Rumor: Pagnotta: Keep an eye on DAL/NSH/VGK/CHI if Marner is shopped

[93gilmour93]

I'd love to listen in on this conversation

 

[Mrfenn92]

View attachment 876324
I'd love to listen in on this conversation

Playing style plans

 

[Arthuros]

View attachment 876324
I'd love to listen in on this conversation

"I want you to rank all of your past coaches by how hard they work."

 

[93gilmour93]

"I want you to rank all of your past coaches by how hard they work."

And I want to see your cellphone

 

[SEALBound]

Correct. All you need is 1, maybe 2, willing to pay the price tag.

The Leafs would be idiots to place ANY significant value on Saros. He has 1 year left, and then is likely to command a price well in excess of $7m. That year, is probably going to be a re-tooling year for the Leafs. Teams don't win cups with high priced goalies; as you will always run into a team that has a goalie who duels with them for half the price.

Sure, if you receive 2 offers from Nashville (and their offer happens to be the best one)...

one being Novak, Evangelista and Saros; and the other being Novak, Evangelista and a 2nd; might as well take Saros as it gives you at least a solid situation for this year and another year to find a better solution.

But, Saros does not at all move the needle in a Marner trade. The list of goalies that "move the needle" for Marner are probably Shesterkin, Oettenger, Swayman, Demko, etc... and none of those guys are being traded.



Nobody is trading for Marner with the idea of him being a 1-year solution.

Fair but that is the exact situation that Marner is in...how do you not see that?

"When MY guy has one year left, he's worth a haul but YOUR guy with one year left is worthless because he only has one year left"

Obviously, goalies and scoring wings are two completely different positions with different impacts, but in terms of status in the league, Marner and Saros are at similar levels, I would say.

Eichel's actually a really good reference point in the discussion... a guy who you had no idea if he was going to be able to play or at what level. A guy who wanted to have a surgery never before performed on a professional hockey player.

He returned Peyton Krebs (former 17th OA), Alex Tuch (A Very Solid top 6 Winger), and 2 high draft picks.

Marner's a known commodity. He's averaged 100 point pace over the past 6 years and excellent defensive metrics.



Yes, that will certainly limit his shoppability.

But, the same could have been said for Tkachuk, who could have signed a $9m qualifying offer or an arbitration award after a huge outlier season, to take him to unrestricted free agency. He controlled his destination by limiting the teams he was willing to sign.

The big difference was that EICHEL HAD FIVE YEARS ON HIS DEAL. NOT ONE. The players might be comparable but the value is certainly not. Plus Eichel is a center. You are dreaming if you think Eichel and Marner return the same.

Not neccesssarily.

A lot of teams will look at the skill he has, and figure that if they can just get him in teh right situation / with the right structure around him, they can carry over his regular season production to the playoffs.

Heck, take him away from Matthews, get him in a position where he's expected to score and not pass all the time throughout the regular season, and that could make him a far more dangerous and less predictable playoff player.

Don't forget, he does have 50 points in 57 playoff games, and has been over a point per game in 2 of the last 3 playoffs.

That one year of 14 in 11 is looking more like a outlier than the norm. When you are paying a premium for a player and you want them to be an impact in the playoffs, you're looking for more than 50 in 57 with two full playoffs resulting in zero goals...and one series win...

But if he's that good and worth that much, why would the TML just keep him? Trade Nylander. Trade Matthews. Why is it that it's Marner that out?

View attachment 876324
I'd love to listen in on this conversation

Berube looks disappointed already.

 

[seanlinden]

Come on man? For the playoffs I’d rather have Hyman than Marner! You can’t deny that……it’s a basic hockey eye test. Add to that their playoff performances……you can google the vids, facts man.

That depends.

If you've already got McDavid, then yeah, you'd want Hyman.

If you're short on skill, then without question, you'd want Marner.

In the case of Toronto, they've got Matthews and they've got Nylander; which is why they don't want Marner.

 

[seanlinden]

Fair but that is the exact situation that Marner is in...how do you not see that?

