Speculation: Mitch Marner Mega Thread, the saga continues with Part 8 ...

[Funk21]

Can’t put the link in but on TSN he sat down for an interview and seemed a lot more engaging. Seemed very optimistic a deal between the two sides “can and will” get done. Hopefully it’s a win for the team but not holding my breath!

 

[Dekes For Days]

And I do suspect that if McDavid played for Toronto, he would be playing more than 20 minutes. Datsyuk and Zetterberg both averaged over 21 minutes on Babcock's 2008 Red Wings, including over 4 minutes on the PP.

You cherry-picked their highest TOI year in their entire careers. Mr. misrepresent at it again.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg were 29 and 27 respectively at that point (not 21), and still placed 21st and 25th in the league in ES TOI per game, in their highest TOI year, despite being 2 of the best players in the game in their most productive year.
Matthews was 33rd this year.

Datsyuk and Zetterberg were also 17th and 24th in PP TOI per game, despite Detroit getting the 2nd most PP opportunities in the league that year (almost double what the Leafs got this year).

Neither of them were in the NHL at Matthews' age, but even in their mid-20s, when they had both finally broken out into PPG+ players (2005-2006), they were 46th and 67th in ES TOI per game league-wide. They were 89th and 91st in PP TOI per game that year; while Detroit was still higher than the Leafs on the league PP opportunities list.

Thank you for proving the opposite of your claim.

 

[Pure Slaughter Value]

 

[Liferleafer]

Something needs to be done, honestly.

I'm out for most of the day yesterday, I check the thread when I get home as 15+ pages have been added, so I think something's happened. Nope, 20 minutes of scrolling through Matthews, McDavid, Stamkos and ****in Jonathan Cheechoo talk.

It's enough.

Like clicked.

 

[Liferleafer]

You have intentionally narrowed down your parameters to something so extremely specific and arbitrary as top-5 goal scorers on the entirety of their ELC who didn’t play in a tax free state. Do you not see what you’re doing here? What do you honestly think that proves?

We can both play that game. I can intentionally narrow down my parameters to forwards who had never scored 70 points in their ELC. I don’t think you will find a single one who got 14.63% of the cap. If you can find one, I can just say something about Matthews’ signing bonuses in order to disqualify them.

In reality, there are a few players who won a Rocket Richard on their ELC. Cheechoo, Kovalchuk, Nash, and Stamkos all come to mind. Cheechoo is an outlier as he signed in the middle of his Rocket Richard season, but between the 4 of them, their average cap hit percentage was 12.40%, and 3 of those contracts were signed at a time when the cap was much much higher. Matthews hasn’t even won a Rocket Richard, and I would say that means more than being top-5 over the entire ELC.

It’s not revisionist history to say that Matthews played for a strong team. Like at all. They were literally a good team and he didn’t drag them or anything like that. That’s reflected by their numbers when he isn’t even on the ice.

You can keep adding “you are wrong” at the end of your posts if it helps you convince yourself of something but it’s not accurate.

Dude...you're in a Marner thread....can we lay off the Matthews stuff for a while? Oh...and Johnathon f***ing Cheechoo? Seriously?

 

[Dekes For Days]

We can both play that game. I can intentionally narrow down my parameters to forwards who had never scored 70 points in their ELC.

Which is both incredibly dishonest, and also wouldn't include Matthews.

In reality, there are a few players who won a Rocket Richard on their ELC.

So you don't like his parameters, but arbitrary awards as the parameters is fine?

Cheechoo, Kovalchuk, Nash, and Stamkos all come to mind. Cheechoo is an outlier as he signed in the middle of his Rocket Richard season, but between the 4 of them, their average cap hit percentage was 12.40%, and 3 of those contracts were signed at a time when the cap was much much higher.

Hahahahaha. You actually used Cheechoo to twist the average percentage? Hahahaha.

That's not even counting Stamkos; your favourite player to mention because he's such an outlier.

You're so obvious it's hilarious sometimes.

Bottom line, though, he didn’t take a discount; he took the same amount of money that Yzerman offered him, which was market value.

Wow, the revisionist history people have regarding Stamkos is really something.

As I've said before, Matthews is a unique player. You can set up a certain set of parameters to make his contract look okay, or you can set up parameters to make it look really ****ing bad. Your parameters are meaningless.

