Player Discussion Mitch Marner

[Aashir]

I wonder if he’s back for tmrw

Seems like a game we could use him

 

[ACC1224]

I wonder if he’s back for tmrw

Seems like a game we could use him

Sadly I don’t think so

 

[Jimmy Firecracker]

Yeah the earliest we'll see Mitch is Wednesday after Tuesday's practice which Keefe highlighted earlier this week in an interview. Florida tomorrow is too soon so hopefully the Leafs can put up a good effort against a likely playoff opponent without him.



Hell I wouldn't even be upset if he missed Wednesday as well and wasn't back until Saturday against Montreal. Better safe than sorry.

 

[Racer88]

You bet based on nothing. The only ones I ever saw tackle value based on contract was the athletic who had Marner providing surplus value of 3.7 million.
Elite players are not linearly divisible by contract and skill. They are often under paid for their value relative to everyone else.
You can bet away but you have contradicting evidence that just plowing 11mm back into the team would make the team better at all. I can't believe people are still talking about this nonsense given the information shared by people who actually know the game. This has been dealt with time and time again. Unless you have specific trades in mind, you should just stop. It really isn't worthy of any constructive discussion.

What’s nonsense is thinking that Marner is the only use of 11 million dollars for the construction of this team and that no other use of that 11 million could possibly be of benefit. That is simply short sighted and a refusal to consider other options.
As far as a fan proposing specific trades that is totally a nonsense narrative and an easy way out for you to dismiss any opinion that differs from your blind support of a single player.
How would we know what or who is available. You need to stop as your position is not worthy of constructive discussion for the possibility of improving the team. It simply an attempt to prop up your favourite player

 

[Racer88]

It makes me laugh when some people think that we could never get better by replacing Marner with other assets that the team desperately needs such as defence. I hate to break it to you guys but every cup winner since Marner came into the league has 1 thing in common…….no Marner on their team and yet somehow they won the cup including upstart Vegas. It must be luck……who knew

 

[Evilhomer]

What’s nonsense is thinking that Marner is the only use of 11 million dollars for the construction of this team and that no other use of that 11 million could possibly be of benefit. That is simply short sighted and a refusal to consider other options.
As far as a fan proposing specific trades that is totally a nonsense narrative and an easy way out for you to dismiss any opinion that differs from your blind support of a single player.
How would we know what or who is available. You need to stop as your position is not worthy of constructive discussion for the possibility of improving the team. It simply an attempt to prop up your favourite player

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think that is what he is saying. At risk of putting words in people's mouths, I think what he is saying is that using the $11 million to get two players who are not as good as the $11 million player is not necessarily the best strategy. This is a simplistic way to say it, but essentially one really good player can have more impact on a game than two pretty good players. Now, if that $11 million was instead spent on a single defenseman (think Makar, Hughes, guys of that type), then I agree that a re-allocation of the $11 million could beneficial. But for one $7 million guy and one $4 million guy? I don't think that is as good as having the $11 million player.

 

[notDatsyuk]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think that is what he is saying. At risk of putting words in people's mouths, I think what he is saying is that using the $11 million to get two players who are not as good as the $11 million player is not necessarily the best strategy. This is a simplistic way to say it, but essentially one really good player can have more impact on a game than two pretty good players. Now, if that $11 million was instead spent on a single defenseman (think Makar, Hughes, guys of that type), then I agree that a re-allocation of the $11 million could beneficial. But for one $7 million guy and one $4 million guy? I don't think that is as good as having the $11 million player.

Better be careful with those numbers - $7 million and $4 million? Like Nylander and Domi?

 

[Stephen]

Not sure how possible it would be, but if they sat out Marner till the playoffs started and had him rejoin the team kind of as an add on and not a centrepiece it could take a lot of pressure off him.

 

[bax]

The scoring looks pretty balanced among the other 3. The true test would be to add that 11 million back into the team and I bet we would be even better

I don’t think anyone would disagree that pumping 11 million back into the team will make them way better I’m just pretty confident it won’t be marners 11. Well depends who does the pumping I suppose as we’ve previously seen.

I think it’s pretty clear that Tavares will be off the books after next season and that’s where that money will come from. I’m pretty sure some of you guys will be very disappointed.

 

[Evilhomer]

Better be careful with those numbers - $7 million and $4 million? Like Nylander and Domi?

If you can find another player of Nylander's calibre on a $7 million deal, I'm all ears.

 

[Racer88]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think that is what he is saying. At risk of putting words in people's mouths, I think what he is saying is that using the $11 million to get two players who are not as good as the $11 million player is not necessarily the best strategy. This is a simplistic way to say it, but essentially one really good player can have more impact on a game than two pretty good players. Now, if that $11 million was instead spent on a single defenseman (think Makar, Hughes, guys of that type), then I agree that a re-allocation of the $11 million could beneficial. But for one $7 million guy and one $4 million guy? I don't think that is as good as having the $11 million player.

Who said anything about 2 players that aren’t as good. What if they could help fix up the D with that 11 million…….thats what my point is

Not sure how possible it would be, but if they sat out Marner till the playoffs started and had him rejoin the team kind of as an add on and not a centrepiece it could take a lot of pressure off him.

The dude is making basically 11 million per year and t you can bet your a$$ that he will be asking for more. He is well paid to handle that pressure

 

[Racer88]

I don’t think anyone would disagree that pumping 11 million back into the team will make them way better I’m just pretty confident it won’t be marners 11. Well depends who does the pumping I suppose as we’ve previously seen.

I think it’s pretty clear that Tavares will be off the books after next season and that’s where that money will come from. I’m pretty sure some of you guys will be very disappointed.

I agree it will undoubtedly be Tavares money be reallocated but my point was it’s totally nonsense that no matter what we would do with the money if it was Marners we would automatically be worse without him

Not sure how possible it would be, but if they sat out Marner till the playoffs started and had him rejoin the team kind of as an add on and not a centrepiece it could take a lot of pressure off him.

Delete

 

[Notsince67]

What’s nonsense is thinking that Marner is the only use of 11 million dollars for the construction of this team and that no other use of that 11 million could possibly be of benefit. That is simply short sighted and a refusal to consider other options.
As far as a fan proposing specific trades that is totally a nonsense narrative and an easy way out for you to dismiss any opinion that differs from your blind support of a single player.
How would we know what or who is available. You need to stop as your position is not worthy of constructive discussion for the possibility of improving the team. It simply an attempt to prop up your favourite player

Like I said, the Athletic cites him as providing surplus value of 3.7mm. You provided no trade proposals and only suggested we plow.11mm back into the team. Assuming the players you get back are fairly paid, you are still short. The very notion that this is some slam dunk accounting issue is pretty dumb. You assume to replace him and another player at the least and hope to generate 14.7mm of value with an 11 million budget. 2 5.5mm players who are producing at a 7.35mm level hypothetically...just to break even.
If you have better numbers, by all means present them. There isn't any squirming around the hyperbolic bs that some of you guys continue to spew around here.
These are numbers produced by one of various sources. Just come up with at least one that contradicts it.

 

[ZEBROA]

The biggest reason to have Marner back fast is for him to get back to game speed, and Keefe to set his playoff lines. As if Keefe would ever make up his mind, or evetually do as I always do.

Knies matt marner
Bert tavares nylander
Mcmann domi jarny/robertson
Who cares, who cares, who cares

 

[Maple Leaf]

The biggest reason to have Marner back fast is for him to get back to game speed, and Keefe to set his playoff lines. As if Keefe would ever make up his mind, or evetually do as I always do.

Knies matt marner
Bert tavares nylander
Mcmann domi jarny/robertson
Who cares, who cares, who cares

Next season we can sent marner to LTIR and cheat like kucherov

 

[Antropovsky]

Like I said, the Athletic cites him as providing surplus value of 3.7mm. You provided no trade proposals and only suggested we plow.11mm back into the team. Assuming the players you get back are fairly paid, you are still short. The very notion that this is some slam dunk accounting issue is pretty dumb. You assume to replace him and another player at the least and hope to generate 14.7mm of value with an 11 million budget. 2 5.5mm players who are producing at a 7.35mm level hypothetically...just to break even.
If you have better numbers, by all means present them. There isn't any squirming around the hyperbolic bs that some of you guys continue to spew around here.
These are numbers produced by one of various sources. Just come up with at least one that contradicts it.

What year was the article you cited? Here is an article from 2024 from the Athletic questioning whether there is enough substance to his game:

Bit of a contradiction:

Mitch Marner is scoring, but is there enough substance to his game this season?​

Mitch Marner is scoring, but is there enough substance to his game this season?

Marner needs to bring the Maple Leafs more than what sometimes seems to be empty-calorie scoring.

theathletic.com

​

 

[Antropovsky]

We have a pretty healthy sample size of Marner without Matthews this season. Matthews has played over 1/4 of the season without Marner, 26% of the season apart so far.

Matthews total points without Marner this season:
22 games 20 g 16 a 36 points.
82 game pace 75 g 60 a 135 point pace.

What's incredible is, without Marner, Matthews has only 3 goals and 7 points on the PP.
For reference Matthews has 45 even strength goals and 68 even strength points thus far this season.

Even strength with Marner, Matthews stats are:
60 gp 28 g 11a 39 points
82 pace 38 g 15 a 53 points .65 p/pg pace.

Even strength without Marner his stats are:
22 games 17 goals 12 assists and 29 points.
82 pace 63 goals 44 assists 108 points, 1.32 ppg pace.

Coincidence? Could be... but these stats aren't even remotely close and the sample size is pretty good.

 

[Squiffy]

It makes me laugh when some people think that we could never get better by replacing Marner with other assets that the team desperately needs such as defence. I hate to break it to you guys but every cup winner since Marner came into the league has 1 thing in common…….no Marner on their team and yet somehow they won the cup including upstart Vegas. It must be luck……who knew

Until last year, no Leaf team had won a playoff series since Aki Berg anchored our blue line.

RIP @Aki Berg

Beyond that, our team is what it is right now, and we need Mitchy back. Save the offseason for the offseason.

 

[Racer88]

Until last year, no Leaf team had won a playoff series since Aki Berg anchored our blue line.

RIP @Aki Berg

Beyond that, our team is what it is right now, and we need Mitchy back. Save the offseason for the offseason.

At this point I do agree that we need Marner back. The money has been spent and we need as much value back as possible.
My point is that it is absolutely possible to have success without Marner going forward as long as that freed up cap is properly used. Some seem to think that we could never have that if we didn’t have him

 

[Racer88]

Like I said, the Athletic cites him as providing surplus value of 3.7mm. You provided no trade proposals and only suggested we plow.11mm back into the team. Assuming the players you get back are fairly paid, you are still short. The very notion that this is some slam dunk accounting issue is pretty dumb. You assume to replace him and another player at the least and hope to generate 14.7mm of value with an 11 million budget. 2 5.5mm players who are producing at a 7.35mm level hypothetically...just to break even.
If you have better numbers, by all means present them. There isn't any squirming around the hyperbolic bs that some of you guys continue to spew around here.
These are numbers produced by one of various sources. Just come up with at least one that contradicts it.

I have 1 question for you and without a yes or no answer there is no point continuing this conversation
Do you acknowledge the possibility that the team could be improved if the 11 million from Marner was properly spent on addressing some of the glaring issues on the team such as defence.
Forget your argument that if a fan forum poster cannot specifically detail such a move that it cannot exist.
Yes or no

 

[Gary Nylund]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I don't think that is what he is saying. At risk of putting words in people's mouths, I think what he is saying is that using the $11 million to get two players who are not as good as the $11 million player is not necessarily the best strategy. This is a simplistic way to say it, but essentially one really good player can have more impact on a game than two pretty good players. Now, if that $11 million was instead spent on a single defenseman (think Makar, Hughes, guys of that type), then I agree that a re-allocation of the $11 million could beneficial. But for one $7 million guy and one $4 million guy? I don't think that is as good as having the $11 million player.

IMO it depends on the situation. Maybe this makes sense if have many good players, but no 11 million players. We already have a few 11 million players though, and not enough good players. Look at the Cup Champion Vegas team, if we flipped Marner for a couple of defenceman we'd look a lot more like them than we do now.