"When MY guy has one year left, he's worth a haul but YOUR guy with one year left is worthless because he only has one year left"

Obviously, goalies and scoring wings are two completely different positions with different impacts, but in terms of status in the league, Marner and Saros are at similar levels, I would say.

The big difference was that EICHEL HAD FIVE YEARS ON HIS DEAL. NOT ONE. The players might be comparable but the value is certainly not. Plus Eichel is a center. You are dreaming if you think Eichel and Marner return the same.

That one year of 14 in 11 is looking more like a outlier than the norm. When you are paying a premium for a player and you want them to be an impact in the playoffs, you're looking for more than 50 in 57 with two full playoffs resulting in zero goals...and one series win...

But if he's that good and worth that much, why would the TML just keep him? Trade Nylander. Trade Matthews. Why is it that it's Marner that out?

Berube looks disappointed already.

"Toronto's guy" is the centrepiece of the deal and has a full NMC. He's an active participant in the trade, and if an extension will almost certainly be part of the deal or very shortly thereafter. Thsi is what seems to be missing everyone in this thread. If Marner has picked "X Team" to go to, it's because he's probably signing there.

His future contract is one that you should be able to win with.

"Nashville's guy" is not hte centrepiece of the deal, and has no trade protection so you have no idea if he's at all interested in being a Leaf for a long time.

Logisitically, you can't really do a deal where players on both sides have to agree to waiving/extensions.

Even if he does want to be a Leaf, he's probably signing a contract that makes him a winning-prohibitive goalie, given the way goalies are paid this year.


As for why the Leafs would trade him... they're obviously not trading Matthews because then they'd have no centres.

As for Nylander, there's several factors as to why Marner has to be the guy to move:
1. It's a horrible reflection on a GM to sign a guy to 8 years, and then trade him before he's even played a game under teh new contract.

2. Willy has a full NMC, and an 8 year contract. He may very well just say no. Marner of course has the right to say no, but the Leafs can also take the approach of "we're not going to be extending you", at which point Marner will probably act self interested and do what's best for him in getting a long term, highly paid deal, which would mean participating in a trade.

3. Matthews & Marner are very "cohesive" players that almost command being played together... and lends itslef to predictability for the Leafs. Matthews & Nylander give the Leafs more versatile options.

 

[Leafsfanperson]

Mitch Marner for Tyson Barrie and Kerfoot?

Deerrrrrr let's do it again deerrrrrrrr

 

[seanlinden]

So you are expecting a Tkachuk style trade then?

No, but he doesn't need to get a 100 point winger, #2/3 defenceman, a 1st and prospect in order for the Leafs to do well on a Marner deal.

If they can get a 60 point forward, #2/3 defenceman, and a 1st round pick, they should be absolutely thrilled.

Heck, even if only hitting one of those immediate needs, maybe a true #2 centre OR true #2 defenceman, a pick and prospect, that's still a haul which should work for the Leafs.

 

[BJCOLLINS]

In the case of Toronto, they've got Matthews and they've got Nylander; which is why they don't want Marner.

That’s one reason…..among many.

Hyman is a finisher who goes hard to the net. Like many finishers he definitely needs someone to feed him the puck. The leafs didn’t have the players to dish him the puck, the Oilers do.

 

[ManofSteel55]

"Toronto's guy" is the centrepiece of the deal and has a full NMC. He's an active participant in the trade, and if an extension will almost certainly be part of the deal or very shortly thereafter. Thsi is what seems to be missing everyone in this thread. If Marner has picked "X Team" to go to, it's because he's probably signing there.

His future contract is one that you should be able to win with.

"Nashville's guy" is not hte centrepiece of the deal, and has no trade protection so you have no idea if he's at all interested in being a Leaf for a long time.

Logisitically, you can't really do a deal where players on both sides have to agree to waiving/extensions.

Even if he does want to be a Leaf, he's probably signing a contract that makes him a winning-prohibitive goalie, given the way goalies are paid this year.


As for why the Leafs would trade him... they're obviously not trading Matthews because then they'd have no centres.

As for Nylander, there's several factors as to why Marner has to be the guy to move:
1. It's a horrible reflection on a GM to sign a guy to 8 years, and then trade him before he's even played a game under teh new contract.

