Mitch Marner, Yet Again

[ULF_55]

Discussed by who?
IMO, it will be/is a distraction that's not needed.

I really don't think being unsigned is a distraction to anyone, except maybe the player himself.

McMann going in on net isn't thinking "hmmm. What's Mitchie thinking?"

 

[Antropovsky]

This is a fact. You're learning to not draw conclusions based on little data other than that you are correct in identifying it as a bit of a slump.
Unfortunately as ALWAYS you leave out any of the good stuff and use one short run of one isolated stat to say much more than is reality.
So here are some of the things that you forgot to mention:

In the time period of the last 16 games:
At 5v5 he is tied for the most goals on the team but only 7th in shots taken.
At 5v5 he is tied for second (after Matthews) in total points.
At 5v5 he has been on for 11 goals for and 7 against.

The team has won 10 times but 4 of them in OT/SO
At 5v5 the team is GF 35 GA 33, not good.
At 5v5 the team has been out shot 358 to 318, real bad

Outshot by alot? Marners line was outshot 2 to 7 vs Ottawa and severly outchanced.

McMann Tavares Marner
2 shots for
7 shots against
Xgf: 0.13
Xga: 1.08
Scoring chances for 2
Scoring chances against: 6
High danger chances for: 0
high danger chances against: 5

Knies Matthews Domi
4 shots for
5 shots against
Xgf: 0.16
Xga: 0.12
Scoring chances for: 5
Scoring chances against: 3
High danger chances for: 1
high danger chances against: 0

 

[Aashir Mallik]

Rantanen took less than market value. He was offered a bigger contract in Carolina. He got paid in bonuses and had positive tax implications. Plus he wanted to live in a city.

I don’t think anyone with a straight face can deny he took less than market value

but doesn't that inheriently make comparable contracts lower?

like imagine if a player is worth 8M but every single comparable took 6.5M, wouldn't that mean he'd be overpaid at 8M because all of the similar players took 1.5M less?

in marner's case, it shouldn't matter that rantanen took less than market value, him taking 12x8 at all should lower the ceiling on a potential marner contract. Not saying it's as clear cut as the example above, but a number like 14M or 14ish% contract shouldn't be in his cards, he should be closer to 12.5ish%.

otherwise no player can ever have a comparable because each contract is so different, but that's not the case.

 

[notDatsyuk]

Rantanen took less than market value. He was offered a bigger contract in Carolina. He got paid in bonuses and had positive tax implications. Plus he wanted to live in a city.

I don’t think anyone with a straight face can deny he took less than market value

The bonuses he got are a lot less than what Marner got last time or will likely get again here.

So Marner should, by your logic, accept an even lower number to re-sign here.

 

[francis246]

but doesn't that inheriently make comparable contracts lower?

like imagine if a player is worth 8M but every single comparable took 6.5M, wouldn't that mean he'd be overpaid at 8M because all of the similar players took 1.5M less?

in marner's case, it shouldn't matter that rantanen took less than market value, him taking 12x8 at all should lower the ceiling on a potential marner contract. Not saying it's as clear cut as the example above, but a number like 14M or 14ish% contract shouldn't be in his cards, he should be closer to 12.5ish%.

otherwise no player can ever have a comparable because each contract is so different, but that's not the case.

I think it probably creates a floor but I don’t think it does anything to lower the market value. It’s a rising cap and teams have money to spend. Marner will get crazy offers, he might not take the highest one but it might force a good team to pay slightly higher than what they would.

Prime example is Tavares. The summer before Stamkos got what on the open market? 9/9.5? At that time he’s a much better player than Tavares who the following year gets almost 2 and a half more than him.

Tavares used offered from San Jose and the island to push the Toronto threshold

 

[Antropovsky]

Key thing that Friedman said is : "I asked Jake McCabe this question about you...."

 

[francis246]

The bonuses he got are a lot less than what Marner got last time or will likely get again here.

So Marner should, by your logic, accept an even lower number to re-sign here.

From a team/gm/fan perspective yes. I think he should take less if we are front loading his contract, it’s the least he can do.


From a player perspective, nope, not his problem. That’s for the team to figure out.

 

[ULF_55]

It's like dealing with children in here. Last time.

Even if you want to ignore the fact that Rantanen got $12M, and just look at the "4 months of Rantanen (unsigned) for 4 months of Marner (unsigned)".

By Tre approaching Marner to see if he would waive his NTC so that the trade could be made, Tre made it clear that he valued Rantanen more than he valued Marner, and that he was willing to not have Marner on the team going forward.

If you want to look at Rantanen's new contract separately, then consider that, as a better player (and one Tre indicated he would prefer), the current market value is $12M, which implies that Marner's real market value is somewhat lower.

I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

My interpretation of the Rantanen situation is:

Carolina expressed an interest in a swap for Rantanen.
Treliving knowing marner is not signing with the Leafs during the season and understanding he may go to July 1st., asked marner if he has any interest in waiving, to go to Carolina.
marner said no.

If marner was open to the idea, my guess is they would have to get serious about an extension for both players.

Carolina wasn't keeping Rantanen because they didn't want to lose him for nothing and he wasn't going to sign with them.