Like I said, the Athletic cites him as providing surplus value of 3.7mm. You provided no trade proposals and only suggested we plow.11mm back into the team. Assuming the players you get back are fairly paid, you are still short. The very notion that this is some slam dunk accounting issue is pretty dumb. You assume to replace him and another player at the least and hope to generate 14.7mm of value with an 11 million budget. 2 5.5mm players who are producing at a 7.35mm level hypothetically...just to break even.
If you have better numbers, by all means present them. There isn't any squirming around the hyperbolic bs that some of you guys continue to spew around here.
These are numbers produced by one of various sources. Just come up with at least one that contradicts it.

The Athletic also said Kerfoot had the same value as Kadri, then Kadri had a season for the ages and made them look clueless. The notion that whatever numbers their formula spits out should be taken as gospel is pretty dumb.

 

[thewave]

We have a pretty healthy sample size of Marner without Matthews this season. Matthews has played over 1/4 of the season without Marner, 26% of the season apart so far.

Matthews total points without Marner this season:
22 games 20 g 16 a 36 points.
82 game pace 75 g 60 a 135 point pace.

What's incredible is, without Marner, Matthews has only 3 goals and 7 points on the PP.
For reference Matthews has 45 even strength goals and 68 even strength points thus far this season.

Even strength with Marner, Matthews stats are:
60 gp 28 g 11a 39 points
82 pace 38 g 15 a 53 points .65 p/pg pace.

Even strength without Marner his stats are:
22 games 17 goals 12 assists and 29 points.
82 pace 63 goals 44 assists 108 points, 1.32 ppg pace.

Coincidence? Could be... but these stats aren't even remotely close and the sample size is pretty good.

This the problem with small samples and even more so when awarding contracts based on small samples. Matthews was on fire and then slumped at around the same time or before MM was injured.

Marner is good player in most situations. I just think we are better off with depth at D because the Dcore is lacking too much to Cup. Regardless hope he comes back soon.

 

[Dekes For Days]

It makes me laugh when some people think that we could never get better by replacing Marner with other assets that the team desperately needs such as defence.

It makes me laugh when people think Marner's impact can be easily replaced by 10.9m in cap space.
Is it theoretically possible? Sure, anything is possible.
Is it in any way likely? Heck no, and it would be a horrible decision to take that unnecessary risk.
The team is more than capable of being good defensively without getting rid of Marner - who is also one of our best defensive forwards and PKers.
We did it for years, even through a flat cap.

 

[francis246]

This the problem with small samples and even more so when awarding contracts based on small samples. Matthews was on fire and then slumped at around the same time or before MM was injured.

Marner is good player in most situations. I just think we are better off with depth at D because the Dcore is lacking too much to Cup. Regardless hope he comes back soon.

Marner isn't the 11 million player you get rid of. It's John Tavares. Unfortunately the easiest solution is wait for Tavares' contract to expire and re allocate that 11 million to defense. We don't need to get rid of any of Marner, Nylander or Matthews. You keep those three and start building the defense around them.

Secondly Dubas was awful in choices at depth. Hope Treliving will be better at getting the pro scouting staff to identify good, reliable UFA's and trust our depth to come up and play roles. I look at Calgary's defense and I trust Treliving to rebuild ours. We have to be patient and hit on the right UFA's. My guess is they use that 11 mill to sign Ekblad in 2025. We missed out on Pietrangelo but maybe Ekblad could be the answer.

 

[TMLBlueandWhite]

IMO it depends on the situation. Maybe this makes sense if have many good players, but no 11 million players. We already have a few 11 million players though, and not enough good players. Look at the Cup Champion Vegas team, if we flipped Marner for a couple of defenceman we'd look a lot more like them than we do now.


The Athletic also said Kerfoot had the same value as Kadri, then Kadri had a season for the ages and made them look clueless. The notion that whatever numbers their formula spits out should be taken as gospel is pretty dumb.

Those same.player cards from the Athletic also say Liljegren is an $8.5M defenseman.

You get what you pay for. After my free subscription ran out I signed up for $1 a month for the year. I have another 8 months to go.

I won't be renewing my subscription again even if they give it away.