Player Discussion Mitch Marner - On Hiatus

Will Marner be traded this off season?


  • Total voters
    361
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Trapper

Registered User
Nov 21, 2013
24,658
12,824
100% think we will try.

99% convinced he won't waive.

So, with the trade option off the table, is it better to lose him for nothing, or extend him, and try and augment the roster around them with the JT money, and re-assess down the road?
I’m not even 100% convinced we try.
Management has shown to react like tree stumps for something going on for 8 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: myleafs

ToneDog

56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Jun 11, 2017
25,525
24,855
Richmond Hill, ON
c'mon, you better check out Ovie playoff state. playoff chokers do not mean a playoff no-show :laugh::laugh::laugh:
OV

1715189681702.png


Marner

1715189712386.png


Nylander

1715189743345.png
 

Drytoast

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
6,578
4,785
100% think we will try.

99% convinced he won't waive.

So, with the trade option off the table, is it better to lose him for nothing, or extend him, and try and augment the roster around them with the JT money, and re-assess down the road?
Yes. For 11M you could have a Hyman and Schenn. Bunting and Kerfoot...basically you can poach some decent mid piece from a club who is also cash strapped and who deserves a pay bump.

So yes. Marner is not more valuable than his 11M cap hit and his contract expectations that he will have to stay here. If he reupped for 5M, sure. he can stay. Anything more than 5M...there is the door Mitch. Go find your value somewhere else.

f*** em. And take your agent with ya, Mitchy.
 

ToneDog

56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Jun 11, 2017
25,525
24,855
Richmond Hill, ON
100% think we will try.

99% convinced he won't waive.

So, with the trade option off the table, is it better to lose him for nothing, or extend him, and try and augment the roster around them with the JT money, and re-assess down the road?
Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
 

ToneDog

56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Jun 11, 2017
25,525
24,855
Richmond Hill, ON
If our options are overpay 12M+ or lose for nothing, I'm choosing the latter.

Price matching a MacKinnon contract without playoff results is not palatable in any fashion. Winning matters a lot and it's time we act like it.
It is laughable when you watch MacK and Marner in the playoffs. Let somebody else pay to watch him shit the bed in April.
 

Larcos_Unal

Excuses are for losers
Jul 6, 2007
5,900
7,045
Toronto
Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
There's many examples of teams forcing players out, making tough decisions on longstanding pros. It's usually done cause rather than blindly paying a player what he wants, the GM will prioritize what's best for the team's success...Leafs rarely adhere to this unless we're talking about Robidas Island.
 
  • Like
Reactions: myleafs and ToneDog

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
31,147
24,567
Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
Agree 100%.

A more interesting poll would be not will he be traded, but should he be kept in Toronto going forward, or ditched as soon as possible. I would expect that to be overwhelmingly in favor of moving forward without him, but would also be interesting to hear the case for giving him another long term contract for top dollar which is what it would take to keep him. I mean it's yet another lengthy miserable off-season, I could do with the laughs.
 

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
13,335
5,224
GTA or the UK
I’m not even 100% convinced we try.
Management has shown to react like tree stumps for something going on for 8 years.
In theory, "trying" should amount simply to a conversation or two about where he stands and if he'd be willing to move.

Having Treliving here, instead of Dubas, should also make it easier for the Leafs to approach the Marner camp, as it's not the same GM / regime that offered that deal.

At the very least, it's due diligence.
 

ACC1224

Super Elite, Passing ALL Tests since 2002
Aug 19, 2002
76,572
43,026
Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
McDonagh didn't have a NMC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buds17

notdoneyet

Registered User
Jun 19, 2006
4,402
2,043
Leafland
Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
34 disappears as much as Mitch in the playoffs
Not impressed with his stats
 

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
13,335
5,224
GTA or the UK
Yes. For 11M you could have a Hyman and Schenn. Bunting and Kerfoot...basically you can poach some decent mid piece from a club who is also cash strapped and who deserves a pay bump.
True, but for $11M you could also have Kerfoot, Holl, and Ceci.

Point is, blowing a huge hole in the lineup in favor of $11m in cap space doesn't make you better. Spending that money wisely, does, but building through free agency is often a fool's errand - which is why I'd much prefer trying to facilitate a trade where the Leafs get something tangible and cost-controlled back that they can insert straight into the core.

It would never happen, but something along the lines of a Clayton Keller player in return.

