Guys, Antroputz is right. Marner had zero impact on that McMann goal. Not only that, but he had nothing to do with the overtime winner, either.
It is the games which we are playing at the moment, the ones providing current entertainment. You must be fun at parties, “Well this isn’t Christmas is it…”
You did, when you pretended that players need to hit some arbitrary goal mark to get paid, despite a long history of that not being true.
Yes, obviously.
Yes, obviously.
No, but your multiple posts dismissing playmaking impacts to overemphasize goals and create weird goal-related criteria and imaginary cap limits for playmakers is very dismissive of playmaking.
Why will Matthews get more pesos then Marner is it
We don't know what Marner will get, but it's going to come down to his relative quality and overall impact, not his playstyle.
He is though. There's really no argument otherwise. There is no goal total or playstyle criteria to be paid like that. Playmaking is valuable, whether you want to admit it or not, and plenty of playmakers have made the equivalent and more without hitting 40 goals.
He does generate himself. There's more to generating goals than who last touched the puck.
I remember hearing how Domi can easily replace what Marner brings.
@ToneDog dont listen to this poster. The only people who dont care are the Marner Only Fans.
During the Esmonton Broadcast Ron Maclean indicated revenue has bee. Better than expected and the cap is set to jump alot in a couple years. Apparently the players association was goinf to discuss potentially splitting the increase and having next years increase even more rhan expected.
Even if he was, I’d still want a discount, similar to what the sunshine tax free states do. You want to play for your hometown, give us a bit of a break.