2. Willy has a full NMC, and an 8 year contract. He may very well just say no. Marner of course has the right to say no, but the Leafs can also take the approach of "we're not going to be extending you", at which point Marner will probably act self interested and do what's best for him in getting a long term, highly paid deal, which would mean participating in a trade.

3. Matthews & Marner are very "cohesive" players that almost command being played together... and lends itslef to predictability for the Leafs. Matthews & Nylander give the Leafs more versatile options.

I don't think anyone is missing this point. I think there is a disagreement on this being something that doesn't hurt Marner's value tremendously anyway. If you are negotiating a contract with a new team that might trade for you, don't you think you will want your new team to not trade away the type of impact player that made your last team falter? I understand wanting a lot for Marner, he's a star player, but his contract status isn't a good thing for the Leafs.

 

[BB88]

He’s not a UFA, this isn’t a deadline deal

Is Saros value a 2nd rnd pick because he has a full year left on his deal?

Saros would have more value if he had more term left on his contract

Why is this a surprise to Leafs fans that having 1 year left on their contract prior to UFA status lowers the value of the player?

 

[Team Cozens]

Marner is not being traded. Non of the Big 4 are being moved
and they will roll it back under Berube,

 

[Fatass]

Yes, that's well established.

Marner controls his destination. It's going to be a select few teams that are actually going to be able to make an offer for him. However, for those teams, they'll be able to make offers knowing that they'll be able to get him signed, because he's an active participant in the first place.

Marner might only have one team that will agree to his contract demands. 12.5 x 8 is a lot. Then what kind of negotiating leverage do the Leafs have?

 

[Leaf Fans]

You spelled "fit" wrong.

No, you didn't understand the language. I was not attempting to write fit. Hit is the correct word.

Marner is not being traded. Non of the Big 4 are being moved
and they will roll it back under Berube,

That is one possibility for sure.

 

[Gaberd2608]

Saros would have more value if he had more term left on his contract

Why is this a surprise to Leafs fans that having 1 year left on their contract prior to UFA status lowers the value of the player?

Saros is 29 years old. Marner is 27. I would rather extend Marner for 7-8 years than Saros for the same term putting biases aside.

Even if a trade assumed both players signed an extension with their teams, the leafs would end up with a complicated contract with Saros. He is at an age where things start to get tricky.

 

[BB88]

Saros is 29 years old. Marner is 27. I would rather extend Marner for 7-8 years than Saros for the same term putting biases aside.

Even if a trade assumed both players signed an extension with their teams, the leafs would end up with a complicated contract with Saros. He is at an age where things start to get tricky.

That really doesn’t change anything in my post

As asked I answered Saros value would be higher had he more term left on his contract

& while Marner is a bit younger he’s going to be quite a bit more expensive than Saros and has shown you don’t build around him, Saros would be a more meaningfull addition for playoffs for a team.
Marner is a pure regular season player who’s going to get paid like the face of the franchise type player. Which is going to affect his value

 

[seanlinden]

I don't think anyone is missing this point. I think there is a disagreement on this being something that doesn't hurt Marner's value tremendously anyway. If you are negotiating a contract with a new team that might trade for you, don't you think you will want your new team to not trade away the type of impact player that made your last team falter? I understand wanting a lot for Marner, he's a star player, but his contract status isn't a good thing for the Leafs.

Honestly... the "don't hurt the acquiring team" isn't really something that comes up in willingness to sign for X... players tend to compartmentalize to their own deal.

"Good thing" is all relative.

Would it be better if he had 3 years left on his deal at $11m without any trade protection? Absolutely. A less desirable team like Utah would be all over that, knowing that they might be in tough to attract star players with control.

Is there an angle where his current contract situation is better than 3 years left without trade protection? Absolutely, as with 1 year left and huge bonus money, there's a fairly easy path to getting Marner at $5.5m this year.

Would it be better if he had 7 years left on his deal with a full NMC? it would probably be worse from the Leafs standpoint, because at that point he holds all the cards and has no incentive to open up his trade list beyond 0-1 teams. Here, at least Marner has incentive to give a reasonable number of teams for the Leafs to be able to work with and for him to get his extension.

