Nylander's Holdout is About a lot More Than Willy and the Leafs

[trick9]

How so? The Leafs are in the enviable position of having a spare #1C ready to jump into place, and a spare #2C that was sitting on the 3rd line. They are sitting pretty, tied for 1st in the NHL. The Leafs can afford quite a bit. The impact here is the Leafs 3rd line gets weaker, which is a storm the Leafs can weather.

There is literally no need to make panic moves as the Leafs are basically in the most comfortable situation possible for having a #1C go out with injuries.

Their first-line gets worse even if you move JT there. Then there is a question that can he carry Kapanen like AM did. Then, if you do that and move Kadri to 2nd line then your both 2nd and 3rd lines still get worse. They still have a good roster now but i wouldn't play down the impact that losing your 1C makes, especially with the start that he's had.

 

[hatterson]

Salary and Signing Bonuses are two different things in the CBA. A Signing Bonus is part of the player's total compensation for a given season, but is not part of the Salary.

Nylander could end up making more money by waiting, but that would assume Toronto eventually increases their offer to him. If that happens then his cap would be higher--there's no magical outcome where Nylander both makes more money and the Leafs get a lower cap hit. Either the money and cap are both higher or the money and cap are both lower.

The closest to "more money, less cap" would be if the Leafs and Nylander came to the agreement of something like 6 years $42 million, majority in salary. That would mean Nylander is giving up, by not signing now, just shy of a million dollars per 12 games sat out. Dubas could say to the Nylander camp "Hey, signing this now would only mean you really get paid $40 million over the next 6.8 years, how about we just sign a 6 year, $40 million deal and make it all bonuses." Nylander gets fully paid and the cap hit would be 6.666 million.

 

[Nizdizzle]

Their first-line gets worse even if you move JT there. Then there is a question that can he carry Kapanen like AM did. Then, if you do that and move Kadri to 2nd line then your both 2nd and 3rd lines still get worse. They still have a good roster now but i wouldn't play down the impact that losing your 1C makes, especially with the start that he's had.

They were a 100+ point team with Matthews/Kadri/Bozak down the middle. Tavares/Kadri/Lindholm is a slight downgrade from that but nothing that should be sending anyone panicking. Tavares has a history of making bad players look good on the Islanders, he'll play fine with Kapanen. The Leafs are well set up to handle being without Matthews for 15-20 games. It'll be a test, but there are other positions that would be more impactful (Rielly/Gardiner or Anderson being out long-term). They'll be just fine.

 

[redgrant]

How does Nylander look at Mark Stone when Stone hasn't signed said extension? You can't bargain over hypotheticals. Pastranaks deal was also market value at the time it was signed last year. He has obviously gotten better since it was signed but it is disingenuous to make it sound like he took a sweat heart deal by choice. He took the most money available based on his comparable and market value. Nylander is comparable at the times they signed the contract. Nylander has done absolutely nothing to deserve 7.5.....Can you list one comparable for him in the range?

You can make the same argument on the other side as well. Nylander might look at Pastranak's deal and say "I certainly dont want to make a deal like that right now...hes a 9m player he left tens of millions on the table."

At the end of the day its ludicrous to insist that Nylander take the deal Pastranak took. Lol by that logic Dubas should argue he should take a million less around 5.5 million as hes not as good as Pastranak.

There is a range that goes |Sweetheart Pasta --------------------------------Nylander---------------------------------Idiotic Drai|

 

[mouser]

The closest to "more money, less cap" would be if the Leafs and Nylander came to the agreement of something like 6 years $42 million, majority in salary. That would mean Nylander is giving up, by not signing now, just shy of a million dollars per 12 games sat out. Dubas could say to the Nylander camp "Hey, signing this now would only mean you really get paid $40 million over the next 6.8 years, how about we just sign a 6 year, $40 million deal and make it all bonuses." Nylander gets fully paid and the cap hit would be 6.666 million.

So that would be "same money, same cap" then.

a) $42m over 6 years with $6m first year salary = Nylander makes $40m and year 2+ cap is $6.66m.

b) $40m over 6 years with the $40m somehow fully paid = Nylander makes $40m and year 2+ cap is $6.66m.

 

[hatterson]

So that would be "same money, same cap" then.

a) $42m over 6 years with $6m first year salary = Nylander makes $40m and year 2+ cap is $6.66m.

b) $40m over 6 years with the $40m somehow fully paid = Nylander makes $40m and year 2+ cap is $6.66m.

