Player Discussion Mitch Marner, Again

[keonsbitterness]

if the ball bounced slightly differently off the rim, it probably goes down as one of the worst deals in Raptors history, and we would have just faded into irrelevance with nothing to show for it.

If the ball bounced differently, the game would have gone into overtime.

Nobody is forcing GMs to hand them out like candy on Halloween and believe it or not, some players with NMC have waived and were subsequently traded. Hell it just happened a few days ago.

The market is forcing GMs to hand out NMCs to stars. Those that waive are usually due to unique circumstances. JT Miller was feuding with an entire city, but even then he would only waive for one team.

Tre could have traded anyone of the core outside JT after he arrived.

No he couldn't. Shanahan called the core right after Dubas was fired and told them they wouldn't be traded.

 

[PromisedLand]

Instructive as well, easily understood that Marner will garner big money interest in free agency, with this cap leaving teams awash in cash. This narrative here he won't is nonsense, especially now. Also, good luck not making massive over payments this summer, GM's have their money to play with.

I still think it smart to sign just below Matthews money, optics wise. Practically, an eight year deal slightly above Matthew's 4 year cash grab isn't that egregious.

I would rather not commit to Marner without seeing how he performs in the playoffs. I've written at length that Marner is certainly one of the main culprits why Leafs go down in goals and are incapable of putting up meaningful goals.

I wouldn't mind some other team paying marner the premium. I'd rather invest money in some other meaningful way for the team. Its been 7+ years since the "rebuild" its time to make some tough and more importantly calculated decisions!

 

[Gabriel426]

Like I said it’s relative to their counter parts. They are definitely under paid. And there’s a reason players have been pushing for higher salaries. There’s no reason why the NHL’s best player shouldn’t be able to command more.

If you actually do research this is what The owners wanted the whole time. It’s the whole reason why they locked out in 2005. They wanted a restrictive cap to control player salaries. I get we are all trained to look at things from a team first point of view. But players prior to 2005 were making $10 million. Almost 20 years later they are making the same salaries. That really has nothing to do with revenue. The revenue has been there for the NHL. That’s why we are seeing such drastic increases now because they are 20 years behind, instead of scaling appropriately every year since 2005. The older players in the league are also to blame, it’s why so many players regret 2005, they just wanted to play, they didn’t understand what they were agreeing to.

Completely understand some teams were going bankcrupt in 2005 as well. But there still could have been a better sliding scale.

This video explains it better.

My point is how much money the league is making vs how much players make.

NBA players can get 60mil a season bc the league can afford it. I think the CBA in NBA is around 50% of revenue. Think that’s the same in NHL. The % is the same but the numbers are different bc NHL got more players per team plus the NHL revenue is just not as high.

For example, NBA teams might make 300mil on average, 50% of that is 150mil, which means their salary cap is 150mil. Where as NHL teams might be at 200mil, and 50% of that is 100mil.

I am not going to get into details breakdown and stuff bc that’s not my point.

My point is you can’t have money that is not there. McD compare to say Messi, Jokic, Mahomes, Othani is underpaid as the top dog in their sports. But that had nothing to do with ownership being Cheap and had everything to do with Hockey just not as big a sale as Football, Euro Football, Basketball and Baseball.

If your point is McD and other top players should receive the max contract in NHL….thats another story and I think as long as teams willing to pay for them, who cares.
Lastly, when McD signs his deal, he became the highest paid player and it is close to
25% more than the last highest contract in the league. Don’t think he took any discounts.

 

[DarkKnight]

I would rather not commit to Marner without seeing how he performs in the playoffs. I've written at length that Marner is certainly one of the main culprits why Leafs go down in goals and are incapable of putting up meaningful goals.

I wouldn't mind some other team paying marner the premium. I'd rather invest money in some other meaningful way for the team. Its been 7+ years since the "rebuild" its time to make some tough and more importantly calculated decisions!

Sure, but we can only do that through free agency, the cupboard is non existent. So you're going to over pay for whatever is available, which won't be much given the room teams now have. The metrics have changed, if anything this rising cap makes Marner even more attractive to resign. The big three is entirely doable with this cap, we need to update how we view these salaries, we can fill it out nicely with this cap. We are living and dying with this core, I don't see splitting it up now. I get why people do, but I remain hopefully, and frankly replacing him with a couple over priced mid range talents feels like a net negative.