Everyone here is making a big deal about "he's only got 1 year left"..... it's really not a big deal. Marner (presumably) wants a new contract done this summer. He's got a full NMC, and his salary demands will certainly be known to any interested parties.

If he's waiving to Dallas, or Nashville or Vegas, or whomever, it's because he wants to be there and he's willing to sign his extension there. At that point, the extension simply become a formality. Yes, it's gonna cost $92 to $100m over 8 years, but that's the price of premier talent in this league, and with the cap perpetually rising every year now, something that is not going to be prohibitive to winning.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

Is it against the rules to resign players or something?

Is Marner going to retire after next year?

Is Marner going to want to spend his prime rebuilding? Feel like his game would meld well with Bedard but doubt the Hawks wanna pay $12m for him.

 

[seanlinden]

Marner might only have one team that will agree to his contract demands. 12.5 x 8 is a lot. Then what kind of negotiating leverage do the Leafs have?

Lets say Marner puts forth Dallas, Nashville and Vegas as potential suitors...along with a demand for $100m.

Nashville comes back meeting the $, but not a deal that works for the Leafs.
Dallas & Vegas come back with deals that work for the Leafs, but they need Marner at $92m.

Then the Leafs will go back to Marner and tell him just that -- that if he's willing to agree to a deal with Dallas at $92m, it's done. Or he can expand his team list, or negotiate with them directly.

At the end of the day... assuming the Leafs make it abundantly clear they're not doing an extension with him, or at least, not doing so at anywhere near his current cap hit, he's got an incentive to get a deal done elsewhere.

 

[I am Canadian]

Regarding Saros and Marner both having one year left on their deal...

Re-signing Marner would cost pretty much the same as his current contract. Maybe even less considering the tax advantages from 3/4 of these teams.
Saros is look at atleast a 3M raise from his current contract.

That does matter.

 

[BKarchitect]

Regarding Saros and Marner both having one year left on their deal...

Re-signing Marner would cost pretty much the same as his current contract. Maybe even less considering the tax advantages from 3/4 of these teams.
Saros is look at atleast a 3M raise from his current contract.

That does matter.

Why on earth would Marner and his agent accept less than a contract signed 5 years ago with an escalating cap now while Saros is due to make 160% of his current deal?

Talk about fuzzy, made up math to make the values seem more unequitable…if Marner makes equal or less to his current deal 5 years on, he has the most worthless agent in the history of the NHL.

 

[I am Canadian]

Why on earth would Marner and his agent accept less than a contract signed 5 years ago with an escalating cap now while Saros is due to make 160% of his current deal?

Talk about fuzzy, made up math to make the values seem more unequitable…if Marner makes equal or less to his current deal 5 years on, he has the most worthless agent in the history of the NHL.

At 10.9 per he takes home 1.4M more by playing in Nashville for example. He could take 11M x 8 and take home 1.5M more per year compared to signing in Toronto.

It would be the opposite for Saros.

 

[BKarchitect]

View attachment 876367
View attachment 876368

At 10.9 per he takes home 1.4M more by playing in Nashville for example. He could take 11M x 8 and take home 1.5M compared to signing in Toronto.

It would be the opposite for Saros.

Your kidding yourself if you think Marner’s agent is going to accept the exact same deal as he has now and then play off the headline as “but he’s in Nashville, lower taxes = big win for my client!”.

He made $10.9 million in 2019 as a younger, less proven player with a much lower cap. It is 5 freaking years later and the cap is going up every season.

Zero chance he and his agent are going to settle for that amount.

 

[Martin Skoula]

That’s one reason…..among many.

Hyman is a finisher who goes hard to the net. Like many finishers he definitely needs someone to feed him the puck. The leafs didn’t have the players to dish him the puck, the Oilers do.

Why wasn’t he a finisher in his first year in Edmonton? He put up the same goals and points he did in Toronto. It’s almost like getting consistent top unit PP time for the first time in his career had something to do with his scoring increase.