Rumor: Nylander like Matthews unextended. Nothing to see here.

[Dekes For Days]

Actually back to back 100 point+, and b2b 40 goal seasons

No, he signed before this past season. He only had one.

 

[andora]

Wonder why the league or PA doesn't allow that. Can see teams do that with top players.

It would allow you yo lock in a player at a set cap %.. that would be pretty cool.. maybe as a franchise player tag

 

[Throw More Waffles]

Rantanen wasn't better in any of the ELC seasons, and was significantly worse in years 1 and 3. He was the 2nd best player on his line, playing on a super-line, and he still couldn't produce like Marner. He just got pumped full of huge amounts of PP time and picked up some empty net points, and people got an inflated perception of what he was back then.

ELC year 2:

Rantanen: 29 goals, 84 points
Marner: 22 goals, 69 points

Dekes for Days: "Rantanen wasn't better in any of the elc seasons".

You can't make this stuff up. I'm glad I had popcorn prepared again for this one. It's that entertaining.

Rantanen was better year 3 as well. He's also been the superior player the past 3 years.

Rantanen has been better than Marner in every capacity measurable other than their rookie years. "But but but... Marner plays on the PK sometimes." Lol, who cares.

Rantanen: 9.2 mil aav
Marner: 10.9 aav.

The biggest joke in the history of the entire planet. And Marner was WAY more front loaded and WAY more in signing bonuses. It's unacceptable. It's god damn freaking UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

 

[andora]

It'd be good for the players (assuming the cap never goes down), but it would lead to uncertainty for the GMs (won't truly know how much players will be on the books for until the cap numbers are released).

If you sign to cap% it would have a little certainty

Could bavkfire though as anything

 

[Throw More Waffles]

No, he signed before this past season. He only had one.

Marner only had one 90 point season and was paid as a 90 point player (not mid-60's point player from his first two seasons).

I'll bring this up EVERY time you use that batshit crazy argument.

 

[andora]

ELC year 2:

Rantanen: 29 goals, 84 points
Marner: 22 goals, 69 points

Dekes for Days: "Rantanen wasn't better in any of the elc seasons".

You can't make this stuff up. I'm glad I had popcorn prepared again for this one. It's that entertaining.

Rantanen was better year 3 as well. He's also been the superior player the past 3 years.

Rantanen has been better than Marner in every capacity measurable other than their rookie years. "But but but... Marner plays on the PK sometimes." Lol, who cares.

Rantanen: 9.2 mil aav
Marner: 10.9 aav.

The biggest joke in the history of the entire planet. And Marner was WAY more front loaded and WAY more in signing bonuses. It's unacceptable. It's god damn freaking UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

It would help with a simple defining statement

In terms of X marner was better
In terms of Y rantanen was better

 

[Throw More Waffles]

It would help with a simple defining statement

In terms of X marner was better
In terms of Y rantanen was better

In terms of "hockey", Rantanen was better.

In terms of "contract negotiating", Marner was better.

 

[authentic]

No, he signed before this past season. He only had one.

And he had 15 points in 27 playoff games.

 

[Dekes For Days]

ELC year 2:

Rantanen: 29 goals, 84 points
Marner: 22 goals, 69 points

That 2nd year is a good example of how misleading raw points can be when considered with zero context.
Of that 15 point gap, 5 of them were into an empty net, and at the rate Rantanen produced on the PP, 14 were from his extra PP time.
That's before we even consider that Rantanen was playing on a super line with a better player than him, while Marner was with the likes of Bozak and JVR.
While year 2 was the closest Rantanen got to Marner on his ELC, Marner was still better.

Rantanen was better year 3 as well.

Again, not true. Marner produced way better at 5v5 (2.87 > 2.17) and similarly on the PP (5.94 vs. 6.54), while bringing good PK impacts.

He's also been the superior player the past 3 years.

Not only not true, but irrelevant to their contracts.

Marner only had one 90 point season and was paid as a 90 point player (not mid-60's point player from his first two seasons).

Again, Marner was paid based on his entire ELC, not just the one year. He entire ELC was one of the best pre-signing periods in cap era history. If he was paid based exclusively on what he did as a 21 year old in 2018-2019, his contract would have been bigger. His point total - which is already great - actually undervalues the offensive impact he had in that season.

 

[nuck]

If you sign to cap% it would have a little certainty

Could bavkfire though as anything

The thing is, that was never how it was supposed to work. A certain percentage of the revenues goes to the players and that revenue increases pretty well every year. ALL the players, not just a few guys at the top of the food chain. The agents somehow sold cap % to some slow thinking GMs early on and now it has become a thing. The stars are inhaling all the cap growth and the middle and lower rung guys who are 90% of the NHLPA are getting underpaid or not paid at all and they are just watching it happen.

There's no argument for demanding a consistent and fixed percentage of the clubs spending power if you aren't providing a fixed percentage of the clubs production. But if the NHLPA doesn't look after their members the clubs don't really have the leverage to do that for them.

Sorry if that wandered off your post a bit but it does seem that the current system works against competition and fair compensation for all players.

 

[Golden_Jet]

No, he signed before this past season. He only had one.

Oh ya right that’s now.

 

[Notsince67]

Yep.

Marner had a better rookie season.

Rantanen had a VASTLY superior second season.

Rantanen had a slightly better third season.

Marner makes 1.5 more than him, WAY more front loaded, and WAY more in signing bonuses. All because he was better for 1 of 3 total seasons which occurred three years prior when he was 18 years old.

It makes absolutely no sense and I'm sick of people defending it. I'm SICK of it.

