I can't quote the posts from the old thread so I'll tag you here.
@mclaren55
I'll start off by saying I appreciate that. I disagree with your conclusion and how you got there, but I always have respect for somebody who genuinely wants to talk hockey and has an open mind.
Marner is tied with Matthews for 5th. They both have 1.28 P/GP.
The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.
www.nhl.com
I guess technically, Matthews is 0.0003 P/GP higher, but going to four decimal places is kind of splitting hairs.
We only had Leetch for one playoff run, and while I love Tucker and Roberts and the characters they were, we tend to exaggerate them as actual players. It's hard to compare across eras, and we don't have analytics for back then, but they didn't have the same level of records or goal differential. Either way, it doesn't really matter. That era in a completely different league is long gone, but we're still in this one. What we have is rare, and it shouldn't be taken for granted or thrown away because we're upset that we haven't gotten what we wanted yet.
No, we havent. In the early 2020s, we were one of the best teams in the league. Our record was better. Our goal differential was better. Our underlying metrics were better. We were strong offensively and defensively. But we were emotional, shortsighted, and reactionary, after barely losing to cup finalists through some difficult circumstances that would make any team struggle, and now we're paying for it with a worse team when we should be peaking even higher.
No, Rantanen would be a downgrade. He is a good player, but he is a worse player. Marner is better offensively and defensively in every main game state. Rantanen is better at putting pucks into an empty net and getting drafted to a team that gets a ton of PPs.
Yes, I have seen his playoff performances. The issue is, a lot of people haven't, and have just looked up his points. And not only are points just one part of the game, points are also incredibly difficult to compare across teams in the playoffs, because different teams are facing
drastically different situations. It's not a coincidence that 40% of the top-10 in playoff P/GP over the past half decade are Colorado players, and it's not a coincidence that all these Toronto players simultaneously struggle with playoff production. That is, until they leave Toronto, and the likes of Kadri and Hyman suddenly explode in playoff production. The same will happen to Marner.
The $20 was meant to be just Marner. You can't get two of the players you mentioned for his cap hit, and Marner is better than any one of those players. He will likely be better than any of those options relative to cap hit too. And these options aren't really making us less top heavy.
Even if we look at Marner and Tavares, we're expecting that to cost us what, 20m? Those 3 players would likely cost closer to 30m. And it's far from clear that we'd be better with them anyway.
And of course, this is assuming that not only one but all 3 would refuse to re-sign with their teams and choose us in free agency. More likely we end up spending that money trying to patch all the holes we opened up with overpaid mid-tier UFAs. For example, 13m+ got us Bertuzzi, Klingberg, Kampf, and Reaves last year.
Both players got what they'd earned when they signed, and both players outperformed their contracts.
Relative to some of the other league leaders, Marner's production is somewhat disadvantaged by less PP time, less empty net points, and less 5v5 time (due to his PKing). FWIW, we also tend to run our PP as more of a collective unit than through an individual, meaning points from our PP goals are more evenly distributed, but that's getting a bit more in depth.
A lot of teams are more top heavy than people seem to think. And many that aren't are just overpaying players lower in the lineup. But also, who cares what other teams do? Every team has different options and circumstances, and every team that isn't top heavy would gladly become so if they had the option to add a player like Marner.
Stars are paid for their overall impact, not just generating offense. Marner plays all situations because he's great at all situations, not because he needs to.
We've had good defense, goaltending, and PKing before under this cap allocation model; even through a flat cap. You win by being smart and efficient in your depth; not by overpaying for it. For the record, we've gotten the 5th best goaltending in the league this year so far, and we're spending the 3rd least. Actually, Washington is one of the two teams that spends less, and they've gotten even better goaltending than us.
There's no evidence that our stars are getting "worn out", or that that is the cause of their production in the playoffs. We're not really playing them more than other players who get the opposite outcome. In fact, their production has largely been about conversion and the PP, which are things that being "worn out" should affect the least.
Not all top line players get matchup deployment, or play in all situations. Many do not PK, or get utilized much in defensive situations.
Nobody puts players above the team. That's a silly argument. Everybody that wants to keep Marner wants to do so because they think it's the best option for the team.
There is no such thing as "play it back" in the NHL. Every season is different, and you just try to build the best team you can. Keeping your best players is a big part of that. Change for the sake of change doesn't help anything.
Treliving has definitely set us backwards, but he hasn't ruined our chances, especially with the division and conference getting weaker as well. The core hasn't won a championship yet, but they have in no way proven that they can't, and there's no real argument that purging them will make us better.
Marner is not our best player, but he's a close second behind Matthews, and he would be a massive loss for this team.
I'm defending the player because he is the one being
unfairly singled out and attacked. It's hard to establish changes mid-season when we don't know what options will exist, but so far, I haven't heard any realistic alternatives that would make us better. Mostly just purge Marner and pray for a miracle.
You have to look at the whole picture. He's the team's leading playoff producer since he stepped in the league. It's not as high as we want, but that seems to be more about team situation than the individual.
He has strong underlying metrics and chance generation while he's out there. Biggest offensive issue has been conversion, and he's not even the primary converter on his lines. And most of the conversion issues seem to be pretty obviously tied to injuries and the abnormally strong goaltending we've faced. If we were the only ones having the issue, it would be more of a concern, but it's a team-wide phenomenon that also just so happens to extend to the other teams that went on to face the same goaltending we did. 50 points (49 if you remove his 1 EN point) in 57 playoff games against top teams averaging Vezina calibre goaltending isn't nearly the atrocity some people treat it as. The PP is probably the area that could use the most work, but Marner is also our top PP producer, so it's a bit hard to just blame him. We also talk so much about PP but forget that they manufactured one of the best comebacks in league history with the goalie pulled 6v5.
And for whatever offensive results we feel are lacking, Marner more than makes up for it defensively. He puts up strong defensive results, and that helps him still have a really strong goal differential while he's out there. He has a 58.33 GF% at 5v5, which is quite good. Rantanen for example, despite all his scoring and a cup, is about the same at 58.59 GF%. And FWIW, Marner also leads the team in things like net penalty differential in the playoffs.