Why would they turn around and take a player with less success in the post season who would walk away.

It was reported Rantanen was interested in about 4 teams, and the Leafs were one of them.

'Cane would have done Knies, +, + 2*1st. rounders, Leafs wouldn't include Knies.
I doubt the Leafs would have done unsigned marner +++ assets for Rantanen.

There is talk / rumour 'Canes are interested in UFA marner in the summer, which would mean they'd be willing to pay him his ask.

I think the deal would have been:
Signed marner
for
Signed Rantanen

Leafs only advantage is the 8 years on a term, but as I've suggested the 8 years may be as important to marner as they were to Matthews.

 

[ACC1224]

but doesn't that inheriently make comparable contracts lower?

like imagine if a player is worth 8M but every single comparable took 6.5M, wouldn't that mean he'd be overpaid at 8M because all of the similar players took 1.5M less?

in marner's case, it shouldn't matter that rantanen took less than market value, him taking 12x8 at all should lower the ceiling on a potential marner contract. Not saying it's as clear cut as the example above, but a number like 14M or 14ish% contract shouldn't be in his cards, he should be closer to 12.5ish%.

otherwise no player can ever have a comparable because each contract is so different, but that's not the case.

His comparables are internally Matthews and Nylander. He’ll fit in the middle, closer to Matthews than Nylander.

 

[ULF_55]

His comparables are internally Matthews and Nylander. He’ll fit in the middle, closer to Matthews than Nylander.

$13mm

Question is term.

 

[Sypher04]

$13mm

Question is term.

Yup, this is what I also expect

 

[666]

It's like dealing with children in here. Last time.

Even if you want to ignore the fact that Rantanen got $12M, and just look at the "4 months of Rantanen (unsigned) for 4 months of Marner (unsigned)".

By Tre approaching Marner to see if he would waive his NTC so that the trade could be made, Tre made it clear that he valued Rantanen more than he valued Marner, and that he was willing to not have Marner on the team going forward.

If you want to look at Rantanen's new contract separately, then consider that, as a better player (and one Tre indicated he would prefer), the current market value is $12M, which implies that Marner's real market value is somewhat lower.

I don't think I can explain it any more clearly.

At least you've come off of the Tre values Marner less that $12M. That was one of the dumbest things I've seen.

you said: If you want to look at Rantanen's new contract separately, then consider that, as a better player (and one Tre indicated he would prefer)

It's all in that sentence. First, the new contract has nothing to do with Marner or the Leafs AT ALL. The trade was 4 months (unsigned) for 4 months (unsigned) or else a signed Rantanen would have been worth WAY more than 4 months of Marner. Get it? You need to understand that sentence before you can go on.

Second, Tre did not indicate that he would prefer Rantanen to Marner (under any circumstances) and in fact indicated a preference to sign Marner. What Tre did do was to indicate that he would prefer 4 months of Rantanan to 4 months of Marner because it appears (we don't know for sure) that Marner is walking and Rantanen might have been eager to sign.

Tre's choice was 4 months of Marner and then probably nothing or 4 months of Rantanen with a good chance of signing him. If that's the deal (and none of us know for sure) then you have to ask Marner to waive.

The rest of your post is wrong based on you not understanding the logic above.

 

[Gary Nylund]

What numbers?!

I was responding to this stat:
Marner has 0 primary assists at 5v5 in his last 16 games.

 

[francis246]

I was responding to this stat:
Marner has 0 primary assists at 5v5 in his last 16 games.

Oh I couldn’t see who posted that truthfully

 

[IPS]

You repeat yourself a lot.

Are you aware that Marner played the most 5v5 minutes and was on the ice for only 2 goals against and one of them was that fluke goal at the end.
He had the lowest GA/60 of ALL the Leafs. And he plays against the oppositions top guys.
Shirley you have to at least acknowledge that 1+(1) goals against in 7 games against their best is pretty good.
I wonder if the coaches ask him to use his amazing defensive skills or he just does it without direction.

Edit to add.
Forgot to mention that Matthews had one goal with a sh% of 6.25 for his 5 games. I wonder if that might have impacted Marner's points.

Gotta agree with this one 100%, you're dead bang on the money here. Marner's 3 points in 7 games was one of the most legitimately elite 3 points in 7 games performances in NHL history.

All the analysts and panel guys (or really anyone who gets paid to understand hockey) who pointed out Marner's blatant struggles just didn't have a clue what they were watching.

 

[IPS]

First, I assume that you actually watch the games unlike Gary.
Second, evaluating players based only on points ignores something like 98% of the game.
Third, you're obviously a puck watcher. Learn to watch what happens away from the puck, you are missing most of the game.

You're welcome.

So all the rankings from ESPN, Sportsnet, The Hockey News, NHL Network, and TSN who've had lists throughout various years that have had Rantanen ranked ahead of Marner are all "puck watchers" too?

 

[Racer88]

$13mm

Question is term.

Sure what the hell might as well waste the rest of the decade on a failed core 5

 

[Aashir Mallik]

I think it probably creates a floor but I don’t think it does anything to lower the market value. It’s a rising cap and teams have money to spend. Marner will get crazy offers, he might not take the highest one but it might force a good team to pay slightly higher than what they would.

Prime example is Tavares. The summer before Stamkos got what on the open market? 9/9.5? At that time he’s a much better player than Tavares who the following year gets almost 2 and a half more than him.

Tavares used offered from San Jose and the island to push the Toronto threshold

That’s true, it is crazy though. You’d think comparable players would create sort of caps on what another player could make just based on how similar they are, but history points the other way.

His comparables are internally Matthews and Nylander. He’ll fit in the middle, closer to Matthews than Nylander.

Yea we don’t have anyone else lol, it’s just confusing how sometimes people bring up comparables from other teams and sometimes it’s comparable within team.

Biases aside, I’d peg a fair value deal based internally now to be 12.5. Each player of the core 3 should come down maybe 1-1.5M tbh. Nylander at 9.5, Marner at 11, Matthews at 12ish would be fair imo, but we aren’t in that dream scenario.

 

[arso40]

$13mm

Question is term.

Or he can just walk not worth the headache nor the distraction get your money else where hope you have a long and prosperous career

 

[Dreakmur]

It's a business, it has very little to do with love.

That’s great, but it’s run and played by individuals who have feelings that get hurt. You have to know Marner is on the sensitive side…

Anyone who plays hockey (hell players in the MTHL get traded) understands the nature of the business, and why NTCs are all the rage. I think we'd all be surprised how many guys get asked to wave, and how many guys still resign even after they're asked.

Yes, lots of guys get it’s a business… and some guys are emotional…

 

[arso40]

That’s true, it is crazy though. You’d think comparable players would create sort of caps on what another player could make just based on how similar they are, but history points the other way.


Yea we don’t have anyone else lol, it’s just confusing how sometimes people bring up comparables from other teams and sometimes it’s comparable within team.

Biases aside, I’d peg a fair value deal based internally now to be 12.5. Each player of the core 3 should come down maybe 1-1.5M tbh. Nylander at 9.5, Marner at 11, Matthews at 12ish would be fair imo, but we aren’t in that dream scenario.

Marner on no team is worth a mill and a half more than nylander cap percentage aside of course bottom line I don’t think we should resign him

 

[Gary Nylund]

Oh I couldn’t see who posted that truthfully

Yeah I assumed you have the poster on ignore, no worries. Pretty gross stat though, I would have guessed Marner may not have had a 16 game stretch without a primary assist in his entire career. Not that I care really, I'm just waiting for the playoffs.

 

[Gary Nylund]

Wow what a rebuttal. You sure do ignore facts that you don't like a lot.

Nope. I saw you're using +- to justify 3 points in 7 games which is the final nail in the coffin. It seems like you're on Marner's PR payroll and if that's true, good for you. They'd be better off hiring someone else though because your posts lately are a joke.

 

[notDatsyuk]

At least you've come off of the Tre values Marner less that $12M. That was one of the dumbest things I've seen.

you said: If you want to look at Rantanen's new contract separately, then consider that, as a better player (and one Tre indicated he would prefer)

It's all in that sentence. First, the new contract has nothing to do with Marner or the Leafs AT ALL. The trade was 4 months (unsigned) for 4 months (unsigned) or else a signed Rantanen would have been worth WAY more than 4 months of Marner. Get it? You need to understand that sentence before you can go on.

Second, Tre did not indicate that he would prefer Rantanen to Marner (under any circumstances) and in fact indicated a preference to sign Marner. What Tre did do was to indicate that he would prefer 4 months of Rantanan to 4 months of Marner because it appears (we don't know for sure) that Marner is walking and Rantanen might have been eager to sign.

Tre's choice was 4 months of Marner and then probably nothing or 4 months of Rantanen with a good chance of signing him. If that's the deal (and none of us know for sure) then you have to ask Marner to waive.

The rest of your post is wrong based on you not understanding the logic above.

I said "just look at the "4 months of Rantanen (unsigned) for 4 months of Marner (unsigned)". Sorry you missed that.

Do you think that being willing to trade a player for another doesn't mean you think the other player is better (or at least better suited to your needs)? Do you think Tre would consider the trade if he thought he was getting the bad end?

There is nothing wrong with my post, but possibly just with your understanding of it.

 

[Legion34]

I said "just look at the "4 months of Rantanen (unsigned) for 4 months of Marner (unsigned)". Sorry you missed that.

Do you think that being willing to trade a player for another doesn't mean you think the other player is better (or at least better suited to your needs)? Do you think Tre would consider the trade if he thought he was getting the bad end?

There is nothing wrong with my post, but possibly just with your understanding of it.

1.) we don’t know if he thinks one is slightly better than the other. Rantanen has a case for making more money due to Higher goals

2.) all reports are that mikko would have signed here, Dallas or Florida. Rod said there was a 4th team. Don’t know who that was

3.) Marner has not talked contract. Mikko would have.

So would you trade a gaurantee of 8 years of mikko for Marner if he wants to leave?

Even IF we like Marner better, I take 8 years of mikko now before “let’s hope for the best in June”.

It’s not apples to apples.