Tampa forced out McDonough who can still play in the playoffs. Leafs can force Marner if need be. If not, let him play out the season and let him walk. Use his and Tavares' cap hits to surround 34 and 88 with players who do not disappear in April. Resigning him for $12+m is insanity.
I generally agree, and would prefer the trade route - just pointing out that losing him for nothing is worst case scenario imo.

I don't believe no Marner + $11m in cap space is a net positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WilliamInLondon

Drytoast

Registered User
Sep 27, 2017
6,578
4,785
True, but for $11M you could also have Kerfoot, Holl, and Ceci.

Point is, blowing a huge hole in the lineup in favor of $11m in cap space doesn't make you better. Spending that money wisely, does, but building through free agency is often a fool's errand - which is why I'd much prefer trying to facilitate a trade where the Leafs get something tangible and cost-controlled back that they can insert straight into the core.

It would never happen, but something along the lines of a Clayton Keller player in return.


I generally agree, and would prefer the trade route - just pointing out that losing him for nothing is worst case scenario imo.

I don't believe no Marner + $11m in cap space is a net positive.
Naw resigning him for Nylander's value would be worst case scenario. His cap hit is more valuable than he is now.
 

Tak7

Registered User
Nov 1, 2009
13,335
5,224
GTA or the UK
Naw resigning him for Nylander's value would be worst case scenario. His cap hit is more valuable than he is now.
Let's agree to disagree here.

$11m is nice, but you now have a huge hole in your lineup for someone who eats a lot of minutes, plays in all situations, and goes up against the oppo's top players. That's not something that's easily replaced, which is why, ideally, the trade route, where you can replace at least 1 or 2 of those aspects, is the best case scenario here, and him walking away for nothing, is the worst.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ACC1224

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
31,147
24,567
True, but for $11M you could also have Kerfoot, Holl, and Ceci.

Point is, blowing a huge hole in the lineup in favor of $11m in cap space doesn't make you better. Spending that money wisely, does, but building through free agency is often a fool's errand - which is why I'd much prefer trying to facilitate a trade where the Leafs get something tangible and cost-controlled back that they can insert straight into the core.

It would never happen, but something along the lines of a Clayton Keller player in return.

I generally agree, and would prefer the trade route - just pointing out that losing him for nothing is worst case scenario imo.

I don't believe no Marner + $11m in cap space is a net positive.
Just because it's possible to spend cap space unwisely, doesn't mean cap space isn't extremely valuable. Instead of Kerfoot Holl and Ceci, you could have Hyman, Domi and Schenn just as an example.

I take 11m in cap space over Marner myself. And if Marner refuses to waive his NMC, the choice is more like either sign Marner for 12-13 million for 8 years, or let him walk and take the cap space and for me, that decision is super easy.

I'm with O'Dog - I want no part of Marner going forward.
 

Gary Nylund

Registered User
Oct 10, 2013
31,147
24,567
Let's agree to disagree here.

$11m is nice, but you now have a huge hole in your lineup for someone who eats a lot of minutes, plays in all situations, and goes up against the oppo's top players. That's not something that's easily replaced, which is why, ideally, the trade route, where you can replace at least 1 or 2 of those aspects, is the best case scenario here, and him walking away for nothing, is the worst.
That's regular season. In the playoffs, you have someone who just doesn't do much tp help the team win and is worth nowhere close to his cap hit. The bigger the games get, the less useful Marner becomes so if you want playoff success, you're better off spending the money elsewhere.

Maybe he'll "figure it out" but we've been saying that for years. Signing him to another lengthy bog money deal in the hopes that it finally happens one of these years seems like a really, really bad idea.
 

ToneDog

56 years and counting. #FireTheShanaClan!
Jun 11, 2017
25,525
24,855
Richmond Hill, ON
True, but for $11M you could also have Kerfoot, Holl, and Ceci.

Point is, blowing a huge hole in the lineup in favor of $11m in cap space doesn't make you better. Spending that money wisely, does, but building through free agency is often a fool's errand - which is why I'd much prefer trying to facilitate a trade where the Leafs get something tangible and cost-controlled back that they can insert straight into the core.

It would never happen, but something along the lines of a Clayton Keller player in return.


I generally agree, and would prefer the trade route - just pointing out that losing him for nothing is worst case scenario imo.

I don't believe no Marner + $11m in cap space is a net positive.
We overpaid to keep Willie because Tre said it was our best option. Clearly it was not and you cannot make the same mistake with Mitch. If you overpay him, you might get even less if you to subsequently try to trade him. He needs to go before the draft if possible IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nineteen67
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad