Player Discussion Mitch Marner - On Hiatus

[mikeyz]

Would love to see it. All they need to do is invent a time machine and a way to transplant Doug Gilmour's brain from 1993 into Mitch.

LMFAO

 

[Stephen]

Seeing as it’s by far most likely Marner is here next season, I’m going to will the Marner redemption arc into existence

Here’s hoping Berube/Lambert can get him to take the next step in his compete level/challenge him, he finds the fun again, stops being combative with the media, steps up as a leader for this team and has a great season.

Marner's been on a redemption tour of a redemption tour since the Columbus series...

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

SIMMONS SAYS: Leafs won't ask Marner to waive no-trade until they see an offer they like

Simmons Says - the usual collection of thoughts, dots and shots from the past week in sports

torontosun.com

SUNRISE, Fla. — There are no plans to ask Mitch Marner to waive the no-trade arrangement on his contract with the Maple Leafs.

But that doesn’t mean the Leafs don’t have serious interest in dealing Marner, possibly closer to the NHL draft or into the summer.

Here’s the plan, much as there is one: The Leafs have basically let it be known in the hockey world they are in trade mode. Just about anyone and everyone is for sale except for Auston Matthews and William Nylander.

The idea, according to those close to general manager Brad Treliving, is to build a Leafs team that can be more competitive come playoff time — better and tougher to play against — both stronger defensively and steadier in goal.

It’s a tall order for the GM, considering the Florida Panthers are playing for the Stanley Cup for the second straight year and Tampa was in the Cup final the three years prior to that. If the Leafs want to go deeper in the playoffs, the road goes through Florida, Tampa and Boston, teams they’ve struggled with in the past.

The NHL knows it’s open season on Marner offers. How often is a 95-point, penalty-killing winger available? The Leafs won’t put the cart before the horse here. They will listen. If one of the offers meets their needs, then — and only then — will they involve Marner in the process and try to convince him why it’s in his best interest to look elsewhere.

If no deal for Marner can be completed — or he doesn’t allow one — it makes next season a greater challenge than expected. The Leafs need help in goal and on defence and, with next-to-no money to spend, what’s Treliving to do?

One year from now, Marner’s contract and that of captain John Tavares will expire, opening up $22 million in payroll, with an increasing salary cap and only $40 million committed. That’s when Leafs management — and not players — will be in control of the payroll and, by extension, the team.

But not until then.

This is sounding like something that Tre told Simmons to write. He is not going to be like Dubas and telegraph the fact he has to move a player and get no offers in return worth doing but because you blabbed your mouth ...you're stuck.

I think they are ready to make Mitch uncomfortable by just placing Domi in his spot and telling him to try and rack up points playing with someone else....that would be the easiest way to get him to give a list of teams. If he ends up in the low 70's for points...it's not a great look for him, because it shows he needs a 69G guy accepting his passes to make him look like an assist machine. It would hurt his UFA value a lot IMO.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

The more amazing thing is that the Leafs gave him a NMC for the last TWO years of his deal. Matthews didn't get that.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I'm sure Dubas tried to do it but was prevented from doing so by the CBA.

 

[MCR74]

You have to respect the NMC. Mitch gave us a lower AAV for that protection! wait

Exactly. A true beacon of generosity, that Marner.

 

[nuck]

I agree. My concern is they might accept 60 cent on the dollar to move him. In my mind Tre did well trading Tkachuk, given Tkachuk wanted out. I hope he can do the same with Marner but if Marner digs in at $12+m, Tre is going to get fleeced. I do not see many teams lining up to pay him $100m.

The issue is always the dollars more than the return. I would be happy with 60% for them to clear $11M+ for the next 8 years. If I had my choice it would be Willie gone and Mitch here getting the $11.5M but that's not happening. Minus Mitch but plus Walker and Roy and they can afford to keep Domi and Bert? Thats with just the cap for a return. They spent horribly wrong and if it costs them 8 years x $12M to see if the Big 3 can possibly achieve more under Berube, that cost is too high. Fleeced is them in any fashion resigning Marner and being doomed to repeat the last 5 playoffs. Groundhog Day except Bill Murray has learned nothing.

If a club can't win a round with the Big 3 then none them can possibly be that important so the need for full value is not what's best for the team, except maybe in a video game environment. They have let the players agents run the show more than any other organization in the league and now its come home to roost. Pay Matty like Mackinnon, Willie like Forsberg, and Mitch like Tkachuk and nobody is getting ripped off and they could maybe keep the band together but they didn't have the nuts when the opportunity was there.

A late 1st, a 2nd and a prospect. 60% return but it doesn't have to mean they take a step backward and the bleeding of assets for cap protection is finally over.

 

[Acesup]

I would gladly have Marner walk as a UFA or trade him for picks because that opens up a crap ton of salary cap to improve the team. Then we can flip picks and prospects for elite talent. JUST. GET. RID. OF. MARNER.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm sure Dubas tried to do it but was prevented from doing so by the CBA.

It looks like you are only eligible for a NMC in years that could have been UFA years.

 

[MCR74]

I would gladly have Marner walk as a UFA or trade him for picks because that opens up a crap ton of salary cap to improve the team. Then we can flip picks and prospects for elite talent. JUST. GET. RID. OF. MARNER.

At this point, l'm OK with him walking for nothing. This core doesn't work, and Berube will find that out soon enough.

 

[arso40]

I believe willy has been our best playoff performer last year matthews is our best player for sure but I believe their both worth 10 mil for sure


Agreed

The issue is always the dollars more than the return. I would be happy with 60% for them to clear $11M+ for the next 8 years. If I had my choice it would be Willie gone and Mitch here getting the $11.5M but that's not happening. Minus Mitch but plus Walker and Roy and they can afford to keep Domi and Bert? Thats with just the cap for a return. They spent horribly wrong and if it costs them 8 years x $12M to see if the Big 3 can possibly achieve more under Berube, that cost is too high. Fleeced is them in any fashion resigning Marner and being doomed to repeat the last 5 playoffs. Groundhog Day except Bill Murray has learned nothing.

If a club can't win a round with the Big 3 then none them can possibly be that important so the need for full value is not what's best for the team, except maybe in a video game environment. They have let the players agents run the show more than any other organization in the league and now its come home to roost. Pay Matty like Mackinnon, Willie like Forsberg, and Mitch like Tkachuk and nobody is getting ripped off and they could maybe keep the band together but they didn't have the nuts when the opportunity was there.

A late 1st, a 2nd and a prospect. 60% return but it doesn't have to mean they take a step backward and the bleeding of assets for cap protection is finally over.

What have you seen over the last couple years that would make you swap willy for marner if the cap hit was the same I'm really interested in your reason(s)

 

[notDatsyuk]

I'm on record as suggesting the minute they signed Tavares, they should have dealt one of their young wingers for help on D or G.

Building from the wingers in, under any plan is futile because its the least important position in team building, if you want to have Stanley Cup playoff success.

We are now at a crossroads where we would like to perhaps remove both JT and Marner going forward and rebuild.

The moment they signed Tavares they stalled the rebuild. They should have gone with Nylander as 2C, so only one winger, and used the money for help on D and G.

Not only would it have saved $11M each year, but would likely have have saved money on the ensuing contracts for Matthews, Marner, and Nylander.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Marner doesnt deserve the criticism he is getting. Tavares should be getting it, the captain who cant skate, makes no impact in a playoff game unless its PP1 in a slowed down setting. 5v5 Tavares is a liability , back pressure and d gap, has him so trapped based on his feet. Marner has value, Tavares has no value at all. With almost identical cap hits, Marner is the name that is floated.

It's not a matter of one or the other - the both deserve, and get, criticism.

The big difference, and why JT seems to get less, is that his game isn't really much worse in the playoffs, and most people have accepted that he is nearing the end of his career. Add to that the fact that, assuming neither is moved, next summer JT will be looking for no more than $4x3, and Mitch will be looking for no less than $12x8.

 

[notDatsyuk]

The more amazing thing is that the Leafs gave him a NMC for the last TWO years of his deal. Matthews didn't get that.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

My understanding is that they were both given NMCs by Dubas, but as per the CBA, a player isn't eligible for one until they hit age 27 or have 7 years in the NHL. In both cases their NMC kicked in as soon as they were legally entitled to it.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Okay? If the player asks for one, the team isn’t obligated to give him one. What’s your point? You guys honestly make it sound like Marner had a gun to Dubas’ head. Dubas made those choices of his own free will. Additionally EVERY top player has some form of trade protection. It was pretty much a given he was going to get one. It’s on the team to convince him to make it limited or work it out so you don’t lose all leverage.

None of the contract is really on the player, it’s on the team. They had full control over an RFA and let him dictate the terms. Additionally mitch gave them 4 years of no trade protection, is it his fault the team has waited for the protection to kick in to now want to trade him?! LOL, come on don’t be silly. That’s 100% on the Leafs.

I have no problem with a player getting as much as he can. Absolutely Dubas messed up terribly, not only on the NMCs for Mitch and Matty, but for signing JT, and badly overpaying both Mitch and Matty.

One small correction - Mitch didn't give them 4 years of no trade - that's in the CBA, that an NMC can't start before a player hits age 27 or 7 years in the NHL.

 

[Craig Button]

It's not a matter of one or the other - the both deserve, and get, criticism.

The big difference, and why JT seems to get less, is that his game isn't really much worse in the playoffs, and most people have accepted that he is nearing the end of his career. Add to that the fact that, assuming neither is moved, next summer JT will be looking for no more than $4x3, and Mitch will be looking for no less than $12x8.

JT will be asking for more than 5 mill and more than 3 years.

If I was JT and signing a contract before I turn 35 it will definitely be more than 3 years and $4M. You can’t bury a 35+ contract. And I don’t think he’s retiring in 3 years. He should look for 6Mx5 or 4.25x8 and have his contract buried in the later years.

 

[Puckstuff]

The biggest problem is by far Tavares but he's not going to waive. Next season is the best time to go for it with McCabe, Woll and Knies all making under 2.0 million. Those 3 alone are due for 7-8 million in raises in 2025-26. McCabe needs a 2 million dollar raise on the cap, Knies will get a 2.5 million dollar raise and Woll will get a 2-3 million dollar raise, eating into nearly all of the Tavares savings. We need this guy off the roster this year, ffs.

 

[ZEBROA]

12 or 12.5 plus 4-5 mill from Tavares thats 17,5 at best. If thats the case spend it wisely. And that is were i am worried. They just cant afford to fck that up. But if they succede it could be the start to reach the 3rd round at least They aint getting there now, so nothing to loose on trying.

Chemestry and attitude might overcome the skill we loose. We need depth players that elevate come playoffs.

 

[sittler rules!!!]

I'm on record as suggesting the minute they signed Tavares, they should have dealt one of their young wingers for help on D or G.

Building from the wingers in, under any plan is futile because its the least important position in team building, if you want to have Stanley Cup playoff success.

We are now at a crossroads where we would like to perhaps remove both JT and Marner going forward and rebuild.

never should have signed Taveras

 

[Arzak]

Okay? If the player asks for one, the team isn’t obligated to give him one. What’s your point? You guys honestly make it sound like Marner had a gun to Dubas’ head. Dubas made those choices of his own free will. Additionally EVERY top player has some form of trade protection. It was pretty much a given he was going to get one. It’s on the team to convince him to make it limited or work it out so you don’t lose all leverage.

None of the contract is really on the player, it’s on the team. They had full control over an RFA and let him dictate the terms. Additionally mitch gave them 4 years of no trade protection, is it his fault the team has waited for the protection to kick in to now want to trade him?! LOL, come on don’t be silly. That’s 100% on the Leafs.

This. Why are you pretending he simply asked like it's no biggie? ROFL

Mitch and his agent demanded NMC, no other way to get one.

This narrative you are pushing that stupid little Mitch just asked, knowing nothing and probably hoping he won't get it is ridiculous. The worst RFA contract ever and NMC, yet Mitchy can't be blamed, man just asked ! ROFL

 

[57 Years No Cup]

I agree. My concern is they might accept 60 cent on the dollar to move him. In my mind Tre did well trading Tkachuk, given Tkachuk wanted out. I hope he can do the same with Marner but if Marner digs in at $12+m, Tre is going to get fleeced. I do not see many NO teams lining up to pay him $100m.

Friendly edit.

 

[ToneDog]

At this point, l'm OK with him walking for nothing. This core doesn't work, and Berube will find that out soon enough.

You cannot let him walk for nothing. This team has bled assets since the rookie GM took over and have been spinning their wheels trying to replace players they throw off the ship to pay the rotten core. It is not like Dubas left the cupboard bursting with prospects.

The floor should be a 30-40 goal scorer making $7-8m with some term and a 1st round pick for me. Anything more would be gravy.

Friendly edit.

I tend to agree but all it takes is one fool like Dubas.

 

[usernamezrhardtodo]

It looks like you are only eligible for a NMC in years that could have been UFA years.

That's what I meant by the CBA preventing Dubas from giving it.

 

[TheDoldrums]

Treliving gave NMCs to Huberdeau, Kadri and Markstrom for anyone thinking things would be different with Marner had he been in charge.

Dubas made a lot of mistakes but Marner would’ve gotten a NMC from basically every GM, stupid to pretend otherwise. There are a ton of much worse players with NMCs in todays league.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Daily rep. Get outttaaaa heeeere

Thank you.

TRADE MARNER

Just getting in my daily rep, like this savage.

 

[Tak7]

Treliving gave NMCs to Huberdeau, Kadri and Markstrom for anyone thinking things would be different with Marner had he been in charge.

Dubas made a lot of mistakes but Marner would’ve gotten a NMC from basically every GM, stupid to pretend otherwise. There are a ton of much worse players with NMCs in todays league.

Rantanen was one of the main comparables at the time of Marner's deal, and he also got an NMC, in the final 2 years of his deal.

It does appear that in general, those that get NMCs compromise somewhere else in the deal - trade protection for a lower AAV or term etc.