shows some things that have nothing to do with defensive play. Before you tell people to pay attention, you might want to familiarize yourself with your own posts.

I appreciate that, thanks.

My reasoning is simple, there are two scenarios concerning the Leafs, him signing in Toronto or him signing with one of the other 31 teams.

Not sure why this is weird... we are discussing the likelihood of him being available to the Leafs and him signing here, why wouldn't you compare the likelihood of him signing here versus the other options?

The 31 teams have a MUCH higher chance of signing him, especially if we consider Colorado as one of those teams.

I am not saying the Leafs have no chance, but they should not be planning on letting Marner walk just in case Rantanen can be persuaded to come here.

You state we'd be one of his top choices (I don't necessarily disagree), not his top choice (that is likely Colorado), so immediately it is unlikely that he signs here, now you can add in the other 30 teams competing for him and it becomes increasingly less likely.

That applies to any player really - no one team is a favorite to sign him so not sure it's even worth mentioning.

I agree that planning on signing Rantanen would be an incredibly stupid plan. But I never suggested that we "plan on" signing Rantanen, just that it might be a possibility and a rather attractive one at that. But my main point is that I just don't think it's a good idea committing to Marner after he played so poorly in the playoffs against Florida and Boston. Wait until the summer and if he sucks just as bad next playoffs, move on from him no matter what. He's a career 14 goal 70 point (pacing for over 82 games) player. That's not bad, but it's worth nowhere near 11M IMO, especially when those points mostly come in the first few games when teams are still adjusting to playoff hockey.

No need to count on Ranatanen, considering how unimpressive Marner was, we'd have been better off with just Tanev instead of him against Boston and that leaves us with a lot of cap room to spend elsewhere.

The whole team wins vs losses missing a specific player is a dumb as hell stat because it completely ignores all other context, such as:

Who else was injured at the same time?
Home vs away games?
Quality of opponents?
Hot and cold streaks?
Stability of D and G?

Not to mention sample size.

 

[666]

I was just trying to point out one of Marer
Your chart shows some things that have nothing to do with defensive play. Before you tell people to pay attention, you might want to familiarize yourself with your own posts.

Again Gary, ignoring numbers that match the eye test but not your biased opinion.
Aren't you supposed to be a DB admin or something?
Shouldn't you be able to understand basic numbers?
It's a pretty lame job but at least you can post your nonsense ignoring reality all day long.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Again Gary, ignoring numbers that match the eye test but not your biased opinion.
Aren't you supposed to be a DB admin or something?
Shouldn't you be able to understand basic numbers?
It's a pretty lame job but at least you can post your nonsense ignoring reality all day long.

I'm not ignoring anything. And why would I ignore numbers that match the eye test?
I'm not a DB admin, but I do work with data.
I understand basic numbers.
Calling my job lame when you don't know what my job is is lame.

 

[666]

I'm not ignoring anything. And why would I ignore numbers that match the eye test?
I'm not a DB admin, but I do work with data.
I understand basic numbers.
Calling my job lame when you don't know what my job is is lame.

I'm pretty sure that you once posted you were a DB admin and DB admin is a lame job. I'm not gonna try to find your post so you can have that one.

You were provided with offensive and defensive stats with the defensive stats bolded because that's what some of us were talking about.
You completely ignore the defensive bolded stats and make an excuse about scoring goals with a lead to diminish Marners also superior offensive stats.
Why ignore the defensive stats when that's what we're talking about?
What are you so afraid of?
Look at the defensive stats and provide a counter or a contrary explanation or just don't bother responding.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I'm pretty sure that you once posted you were a DB admin and DB admin is a lame job. I'm not gonna try to find your post so you can have that one.

You were provided with offensive and defensive stats with the defensive stats bolded because that's what some of us were talking about.
You completely ignore the defensive bolded stats and make an excuse about scoring goals with a lead to diminish Marners also superior offensive stats.
Why ignore the defensive stats when that's what we're talking about?
What are you so afraid of?
Look at the defensive stats and provide a counter or a contrary explanation or just don't bother responding.

I have never been a DB admin so I would never have posted that. Makes one wonder what else you're "pretty sure" about that's completely wrong. BTW, what makes you say that it's a lame job? I've worked with ORACLE DBA's and UNIX DBA's myself, both jobs seem quite demanding, both are very important and the people I've worked with in those positions have been very capable people. I dunno man, your assessment seems pretty lame to me.