Shouldn't it make a difference that one contract is a $42 million contract as opposed to a $40 million contract. Or am I just misunderstanding how contracts signed partway into a year are applied to the cap.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Shouldn't it make a difference that one contract is a $42 million contract as opposed to a $40 million contract. Or am I just misunderstanding how contracts signed partway into a year are applied to the cap.

Having read ~100 or so mouser posts on this situation, I believe the pro-rated discount in the capfriendly example only comes into play with salary. Bonuses are paid in full lump sum and are unaffected.

For example, if you were hired July 1st 2018 on a 100k/year salary, you would make 50k in 2018 at that position. However, if your employer paid you the 100k in a lump sum bonus on July 1st, you would make the entire 100k.

 

[hatterson]

Having read ~100 or so mouser posts on this situation, I believe the pro-rated discount in the capfriendly example only comes into play with salary. Bonuses are paid in full lump sum and are unaffected.

For example, if you were hired July 1st 2018 on a 100k/year salary, you would make 50k in 2018 at that position. However, if your employer paid you the 100k in a lump sum bonus on July 1st, you would make the entire 100k.

Right, that's what I meant. If he signed for say $42m/6 years all salary the calculated cap hit would be $7/m a year but in the first year he'd only make $5m and the Leafs would only get dinged for the part of the year he's on the roster at a $7 m cap hit for 3/4 of the year or so.

If he signed a $40m/6 year deal all bonus (it can't be, but for example) he'd get paid the entire $40 mil, and his averaged cap hit would be $6.66 mil for all years.

I may be misunderstanding it though as it's possible the cap hit is calculated when the SPC is signed based on what they're expected to actually get paid, not on what the full terms of the SPC are.

 

[mouser]

Shouldn't it make a difference that one contract is a $42 million contract as opposed to a $40 million contract. Or am I just misunderstanding how contracts signed partway into a year are applied to the cap.

No difference in this case (assuming the player is only paid $40m of the $42m contract). When a player signs a multi-year contract after the season starts the CBA calculates the cap hits as follow:

Years 2+: Add up all the money the player is actually paid in the contract. Then divide that amount by the # of years in the contract. Since in both instances here the player would actually earn $40m then the year 2+ cap hits would be the same $6.66m.

Year 1: Take the year 2+ cap hit and divide it by the % of the season the player is under contract. e.g. If a player misses 20% of the season before signing then Year 1 cap hit is equal to Year 2+ cap hit divided by 0.80.


The purpose of the "inflated" year 1 cap hit is to remove any incentive for teams to delay signing a RFA to create cap space in year 1. If you think about it, all this "inflated" year 1 cap hit does is cancel out the pro-ration that would otherwise happen. e.g. If a team signs a player 20% of the way into the season then the pro-rated portion of that player's AAV that actually hits the team's bottom line year 1 would normally be 80% of the AAV. By inflating that figure by 1/0.80 it cancels out the 0.80/1 pro-ration. So if a team and a player were to agree on a deal that truly pays the player the exact same amount there would be no value in delaying signing the contract. Whether it's signed 5%, 10%, 20%, or 30% of the way into the season the amount of the contract AAV that hits the team's bottom line in year 1 will be identical.

 

[Mickey Marner]

Right, that's what I meant. If he signed for say $42m/6 years all salary the calculated cap hit would be $7/m a year but in the first year he'd only make $5m and the Leafs would only get dinged for the part of the year he's on the roster at a $7 m cap hit for 3/4 of the year or so.

If he signed a $40m/6 year deal all bonus (it can't be, but for example) he'd get paid the entire $40 mil, and his averaged cap hit would be $6.66 mil for all years.

I may be misunderstanding it though as it's possible the cap hit is calculated when the SPC is signed based on what they're expected to actually get paid, not on what the full terms of the SPC are.

So, in scenario a) he makes $41 million all salary and scenario b) he makes $40 million all bonus? Both with identical cap hits?

 

[hatterson]

So, in scenario a) he makes $41 million all salary and scenario b) he makes $40 million all bonus? Both with identical cap hits?

He'd make $40 in each scenario. Mouser laid out why it doesn't matter though.

 

[Bringer of Jollity]

to mouser doing some yeoman's work in this thread.

 

[SmellOfVictory]

I would be surprised if NYlander continued his holdout long term. He's losing quite a bit of money each passing day.

Not necessarily. You can remedy the lost potential earnings by making the bulk of the payment come in signing bonus form.