 

[PromisedLand]

Sure, but we can only do that through free agency, the cupboard is non existent. So you're going to over pay for whatever is available, which won't be much given the room teams now have. The metrics have changed, if anything this rising cap makes Marner even more attractive to resign. The big three is entirely doable with this cap, we need to update how we view these salaries, we can fill it out nicely with this cap. We are living and dying with this core, I don't see splitting it up now. I get why people do, but I remain hopefully, and frankly replacing him with a couple over priced mid range talents feels like a net negative.

It depends how one approaches the issue IMO.

Would Minten+Robertson+3rd get you ROR? If yes you do that and then go from there.

Here is just one scenario:

Knies-Matthews-Domi
McMann-ROR-Nylander
XXX/Cowan-Tavares/XXX(?)-XXX
XXX-XXX-XXX

Rielly-YYY
McCabe-Tanev
XXX-XXX

Woll
Stolarz


XXX are your depth pieces better than what we have now and YYY is another top4 D-man

Spread out the offense and make team truly deep and difficult to play against!

Then with cap flexibility we can use that at the TDL where we don't have to add more picks for other team(s) to retain.

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to run 3 forwards at 11+ AAV after this season especially if the same players haven't provided any playoff success

 

[DarkKnight]

It depends how one approaches the issue IMO.

Would Minten+Robertson+3rd get you ROR? If yes you do that and then go from there.

Here is just one scenario:

Knies-Matthews-Domi
McMann-ROR-Nylander
XXX/Cowan-Tavares/XXX(?)-XXX
XXX-XXX-XXX

Rielly-YYY
McCabe-Tanev
XXX-XXX

Woll
Stolarz


XXX are your depth pieces better than what we have now and YYY is another top4 D-man

Spread out the offense and make team truly deep and difficult to play against!

Then with cap flexibility we can use that at the TDL where we don't have to add more picks for other team(s) to retain.

IMHO there is absolutely no reason to run 3 forwards at 11+ AAV after this season especially if the same players haven't provided any playoff success

I'd hope ROR would cost a lot less than that!

 

[PromisedLand]

I'd hope ROR would cost a lot less than that!

I meant ROR+ from Preds

 

[DarkKnight]

I meant ROR+ from Preds

Ahh okay!

.

 

[francis246]

My point is how much money the league is making vs how much players make.

NBA players can get 60mil a season bc the league can afford it. I think the CBA in NBA is around 50% of revenue. Think that’s the same in NHL. The % is the same but the numbers are different bc NHL got more players per team plus the NHL revenue is just not as high.

For example, NBA team might make 300mil on average, 50% of that is 150mil, which means their salary cap is 150mil. Where as NHL team might be at 200mil, and 50% of that is 100mil.

I am not going to get into details breakdown and stuff bc that’s not my point.

My point is you can’t have money that is not there. McD compare to say Messi, Jokic, Mahomes, Othani is underpaid as the top dog in their sports. But that had nothing to do with ownership being Cheap and had everything to do with Hockey just not as big a sale as Football, Euro Football, Basketball and Baseball.

If your point is McD and other top players should receive the max contract in NHL….thats another story and I think as long as teams willing to pay for them, who cares.
Lastly, when McD signs his deal, he became the highest paid player and it is close to
25% more than the last highest contract in the league. Don’t think he took any discounts.

I understand what you’re saying but that’s completely different than what I’m arguing. I’ve stayed my point a few times. It’s not about MacDavo making the same amount as those stars. It’s about MacDavo and other stars making more money on a sliding scale aligned to the NHL revenue growth and profits. That has nothing to do with other leagues.

There’s two questions that can be asked to determine if my position is valid.

1. Do you believe the NHL has seen significant growth in terms of revenue from 1990 to 2025?( not in comparison to other major leagues but just as its own entity has there been growth) If the answer is yes, answer question #2.