The problem with what you said is that I actually watched the season. Slow start and apparently suffering from mono and deployment on the 4th line for a spell. When teamed with Kadri in December, Marner ran up a 1.13ppg up to the end of the year. That's a 93 pt pace in the middle 6 and without JT. He continued that torrid pace through the next year. As contracts are paid on expected future production, he had about a year and a half of elite numbers to prove his case. Numbers like that are extremely rare and your continued specious attempt to make a stupid point after it has been raised many time is so f***ing tedious.

 

[Notsince67]

Kind of like Marner and his huge amounts of PP time, not to mention all his secondary assists?

What are u talking about?
No where near Rantanens PP time at the time and one of the top primary point players in the league at the time

 

[lipstickjunkie]

I could have sworn this was a Nylander thread.

 

[andora]

In terms of "hockey", Rantanen was better.

In terms of "contract negotiating", Marner was better.

I lol'd
I would love rantanen over marner

The thing is, that was never how it was supposed to work. A certain percentage of the revenues goes to the players and that revenue increases pretty well every year. ALL the players, not just a few guys at the top of the food chain. The agents somehow sold cap % to some slow thinking GMs early on and now it has become a thing. The stars are inhaling all the cap growth and the middle and lower rung guys who are 90% of the NHLPA are getting underpaid or not paid at all and they are just watching it happen.

There's no argument for demanding a consistent and fixed percentage of the clubs spending power if you aren't providing a fixed percentage of the clubs production. But if the NHLPA doesn't look after their members the clubs don't really have the leverage to do that for them.

Sorry if that wandered off your post a bit but it does seem that the current system works against competition and fair compensation for all players.

No you're good and i agree pretty much. But no matter the concept it would always go this way in my opinion. Outside of setting a more aggressive max salary, it will keep this trend

You can feed off the supply of player working their asses off to make the show at the cheapest rates as the supply will never run out

 

[andora]

I could have sworn this was a Nylander thread.

Nylander was the 17th most expensive per primary point and the 13th most efficient out of the 30 most prominent post elc winger contracts in the cap era.. so not bad... on the good side of the mean on both

 

[RoadWarrior]

ELC year 2:

Rantanen: 29 goals, 84 points
Marner: 22 goals, 69 points

Dekes for Days: "Rantanen wasn't better in any of the elc seasons".

You can't make this stuff up. I'm glad I had popcorn prepared again for this one. It's that entertaining.

Rantanen was better year 3 as well. He's also been the superior player the past 3 years.

Rantanen has been better than Marner in every capacity measurable other than their rookie years. "But but but... Marner plays on the PK sometimes." Lol, who cares.

Rantanen: 9.2 mil aav
Marner: 10.9 aav.

The biggest joke in the history of the entire planet. And Marner was WAY more front loaded and WAY more in signing bonuses. It's unacceptable. It's god damn freaking UNACCEPTABLE!!!!!

the answer is simple. Denver is a more desirable place to play than Toronto. Lower taxes primarily plus the world famous skiing at Aspen.

 

[IPS]

Rantanen had 55 goals this year and 105 points, he averaged 34 more seconds of PP time a game than Marner.

What kind of production are we expecting from Marner with averaging 34 more seconds of PP time?

He averaged 3:34 this year vs 2:35 in his contract year where he got paid. So almost a minute more of PP time equaled out to about 5 more points for Mitch.

This whole idea of Marner getting more PP time means he's going to magically hit production levels that vastly exceed Rantanen is pure garbage.

But Rantanen is significantly worse than Marner. Absolutely baseless and stupid take. Marner making $1.6M more than Rantanen is absolute lunacy.

 

[IPS]

What are u talking about?
No where near Rantanens PP time at the time and one of the top primary point players in the league at the time

Ever struck you that maybe Rantanen is just better on the PP than Marner? Is that an advantage you'd be willing to admit Rantanen has over Mitch?

 

[trellaine201]

Dubas won the player agents poll of most likeable GM to work with. I hope he took that with him and hung it up in his new office in Pitt.

Thats very true. Good luck Pitt. It worked out well here and hoping it works out with your seniors.

 

[tuckerintensity]

We shouldn't pay William Nylander 9 million dollars a year because Mitch Marner isn't better enough than Mikko Rantanen for someone who doesn't understand that Mitch Marner is a better player than Mikko Rantanen? Weird flex.

 

[Enniskillen]

Rantanen is a better player who proved his worth in winning a cup. What did Marner win? Negotiations with Dubas is his only win so far. So I don’t blame Willy for demanding more as Matthews and Marner don’t give a f.ck about team.

 

[Gabriel426]

It'd be good for the players (assuming the cap never goes down), but it would lead to uncertainty for the GMs (won't truly know how much players will be on the books for until the cap numbers are released).

But isn’t that the case now too since the cap is always an unknown

 

[socko]

Matthews doesn't score many PP goals, so of course the new criteria is 5 on 5 goals, as if PP goals don't count just as much. I'm surprised we haven't blamed anything on Matthews wrists yet, there should be a 5 on 5 adjusted for good wrists stat within easy reach.

 

[Gabriel426]

The problem with what you said is that I actually watched the season. Slow start and apparently suffering from mono and deployment on the 4th line for a spell. When teamed with Kadri in December, Marner ran up a 1.13ppg up to the end of the year. That's a 93 pt pace in the middle 6 and without JT. He continued that torrid pace through the next year. As contracts are paid on expected future production, he had about a year and a half of elite numbers to prove his case. Numbers like that are extremely rare and your continued specious attempt to make a stupid point after it has been raised many time is so f***ing tedious.

1. I think MM is worth his contract now.
2. I would prefer MM’s current contract to be under 10mil like Rantanen
3. When MM was signed, he was the 7th highest paid player in the league and 2nd highest Winger. Not sure he was a top 10 player or top 5 winger in the league at that time.
Agree about contracts being future value but it would be nice if Lesfs players will take discount in future value in their contracts.