 

[RiskyBryzness21]

Why not sign him to a 1-2 year contract, since they can't get to a consensus with money long-term, and since he's wasting his time anyway right now

 

[Nizdizzle]

Why not sign him to a 1-2 year contract, since they can't get to a consensus with money long-term, and since he's wasting his time anyway right now

Apparently, they are apart on a good number for a bridge deal as well.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Apparently, they are apart on a good number for a bridge deal as well.

I almost feel bad for Nylander, stuck with an agent who apparently thinks of himself as the Scott Boras of hockey.

I guess they'll just keep right on holding their collective breath in hopes that Dubas makes a panic move.

Wonder if they've raised their ask, now that Matthews is on the shelf.

 

[My3Sons]

I almost feel bad for Nylander, stuck with an agent who apparently thinks of himself as the Scott Boras of hockey.

I guess they'll just keep right on holding their collective breath in hopes that Dubas makes a panic move.

Wonder if they've raised their ask, now that Matthews is on the shelf.

He's not stuck with an agent. On some level Nylander has responsibility for his choice. Maybe it's the father driving the bus, which wouldn't be shocking. I agree with you that whoever his agent is has gone all in with brinksmanship and it's unclear right now if it is the correct play. In baseball an agent can always just squeeze the team and make it look bad to its fans if it doesn't want to pay a player. With an actual cap I'm not sure that the Boras approach would work as well.

 

[Icebreakers]

"we have some good news, Matthews has been injured so we will take 500k off his salary and give it to you, how does 6.5 sound?"

 

[Dr Pepper]

He's not stuck with an agent. On some level Nylander has responsibility for his choice. Maybe it's the father driving the bus, which wouldn't be shocking. I agree with you that whoever his agent is has gone all in with brinksmanship and it's unclear right now if it is the correct play. In baseball an agent can always just squeeze the team and make it look bad to its fans if it doesn't want to pay a player. With an actual cap I'm not sure that the Boras approach would work as well.

Well if he and his agent weren't seeing eye to eye, I suspect Nylander would have cut bait long ago, maybe even before the season started. Yet here we are nearly a month in, and he's still playing hardball.

Maybe his dad is in one ear and his agent is in the other. Nylander's a big boy, he should be able to make this decision all by himself.

Every other RFA in the league managed to work out a deal...not quite sure what sets him apart.

 

[Soundwave]

I guess the other aspect is Nylander comes from money, his father is a multi millionaire and likely has no qualms supporting his son through this period.

 

[My3Sons]

I guess the other aspect is Nylander comes from money, his father is a multi millionaire and likely has no qualms supporting his son through this period.

That's always been an under the radar issue for me in this negotiation. If the dad has some axe to grind based on his own experiences and this is his chance to "get back" at the system, the only one really being hurt is the son. Shame if that's the case. Hopefully there is a behind the scenes article on this when it's over. I'm sure a lot of hockey fans can see this playing out on other teams and will want to know what was kept out of the press.

 

[Soundwave]

That's always been an under the radar issue for me in this negotiation. If the dad has some axe to grind based on his own experiences and this is his chance to "get back" at the system, the only one really being hurt is the son. Shame if that's the case. Hopefully there is a behind the scenes article on this when it's over. I'm sure a lot of hockey fans can see this playing out on other teams and will want to know what was kept out of the press.

I don't think it's really an axe to grind thing so much as his family is loaded and the father is telling the kid to not take less. They're in no rush. Dad can make payments on that high rise condo if need be.

 

[My3Sons]

I don't think it's really an axe to grind thing so much as his family is loaded and the father is telling the kid to not take less. They're in no rush. Dad can make payments on that high rise condo if need be.

Hopefully it ends soon. The league and the young player are both better off if compromise is reached.

 

[5 Minute Major]

The Leafs look like a legit force without him in the lineup.

If they can swing the right trade I think their odds of hoisting a Cup grow tremendously over already decent odds to begin with.

 

[NoName]

i dont think he cares too be honest, he's willing to hold out to get his money. i'm guessing there's a massive gap between what he wants and what the leafs are willing to give and for that reason IMO he can risk missing an entire season.

Except after December 1 the equation radically changes for Nylander if he doesn’t sign before then he stands to lose the entire $6-6.5 million the Leafs were offering him for this season. At which point, even if he manages to push the Leafs for an AAV higher than their original offer he is still losing more money just by missing a full year’s salary. Add to that Nylander sitting out a whole season hurts his value in negotiations with the Leafs if anything, so the odds of Toronto being willing to lose him for a season and fold and five him a massive contract that would at least cover the lost wages from this season is... unlikely to say the least. The Leafs have the leverage here, and that only becomes more so as that deadline approaches.