2. If you are in agreement that the NHL has made money / seen a significant growth as its own entity in the last 30 years. Why are star players now, still making around the same as what star players made back in 1990? (I reference a few players and their salaries from the 90’s a few posts ago). Not one person has answered why that is, again that has nothing to do with the NBA/NFL. The NHL was/is still making a ton of money and revenue. Just not a lot relative to the NBA, so if they are profitable and generating revenue why haven’t the players benefited from that at an appropriate rate during each cba since 1990? The cap being introduced in 2005 was purposely designed to stagnant salary growth and create competitive balance between sharks and the smaller market budget teams.

 

[Gabriel426]

I understand what you’re saying but that’s completely different than what I’m arguing. I’ve stayed my point a few times. It’s not about MacDavo making the same amount as those stars. It’s about MacDavo and other stars making more money on a sliding scale aligned to the NHL revenue growth and profits. That has nothing to do with other leagues.

There’s two questions that can be asked to determine if my position is valid.

1. Do you believe the NHL has seen significant growth in terms of revenue from 1990 to 2025?( not in comparison to other major leagues but just as its own entity has there been growth) If the answer is yes, answer question #2.

2. If you are in agreement that the NHL has made money / seen a significant growth as its own entity in the last 30 years. Why are star players now, still making around the same as what star players made back in 1990? (I reference a few players and their salaries from the 90’s a few posts ago). Not one person has answered why that is, again that has nothing to do with the NBA/NFL. The NHL was/is still making a ton of money and revenue. Just not a lot relative to the NBA, so if they are profitable and generating revenue why haven’t the players benefited from that at an appropriate rate during each cba since 1990? The cap being introduced in 2005 was purposely designed to stagnant salary growth and create competitive balance between sharks and the smaller market budget teams.

You are comparing precap era and cap era. In the precap era, teams can pay whatever they want to players as long as they are willing to pay for them. Where in the cap era, with profit sharing....teams are restricted to how much they can spend as a whole(salary cap) on players. The cap is 50% of revenue, thats pretty fair.

Thats what I am saying, you can't have money where there is not there.

Now you can say the league can agree to a soft cap or a penalty for going over the cap, but none of the owners are doing that. So if you point is owners and league purposely keeping the salary down by sticking by the hard cap. I agree absolutely and pretty sure everyone agrees with you on that.

 

[Gary Nylund]

I’ll tag @Gary Nylund in this one too, so it’s easier to respond.

I understand both of your point of views for sure. I’m absolutely not asking you to empathize or even feel sorry for these guys. That would be dumb on my part. Comparatively to us regular people they make a ton. But remember athletes do not compare themselves to the average person. Their comparisons are to other athletes. I also mentioned a few times I played pro so there will never be a day where I’m pro owner based on my own experiences as a player and going through my own contract negotiations.

but like I said, it doesn’t make their ask unjustified, As I’ve provided ample proof and data. There’s zero explanation/justification why salaries for top end players have stagnated for 30+ years while an entity is making money, (albeit not as much as others). I have yet to see a logical counter argument to that point. This is something I’ve done multiple research projects/papers on btw haha. At one point in my life I wanted to be a player agent.

At the end of the day to wrap up, I’m not arguing and I highly doubt the NHL players themselves are arguing to be paid like NBA stars. But asking for salaries to be aligned/grow in proportion to revenue increases just as they have in other leagues is not unreasonable.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the players have a union and they negotiate pay with the owners. Nobody holds a gun to their heads, they negotiate and eventually agree to some sort of deal so why should anyone care if they're now not happy with what they themselves agreed to?

 

[Apex Predator]

I understand what you’re saying but that’s completely different than what I’m arguing. I’ve stayed my point a few times. It’s not about MacDavo making the same amount as those stars. It’s about MacDavo and other stars making more money on a sliding scale aligned to the NHL revenue growth and profits. That has nothing to do with other leagues.

There’s two questions that can be asked to determine if my position is valid.

1. Do you believe the NHL has seen significant growth in terms of revenue from 1990 to 2025?( not in comparison to other major leagues but just as its own entity has there been growth) If the answer is yes, answer question #2.