Why are his parameters meaningless? Because they don't fit to your pre-conceived ideas? What makes your parameters good? All you've literally done since the beginning is put Matthews into a tiny box to compare him to the most cherry-picked examples. Your parameters in earlier threads created a total of 3 bad comparables over 15 years from a completely different era, all of which had distinct differences, and you attempted to use that to "prove" that Matthews was overpaid.

The only one that has been trying to bury context in this discussion is you.

Matthews hasn’t even won a Rocket Richard, and I would say that means more than being top-5 over the entire ELC.

Not at all. Consistency is king.

It’s not revisionist history to say that Matthews played for a strong team. Like at all. They were literally a good team and he didn’t drag them or anything like that. That’s reflected by their numbers when he isn’t even on the ice.

Playing for a strong team does not automatically help Matthews' numbers.
Playing for a weak team does not automatically hurt Stamkos' numbers.

Of course, if you actually wanted to look at the context of that situation, you would know that. You're implying something dishonest with your numbers by hiding context, while accusing other people of being dishonest with their numbers by adding context.

 

[Hunter368]

Both sides are guilty of going off topic, get back on topic now or infractions start. You've been warned. This is a Marner thread......discuss anything related to Marner.

 

[danpantz]

Doesn't seem like he's interested in signing an offer sheet, but also not interested in signing for what Toronto is currently offering.

At this point I think both sides will wait it out until just before the season when Marner will give in on the dollars and Toronto will give in on some years.

10 x 4

Marner doesn't take me for the holdout type.

 

[Dekes For Days]

10 x 4

4 years is the least likely number of years. It takes him straight to UFA.

We are likely looking at 2, 3, 6, or maybe 5.

 

[danpantz]

4 years is the least likely number of years. It takes him straight to UFA.

We are likely looking at 2, 3, 6, or maybe 5.

Could see 5. I think Marner wants to go straight to UFA but also wants to get paid in the process. He's going to have to give in on either money or years.

 

[Hunter368]

4 years is the least likely number of years. It takes him straight to UFA.

We are likely looking at 2, 3, 6, or maybe 5.

Agreed, but I would be vaguely surprised if it was 5 years which would mean both Marner & AM deals expire the same season. Not saying it can't happen, just would be vaguely surprised Dubas would agree to that. Just my $0.02

 

[Dekes For Days]

Agreed, but I would be vaguely surprised if it was 5 years which would mean both Marner & AM deals expire the same season. Not saying it can't happen, just would be vaguely surprised Dubas would agree to that. Just my $0.02

I would be surprised with 5 years, and I think Dubas is fighting that term hard, but it's where post-ELC contracts are going (especially in this uncertain environment), and it's still better than 4. I think if it came down to it, and 1,2,3,6,7,8 were not options, Dubas may sign Marner for 5. I think he'd look at trades or letting him sit if his only option was 4.

I still think the most likely is a bridge. It satisfies the most things from both sides.

Marner really doesn't want long-term. This makes sense because of the pre-CBA, pre-expansion, pre-TV deal environment, and only 1 proven elite year.
Equal/more term than Matthews will have more issues because he'll never get the same AAV as Matthews on it. With lower term, Marner can pretend in his head like his lower AAV is more for that reason than being a lesser player. And on his next contract, with a rising cap, he would likely close the gap on Matthews in AAV for a couple of years.
Marner believes he is the level he showed last year (or better) going forward, and should be paid for it exclusively. I doubt his ability to prove it is a concern for him.
Leafs need more proof before they can invest that much AAV into a player with some concerns.
Helps the cap situation for the next few years, when things are tightest and they have potentially their best contention window.

 

[Isaac Nootin]

Agreed, but I would be vaguely surprised if it was 5 years which would mean both Marner & AM deals expire the same season. Not saying it can't happen, just would be vaguely surprised Dubas would agree to that. Just my $0.02

Nylander deal is expiring in 5 years as well.

I really can't see a 4 or 5 year deal at this point. It's either a short term 2/3 year deal or 6, IMO.

2 or 3 years @ 8.5-9

6 years @ 10-10.5

 

[Nervousbreakdown]

Nylander deal is expiring in 5 years as well.

I really can't see a 4 or 5 year deal at this point. It's either a short term 2/3 year deal or 6, IMO.

2 or 3 years @ 8.5-9

6 years @ 10-10.5

I cant see them giving him that much on a 2-3 year deal.

 

[Hunter368]

Closed due to so many OT posts, opened a 8.5 thread so stay on topic.