Your chart sucks for a number of reasons. Bottom line is, if you watch hockey and understand what you're watching, you don't need charts to understand that Marner is a fantastic player during the regular season but in the playoffs, he's much less effective. Forget your charts for a moment and tell me this:

Do you disagree with this statement?
Is this different from what you see when you watch him play?

 

[NinjaKick]

Yes, teams have limited leverage when it comes to their superstars.
No, there is no evidence that contracts are constrained or inflated by internal contracts, let alone unrelated ones.
We never had any contracts to even attempt to constrain anything with anyway. They were better than everybody else. They didn't care.

Ferris told First Up that Marner looked to Maple Leafs centres Auston Matthews and John Tavares as comparable contracts while he negotiated, rather than comparing himself to players around the league.

"Absolutely. That is one of the factors that you bring into it, that there is a comparison of players on his team, his teammates," Ferris said.

Who to believe, you or his agent?

well... so much for that argument lol

 

[Gary Nylund]

well... so much for that argument lol

What argument?

 

[Hellcat]

I misread your post, my apologies. I still think you're making it sound more unlikely than it is that Ranta would want to play here. If he becomes UFA, I see no reason why we wouldn't be one of his top choices.

Comparing the chances of him signing here against the chances of him signing with one of the other 31 teams is just weird, not sure why you'd do that.


For sure and I've said it before - if you need someone to put up 4 points in a game you win 7-3, Marner's right up there with the best of them. Once teams settle into playoff hockey though, the checking gets tighter and you have less time and space to operate, Marner becomes quite average.

Nice chart though, I'm sure it's good for something.

Trying to level set, what is this?

Mitch has one year left. We cant force his hand... but it makes alot more sense that a player who has 1 year remaining would be willing to move rather than someone who JUST signed for 8 years.

Why?

 

[Hellcat]

The whole team wins vs losses missing a specific player is a dumb as hell stat because it completely ignores all other context, such as:

Who else was injured at the same time?
Home vs away games?
Quality of opponents?
Hot and cold streaks?
Stability of D and G?

It's especially dumb when it does not support your position ...

 

[Antropovsky]

Trying to level set, what is this?

Why?

Because... one year of a NMC matters significantly less than eight.

 

[Hellcat]

Because... one year of a NMC matters significantly less than eight.

Why? When you trade the 8 year contract do you need him to waive the clause once or do you need to negotiate 8 separate waivers?

 

[Antropovsky]

Why? When you trade the 8 year contract do you need him to waive the clause once or do you need to negotiate 8 separate waivers?

Not even sure what you're asking.

If I signed a contract with a company for 8 years. And before my new contract even starts they say, hey, will you be okay with us trading you to so and so?

It would make sense to be pissed and say absolutely not.

However, if I signed a 6 year contract and my employer approached me in my 6th year and said, hey, will you ne okay with us trading you to so and so?

I would be considerably less angry. Especially considering it's clear that I'm no longer in their long term plans after 5 years and in a year I'll need a new home anyways. However, Marner might be shooting himself in the foot because a 8 year contract might be in his favor, rather than a short term one or the max 7 he can get as ufa.

Whereas if it was less than a year in an 8 year contract, I'd be angry that they've changed their minds so quickly.

 

[666]

Your chart sucks for a number of reasons.

Then stop ignoring it and defend your statement. Why does it suck? Explain why being on the ice for less goals against is a bad thing. I bet you ignore the defensive stats again.

Marner is a fantastic player during the regular season but in the playoffs, he's much less effective. Forget your charts for a moment and tell me this:

Do you disagree with this statement?
Is this different from what you see when you watch him play?

The ENTIRE team is disappointing. Especially Matthews and Tavares but AT LEAST Marner is still defensively fantastic while the other aren't. But again, I showed you the numbers about how bad the rest of them are. For example Matthews with one PP in the last 3 or Nylander's flashy goals being cancelled by being on the ice for even more goals against, yet again you just ignored the facts. Why aren't you complaining about how the others performance drops offensively AND defensively? But I know you're just going to ignore the things that make your dissonance uncomfortable again like all the other times. You are very predictable.

You just have to watch the games from both ends and you'll clearly see that Marner is still fantastic defensively in the playoffs. Offensively and especially the PP they all suck. The absurd amount of time you spend whining about ONLY Marner (BUT ONLY IN THE PLAYOFFS) is remarkable.