2. If you are in agreement that the NHL has made money / seen a significant growth as its own entity in the last 30 years. Why are star players now, still making around the same as what star players made back in 1990? (I reference a few players and their salaries from the 90’s a few posts ago). Not one person has answered why that is, again that has nothing to do with the NBA/NFL. The NHL was/is still making a ton of money and revenue. Just not a lot relative to the NBA, so if they are profitable and generating revenue why haven’t the players benefited from that at an appropriate rate during each cba since 1990? The cap being introduced in 2005 was purposely designed to stagnant salary growth and create competitive balance between sharks and the smaller market budget teams.

If there was no salary cap do you think someone would be making more than 15 million a season today?

 

[francis246]

If there was no salary cap do you think someone would be making more than 15 million a season today?

Absolutely.

 

[Confucius]

I’ll tag @Gary Nylund in this one too, so it’s easier to respond.

I understand both of your point of views for sure. I’m absolutely not asking you to empathize or even feel sorry for these guys. That would be dumb on my part. Comparatively to us regular people they make a ton. But remember athletes do not compare themselves to the average person. Their comparisons are to other athletes. I also mentioned a few times I played pro so there will never be a day where I’m pro owner based on my own experiences as a player and going through my own contract negotiations.

but like I said, it doesn’t make their ask unjustified, As I’ve provided ample proof and data. There’s zero explanation/justification why salaries for top end players have stagnated for 30+ years while an entity is making money, (albeit not as much as others). I have yet to see a logical counter argument to that point. This is something I’ve done multiple research projects/papers on btw haha. At one point in my life I wanted to be a player agent.

At the end of the day to wrap up, I’m not arguing and I highly doubt the NHL players themselves are arguing to be paid like NBA stars. But asking for salaries to be aligned/grow in proportion to revenue increases just as they have in other leagues is not unreasonable.

Wayne Gretzky made $3 million per season in 1990, making him the highest paid player in the NHL. He played for the Los Angeles Kings during the 1989-90 season.

In the 2024–2025 NHL season, the maximum salary a player can earn is $17.6 million. This is due to the salary cap for the season being $88 million.


Teams spend 50% of the league revenue on salaries, very much the same as all 4 major leagues in North America.

Salary cap came into effect 2005 (39 million ) so the most a player could make is 8 million. Before that if a team wanted to pay a player 20 million a year and lose money, go ahead and those contracts were grandfathered in.

 

[LeafEgo]

I understand what you’re saying but that’s completely different than what I’m arguing. I’ve stayed my point a few times. It’s not about MacDavo making the same amount as those stars. It’s about MacDavo and other stars making more money on a sliding scale aligned to the NHL revenue growth and profits. That has nothing to do with other leagues.

There’s two questions that can be asked to determine if my position is valid.

1. Do you believe the NHL has seen significant growth in terms of revenue from 1990 to 2025?( not in comparison to other major leagues but just as its own entity has there been growth) If the answer is yes, answer question #2.

2. If you are in agreement that the NHL has made money / seen a significant growth as its own entity in the last 30 years. Why are star players now, still making around the same as what star players made back in 1990? (I reference a few players and their salaries from the 90’s a few posts ago). Not one person has answered why that is, again that has nothing to do with the NBA/NFL. The NHL was/is still making a ton of money and revenue. Just not a lot relative to the NBA, so if they are profitable and generating revenue why haven’t the players benefited from that at an appropriate rate during each cba since 1990? The cap being introduced in 2005 was purposely designed to stagnant salary growth and create competitive balance between sharks and the smaller market budget teams.

Off the top its profit vs pay, not revenues that ultimately drive the bus. If for sports talk simplicity we assume profits are pegged to revenues, I suspect the answer is that the union representing the players brought parity to the pay structure through 2005 negotiations.

The chart Confucius posted shows that there are no warranted grievances here on the whole. NHL pays out more per revenue to the players than the NFL and is in line with other professional sports. Superstar pay is driven by market dynamics, including player representation.

Perhaps there's an argument to be made that superstars aren't paid commensurate with the revenues they generate, but that would have to be taken up with their union. It's a team sport more than others, so how much are revenues tied to superstars vs winning? I don't know, but the Leafs make their money superstars or not.